Irsay checks himself into highly regarded health care facility.

[TAPLOOK]

Thank you,  I try my best to always be nice.  

 

What I meant ~ is that it is unfortunate that you no longer have compassion for people.  It's a great trait to have.  And maybe I misunderstood you.  Maybe you meant you no longer have compassion for people who do drugs..??   Okay, I get that.

 

Now to answer your question...   Was I at all surprised..??     Okay, I will be honest here too.   No, I was not surprised, and I think it explains a lot.  It also changed my perception and attitude.   I am completely and totally behind him getting the help he needs to beat this addiction.  And I wish him the best on the road to a full recovery.

I don't have compassion for drug abusers after the first go around. I'll be the first person to help a person in need. Someone that is hungry, broken down or just going though an obvious rough time. Sometimes my reasons seem selfish because I do it because it makes me feel good. Druggies seem to get a pass on stealing and lying because it's part of the "disease". I think it's a crock. Mr. Irsay is going to land on his feet without question so I don't see any need for compassion and sympathy. He wouldn't be checking in to rehab if he hadn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I really do respect your stance on the subject but I just can't bring myself to the same place in this case.  

[buccolts]

Why is it that one man's explanation, is another man's excuse?

[buccolts]

I don't have compassion for drug abusers after the first go around. I'll be the first person to help a person in need. Someone that is hungry, broken down or just going though an obvious rough time. Sometimes my reasons seem selfish because I do it because it makes me feel good. Druggies seem to get a pass on stealing and lying because it's part of the "disease". I think it's a crock. Mr. Irsay is going to land on his feet without question so I don't see any need for compassion and sympathy. He wouldn't be checking in to rehab if he hadn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I really do respect your stance on the subject but I just can't bring myself to the same place in this case.  

Mr. Irsay is going to land on his feet without question so I don't see any need for compassion and sympathy.

** I don't know that it's 'without question', but it's certainly going to be a tough road getting there. I'm wishing him, as I would anyone, success rather failure.

 

He wouldn't be checking in to rehab if he hadn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

** That's likely true, but not uncommon, unfortunately.

[schwamm]

Taplook, I think it is safe to say Irsay had a problem 15 years ago.  I think it is safe to say he has relapsed, and that it appears to have started about 2 years ago, based on the deterioration of his appearance, and on the timing of his back and hip issues.  I think it is safe to call him an addict, and to recognize that he always will be an addict, regardless of success or failure in efforts to rehab.  That is NOT the same as saying he will continue to use.  We simply don't know that for a fact.

 

Where we part ways, and where I feel you are being an *, is that you've taken that to the next level by implying he wasn't clean for 15 years, and that silly twitter messages somehow imply that he is unstable.  Unless you want to come forward with something other than your opinion (you know... FACTS), I have yet to see anything resembling definitive evidence that either is true.  I frequently have battles of goofy texts with friends.  While I have no doubt I am unstable, I have yet to see anything to suggest my friends are equally so (beyond the circumstantial evidence of continued friendship with me, I suppose).

 

If you want to take a hard line stance, I am fine with that, and can even understand it.  I prefer to be more compassionate, myself, but I am not blind to the man's faults.  If you are going to toss in hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitriol, though, I don't see how you can be surprised by the reaction it receives.

 

BTW, I also get your point that some here seem to make excuses.  Fair enough.  I acknowledge that he went through a divorce and back and hip issues, and together with his addiction, sympathize with the man's upcoming challenges, but I don't connect sympathy for plight with excusing the behavior.  I would assume the same for many here, but don't speak for them.  The vast majority of posts I've read here, though, do not make any excuses.  You've offered more unsubstantiated, hateful suppositions than all the excuses I've seen combined.  Take that out, and I have no issue with your general position on the matter.

[TAPLOOK]

Taplook, I think it is safe to say Irsay had a problem 15 years ago.  I think it is safe to say he has relapsed, and that it appears to have started about 2 years ago, based on the deterioration of his appearance, and on the timing of his back and hip issues.  I think it is safe to call him an addict, and to recognize that he always will be an addict, regardless of success or failure in efforts to rehab.  That is NOT the same as saying he will continue to use.  We simply don't know that for a fact.

 

Where we part ways, and where I feel you are being an *, is that you've taken that to the next level by implying he wasn't clean for 15 years, and that silly twitter messages somehow imply that he is unstable.  Unless you want to come forward with something other than your opinion (you know... FACTS), I have yet to see anything resembling definitive evidence that either is true.  I frequently have battles of goofy texts with friends.  While I have no doubt I am unstable, I have yet to see anything to suggest my friends are equally so (beyond the circumstantial evidence of continued friendship with me, I suppose).

 

If you want to take a hard line stance, I am fine with that, and can even understand it.  I prefer to be more compassionate, myself, but I am not blind to the man's faults.  If you are going to toss in hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitriol, though, I don't see how you can be surprised by the reaction it receives.

