Most coaching contracts have a behavior clause or something similar. They will give him a bit of money, the lawyers get 40%, just to go away.
Generally not in cases like this. They are almost always taken on a contingency basis. But Sark's case may be different.
Petrino cheated on his wife outside of any sort of school function. Sark actually showed up hammered drunk not once, but twice to a school function. I don't think these are comparable.
It's more than a little ironic to call someone stupid while disagreeing with the scientific and medical communities about a matter of medicine, don't you think?
Well here's the mind bender of it: They've studied it, and it's actually cheaper on the rest of us if we give drunks a place to live and booze to drink than it is to pay the cost associated with them being homeless drunks. Between cleaning up their piss, cops to roust them out, hospitalization, etc. you actually come out further ahead from a societal expense standpoint to subsidize their drunkenness.
If you Google "alcoholism is not a disease", you will find lots of scholarly discussions about why it isn't, such as the one I have linked. I have found it doesn't pay to read research that only supports my point of view, then scoff at others' opinions because they aren't based on research.
http://www.baldwinresearch.com/alcoholism.cfm
Spot on Husker.Wed. Alcoholosm is a CHOICE.It's a choice to start drinking and a choice to continue drinking.
There's not a consensus on the disease model as it pertains to addiction. It's probably the most popular theory and has been for some time, but it's not a lead pipe lock. Trying to predict an outcome in the interaction between the human brain, genetics, environment, and chemical intervention is an inexact science at the very best.
Some people drink for decades then kick it. Others never had a problem in their life and end up alcoholic in their senior years. I personally am very prone to addictive behaviors and yet I've never been more than a social drinker (rarely even that any more) and I've never touched drugs in my life.
Some people drink for decades then kick it. Others never had a problem in their life and end up alcoholic in their senior years. I personally am very prone to addictive behaviors and yet I've never been more than a social drinker (rarely even that any more) and I've never touched drugs in my life.
Last edited:
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
That settles it. I am gonna contract alcoholism, anyone know where the easiest place to catch it is? Kind of like when we were kids and out parents had chicken pox parties!
Don't get so excited. Just because it would be cheaper doesn't mean it's actually done.
When a hard core alcoholic dies from going cold turkey, we should just tell him to get up and stop faking.
I'm sure all those smokers out there with lung cancer will be relieved to know they don't really have a disease, because they chose to smoke.
I'm sure all those smokers out there with lung cancer will be relieved to know they don't really have a disease, because they chose to smoke.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
It's a societal problem too.. causes more damage than all other illegal drugs combined. Ingrained in society from beer commercials to the movies. You think a husker night game would be so electric without all the booze?
How many arguments, fights, domestic violence incidents, DUI's, fatal crashes, missed work days, hospital costs, etc stem from alcohol?
Why are the neighborhood bars at the edge of the neighborhood?
Our society has made it remarkably easy to get booze, whenever we want it, show advertisements for it, promote it, and then turn right around and tell people that they are drunks and need treatment, AA, and all that other non-sense. Don't forget you have to pay the attorney's and court costs too.
It's actually one big money making racket each direction, whether you're getting drunk, or getting sober.
How many arguments, fights, domestic violence incidents, DUI's, fatal crashes, missed work days, hospital costs, etc stem from alcohol?
Why are the neighborhood bars at the edge of the neighborhood?
Our society has made it remarkably easy to get booze, whenever we want it, show advertisements for it, promote it, and then turn right around and tell people that they are drunks and need treatment, AA, and all that other non-sense. Don't forget you have to pay the attorney's and court costs too.
It's actually one big money making racket each direction, whether you're getting drunk, or getting sober.
How does this example prove or disprove that alcoholism is a disease?
Again, what does this have to do with the discussion?
Seems like you're mainly interested in making those that made poor choices feel better about themselves when their choices ultimately have negative consequences.
I was speaking of valid scientific research. The site you link is not scientific research. It is a biased advertisement for the services the place sells, dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon. If they actually admitted that alcoholism was a disease, they could not sell their "cure". However, there have been other outlier studies that do have scientific validity that suggest that alcoholism is not a disease. I am aware of those because when I started looking into this I had no dog in the hunt. I just wanted to find out as much as I could about the issue afflicting those close to me. However, by and in large the studies that suggest that alcoholism is not a disease have been refuted by later studies or have results that could not be replicated.
Have you not read the thread? People are claiming that it's simply a choice not to drink. There is nothing simple about it. If it was, there would be little societal ill about it. It's akin to saying being happy is the cure to depression or being calm is the cure to anxiety. But it is typical of morons to ignore complexity.
I don't have much interest in getting into the semantics of what is a disease vs. an illness vs. a habit. But to dismiss the condition as some simple thing is idiotic. To believe that it doesn't result biochemical changes to the brain, and other parts of the body, is ignorance.
No disrespect to anyone that posted but it doesn't matter what we think. The definition is there and nothing can be done about it. As an employer I can tell you that. It becomes a settlement and move on. Sad but true. Unless you have deep pockets to fight and then the settlement almost seems cheap compared to legal bills
So everyone who gets drunk then gets caught is an alcoholic? The person couldn't help it? When Norwood Teagues (former AD of Minnesota) got caught partaking in inappropriate behavior towards women he could claim it wasn't his fault, it was the disease? He resigned... Must have a horrible lawyer.
I'm not saying sark or anyone else is faking, but cancer is identifiable. Lou Gehrig's disease is identifiable. Polio is identifiable. Alcoholism is in a grayer area, not so black and white. I am not saying it isn't a disease, but I believe it's a slippery slope toward any inappropriate behavior being explained away and excused by the disease of alcoholism. You disagree?
To continue my thought... Or do you think no one would ever just use this as a way to get out of harsher punishment?
Good lord, no. I'm not really sure where you get that from my post. There are people who get drunk and do stupid things. (I have been guilty of this in my youth.) Being drunk isn't an excuse, legally or ethically, for stupid behavior. That's not really the same as getting to the point where there is a severe compulsion to drink. With changes in brain chemistry, the distinction between a physical imperative and mental compulsion are blurred, but, eventually, it's definitely a physical imperative. Real, physical dependence with withdrawal symptoms do result when the condition is advanced enough. At that point, it's pretty identifiable. I imagine most ER doctors would agree.
I don't know if Sark is a "real" alcoholic or not, but it seems that many on this thread who seem to think that an alcoholic is some mythical creature invented by liberals. That's what I am responding to.
Sure. Definitely. And most recovering alcoholics would argue that excusing or enabling alcoholic behavior is about the worst thing you can do for an alcoholic.
As far as my opinion on Sark...
I don't know the details of his behavior, contract, or suit. I'm guessing it's not a typical situation to what most of us experience. USC likely had a multi-year contract that they terminated without paying the full amount. To me that seems reasonable because he wasn't able to fulfill the terms of his contract. I think it's also reasonable that Minnesota wouldn't continue to pay out Kill's contract when his illness prevented him from continuing in his duties. I certainly don't believe Sark should be treated better than Kill. Where there is likely a difference, is that Sark could state that his condition was treatable and he should be able to resume his duties after that treatment is proven to be successful. For most jobs, I can see an argument for that. For coaching, I don't believe that should be the case. A bona-fide requirement of the job is continuity, and I don't believe Sark can prove that.
But, as mentioned above, it will all probably be settled out of court.
As far as Sark using alcoholism as an excuse, I don't believe he logically decided he would risk his career by getting drunk before practice. That'd be crazy, right? So he is either an idiot, or crazy (ie, an alcoholic). I'm guessing the latter.
I think Tuco's post above may highlight where the disagreement lies. Not everyone who pounds a few and gets drunk on occasion is an alcoholic. For example binge drinking can be a problem for people, but it is not a definitive sign of alcoholism. Many binge-drinkers aren't alcoholics. They binge drink for social reasons etc. The guy who makes a bad choice and drinks too much and then causes a crash because he's DUI isn't necessarily an alcoholic. He just may have had too many at the Christmas party and then made the bad choice of driving rather than calling a cab. But the fact that some people make dumb choices while drinking and aren't alcoholics doesn't mean that alcoholism doesn't exist as a disease for some.
Agree with this 100%.
Too much black and white in this thread. Where this gets blurry is when you know abusing alcohol could lead to addiction/disease levels, and you abuse it anyway, what do we do with that? It seems pretty clear to me and everyone else that Sark has a problem. The question is, does he have a right to compensation if this is classified as a disease? Many fear the slippery slope that this could become...
No question that this can become a slippery slope. But courts can do a pretty good job of weeding out the malingerers/fakers. Plus as I mentioned before proving a disability is just the first step. Having a recognized disability does not give you a free pass. The laws says only that an employer cannot fire someone solely because they have a disability, i.e. 'I just found out your an alcoholic, therefore you're fired.' To succeed in a lawsuit the plaintiff also has to prove that he can do the job despite the disability, either without accommodation by the employer or with a reasonable accommodation. If the disability prevents the employee from doing his job, the employer doesn't have to keep a dead weight on staff. The employer can fire the employee with no repercussions.
Agree HBD Sark has a problem. But it's HIS problem not USC's The problem is his fault not USC's. He should seek help and pay for it himself and also accept the fact that his termination was/is completely justified and was his fault.
Similar threads