 

BTW, I also get your point that some here seem to make excuses.  Fair enough.  I acknowledge that he went through a divorce and back and hip issues, and together with his addiction, sympathize with the man's upcoming challenges, but I don't connect sympathy for plight with excusing the behavior.  I would assume the same for many here, but don't speak for them.  The vast majority of posts I've read here, though, do not make any excuses.  You've offered more unsubstantiated, hateful suppositions than all the excuses I've seen combined.  Take that out, and I have no issue with your general position on the matter.

I don't have a hateful bone in my body and I trust my instincts because they have served me well over the years. As far as hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitrio I prefer the usage of past and present actions. I don't put Jim Irsay on a pedestal and think he's probably a decent guy but he is what he is. 

[jvan1973]

I don't have a hateful bone in my body and I trust my instincts because they have served me well over the years. As far as hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitrio I prefer the usage of past and present actions. I don't put Jim Irsay on a pedestal and think he's probably a decent guy but he is what he is.

So you've met the man? How can instincts come into play in a situation of which you have ZERO knowledge of

[schwamm]

I don't have a hateful bone in my body and I trust my instincts because they have served me well over the years. As far as hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitrio I prefer the usage of past and present actions.

 I don't agree that you haven't spewed unsubstantiated nonsense, but I will let that go.

 

 

I don't put Jim Irsay on a pedestal and think he's probably a decent guy but he is what he is. 

If this is, at its core, what you are trying to say... we agree 100%.

[southwest1]

Jim isn't hooked on pain killers for %s and giggles. He has had major physical alignments where he needed to take pain killers. That's how you become dependant on them. Why do you think so many athletes get hooked on pain killers.

You raise a valid point NewERa. Nobody every says let's get hooked on pain killers & watch my life spiral out of control. As much as I detest soon to be HOF QB Brett Favre on a personal "I refuse to go to training camp" level, when he cried at that press conference in GB regarding his addiction to pain pills with then HC Mike Holmgren I did feel bad for #4 & I never kick a man when he is in pain & clearly hurting. The same goes for Jim. It's no secret that I am not fond of Irsay's tweets, but he's a darn nice guy & a great owner & I don't sweat the small stuff. Jim needs my encouragement now not my condemnation & he's got it 100%

 

He will learn from this & if he falls again I will be there. Addiction never goes away completely. It is a day to day struggle. I never humiliate people on a personal level; I always try to lift them up. It's who I am. It's what I do. 

[Buck Showalter]

Taplook, I think it is safe to say Irsay had a problem 15 years ago.  I think it is safe to say he has relapsed, and that it appears to have started about 2 years ago, based on the deterioration of his appearance, and on the timing of his back and hip issues.  I think it is safe to call him an addict, and to recognize that he always will be an addict, regardless of success or failure in efforts to rehab.  That is NOT the same as saying he will continue to use.  We simply don't know that for a fact.

 

Where we part ways, and where I feel you are being an *, is that you've taken that to the next level by implying he wasn't clean for 15 years, and that silly twitter messages somehow imply that he is unstable.  Unless you want to come forward with something other than your opinion (you know... FACTS), I have yet to see anything resembling definitive evidence that either is true.  I frequently have battles of goofy texts with friends.  While I have no doubt I am unstable, I have yet to see anything to suggest my friends are equally so (beyond the circumstantial evidence of continued friendship with me, I suppose).

 

If you want to take a hard line stance, I am fine with that, and can even understand it.  I prefer to be more compassionate, myself, but I am not blind to the man's faults.  If you are going to toss in hyperbole, conjecture, and unveiled vitriol, though, I don't see how you can be surprised by the reaction it receives.

 

BTW, I also get your point that some here seem to make excuses.  Fair enough.  I acknowledge that he went through a divorce and back and hip issues, and together with his addiction, sympathize with the man's upcoming challenges, but I don't connect sympathy for plight with excusing the behavior.  I would assume the same for many here, but don't speak for them.  The vast majority of posts I've read here, though, do not make any excuses.  You've offered more unsubstantiated, hateful suppositions than all the excuses I've seen combined.  Take that out, and I have no issue with your general position on the matter.

Bingo...

[TAPLOOK]

So you've met the man? How can instincts come into play in a situation of which you have ZERO knowledge of

I haven't met him and have no desire to meet him. I have the same knowledge the rest of you do and it's much more than ZERO. Why are you taking such offence? 

[jvan1973]

I haven't met him and have no desire to meet him. I have the same knowledge the rest of you do and it's much more than ZERO. Why are you taking such offence?

It is infact zero

[TAPLOOK]

Bingo...

50% Bingo.

[TAPLOOK]

It is infact zero

Suit yourself.

[Buck Showalter]

50% Bingo.

not really, I pretty much agree with 100% of schwamm's post

[TAPLOOK]

not really, I pretty much agree with 100% of schwamm's post

I'm surprised.

[southwest1]

I don't have compassion for drug abusers after the first go around. I'll be the first person to help a person in need. Someone that is hungry, broken down or just going though an obvious rough time. Sometimes my reasons seem selfish because I do it because it makes me feel good. Druggies seem to get a pass on stealing and lying because it's part of the "disease". I think it's a crock. Mr. Irsay is going to land on his feet without question so I don't see any need for compassion and sympathy. He wouldn't be checking in to rehab if he hadn't been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I really do respect your stance on the subject but I just can't bring myself to the same place in this case.  

TAPLOOK, 

 

I think I get where you are coming from. I believe you are saying that responsible, tough love needs to be exercised in some capacity here. I agree with that sentiment eventually just not at this juncture. I agree & I believe you when you say that you are not opposed to helping a person in serious, emotional dire straights. As Shecolt said previously, no one is pardoning Jim's reckless behavior here & he is very lucky to not have another driver's injury or death on his conscious as we speak. Recovery happens in stages & now is not the time for tough love. Not yet. 

 

I have always had nice conversations with you & I don't view you as mean spirited, harsh, or cruel. I value your candor even when I may disagree with your conclusion, which is perfectly fine. 

 

I respect people who speak their mind despite any backlash that might transpire because of it. That takes guts & I do admire that immensely TAPLOOK. 

[Buck Showalter]

I'm surprised.

why?

[TAPLOOK]

why?

Joking. I would expect nothing more.

[chrisfarley]

Good Luck Jimmy!!!!  It will all be better soon.  For those of you giving him a hard time, please stop.

[southwest1]

 

 

If you want to take a hard line stance, I am fine with that, and can even understand it.  I prefer to be more compassionate, myself, but I am not blind to the man's faults. 

 

BTW, I also get your point that some here seem to make excuses.  Fair enough.  I acknowledge that he went through a divorce and back and hip issues, and together with his addiction, sympathize with the man's upcoming challenges, but I don't connect sympathy for plight with excusing the behavior.  

Yes, that exactly where I stand too schwamm. Personal agony causes some people to hit rock bottom through many vices: drugs, alcohol, women, lavish spending sprees, & overall erratic behavior. It's a cry for help & when the time is right the discipline hammer will be dropped on Mr. Irsay as it should be several months down the line. 

 

Schwamm is a good guy & so is TAPLOOK. I just don't like to slam any of my forum friends because it's pointless, counterproductive, & it does nothing to move the conversation forward in a meaningful way at all. I am always fascinated as to why some people pacify their pain through booze or some other pharmaceutical remedy while others can endure enormous setbacks in life & not mask their anguish with either pills or liquor. It's not profound or anything, but I always marvel at addictions & why some individuals can shake bad habits cold turkey while other individuals are always a slave to temptation. 

 

In any case Jim, keep fighting the good fight of drug sobriety my man. 

[NFLfan]

Because not all fans are as kind as you and IcEWOLF.

I haven't been to any other team's boards, but I remember reading some cruel comments on other team's boards after Dungy's son died. So, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to read some cruel comments regarding Irsay.

Shecolt, I don't know that I am being kind. It is just the humane response. Irsay is experiencing a difficult time now. What good does it do anyone to badmouth him?

It is appalling to hear that anyone could have said anything nasty about Dungy's son after his death. Dungy is such a class act and he had just lost his son. What kind of people say such things! The Tampa Bay fans were very supportive.

One problem is that fans seem to live vicariously through their teams. If their team doesn't win every game, it is like the sky is falling and that they (the fans) have failed. Fans cannot seem to enjoy a sport for the love of the game. I believe that some Colts fans are bashing Mr. Irsay because he brought some negative press to the team. However, it is HIS problem, not the fans'.

I am rooting for Mr. Irsay and the Colts and hope that people will show more compassion for a fellow human being.

[OldSchoolColt]

Kicking someone when they're down is more of a reflection on your character than theirs.

 

If you can't say something nice or encouraging,  stay away.

 

You wouldn't say that if he had made you eat a face full of windshield that night. Do you think this is the first time he has put others at risk? He has too many limo's to be committing such a crime. I would be just as mad at Luck if he had pulled such a stupid move.

[SteelCityColt]

You wouldn't say that if he had made you eat a face full of windshield that night. Do you think this is the first time he has put others at risk? He has too many limo's to be committing such a crime. I would be just as mad at Luck if he had pulled such a stupid move.

 

Come on now, as I've made the point previously you can't condemn the man for potential instances you've extrapolated. Hang him for the crime he committed not the ones he could might have if things had gone a different way.

 

We've all done stupid things I'm sure before that if the dice roll of luck had landed another way could have ended far far worse but you don't get dragged through the mud for them. 

 

What Jim did was stupid, wrong and yes (allegedly - to be 100% correct) criminal. To paint him as a hit and run manslaughtering callous evil man is just sensationalism gone mad.

 

All this is pretty much.....

 

  

[NewEra]

You wouldn't say that if he had made you eat a face full of windshield that night. Do you think this is the first time he has put others at risk? He has too many limo's to be committing such a crime. I would be just as mad at Luck if he had pulled such a stupid move.

So you're whining about what ifs?

[Buck Showalter]

Joking. I would expect nothing more.

Awww schucks, I normally pick up on those...

Guess for a second I was thrown off my game thinking you were going to actually say something...

[Gramz]

You wouldn't say that if he had made you eat a face full of windshield that night. Do you think this is the first time he has put others at risk? He has too many limo's to be committing such a crime. I would be just as mad at Luck if he had pulled such a stupid move.

I didn't eat a face full of windshield so this is a moot point, . and please,  don't pretend to know how I would feel or think.  You know nothing about me.

[Dark Superman]

Sign Alex Mack Carlie!

Be a hero!

[OldSchoolColt]

Come on now, as I've made the point previously you can't condemn the man for potential instances you've extrapolated. Hang him for the crime he committed not the ones he could might have if things had gone a different way.

 

We've all done stupid things I'm sure before that if the dice roll of luck had landed another way could have ended far far worse but you don't get dragged through the mud for them. 

 

What Jim did was stupid, wrong and yes (allegedly - to be 100% correct) criminal. To paint him as a hit and run manslaughtering callous evil man is just sensationalism gone mad.

 

All this is pretty much.....

 

  

 

 

So you're whining about what ifs?

 

 

Hmmm. Lets simplify this. Your eating dinner with your family and a man outside fires six bullets through your house. No one was hit, so you should not be upset with him choosing to put you and your family at risk. He didn't hit anyone. Him hitting someone is just a big "what if" right? What if he has done this before, but no one has ever said anything, because he has never hit anyone. What does potentially killing one or more people have to do with someone driving on public streets so drunk, combined with painkillers, that he is stopping on the street? They both have repeatedly made chooses to put others at risk, and I truly hope they make a public example of him to wake people about drunk driving. Over 10,000 people die a year from drunk drivers. Are they "what ifs?"

An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. - See more at: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#sthash.scC3qBOP.dpuf

 

An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. - See more at: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#sthash.scC3qBOP.dpuf

[SteelCityColt]

 

Hmmm. Lets simplify this. Your eating dinner with your family and a man outside fires six bullets through your house. No one was hit, so you should not be upset with him choosing to put you and your family at risk. He didn't hit anyone. Him hitting someone is just a big "what if" right? What if he has done this before, but no one has ever said anything, because he has never hit anyone. What does potentially killing one or more people have to do with someone driving on public streets so drunk, combined with painkillers, that he is stopping on the street? They both have repeatedly made chooses to put others at risk, and I truly hope they make a public example of him to wake people about drunk driving. Over 10,000 people die a year from drunk drivers. Are they "what ifs?"

An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. - See more at: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#sthash.scC3qBOP.dpuf

 

An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest. - See more at: http://www.madd.org/drunk-driving/about/drunk-driving-statistics.html#sthash.scC3qBOP.dpuf

 

 

It's a poor metaphor and you know it.... you can't seriously compare someone consciously choosing to fire a gun into a house and a man driving impaired. To make my own poor metaphor what about that oh so American of crimes jaywalking. You could potentially step into the street and cause a driver to swerve and crash and heaven forbid die. Yet I don't see a clamour to string up jaywalkers. I'm not sure why you brought drink driving into it as I'm pretty sure Jim was not drunk, so let's not muddy the waters here though I can appreciate it's a area people feel strongly about often for very personal reasons. 

 

Let me clarify myself, I'm not condoning the behaviour in the slightest and he will need to faces the consequences of his actions. However you't punish a man for crimes he didn't commit whether that be from moral choice or blind luck. To do so would lead the legal system down a very dark road. To punish a man for a crime he could potentially commit is getting very close to "thought" crimes.

[schwamm]

It's a poor metaphor and you know it.... you can't seriously compare someone consciously choosing to fire a gun into a house and a man driving impaired. To make my own poor metaphor what about that oh so American of crimes jaywalking. You could potentially step into the street and cause a driver to swerve and crash and heaven forbid die. Yet I don't see a clamour to string up jaywalkers. I'm not sure why you brought drink driving into it as I'm pretty sure Jim was not drunk, so let's not muddy the waters here though I can appreciate it's a area people feel strongly about often for very personal reasons.

Let me clarify myself, I'm not condoning the behaviour in the slightest and he will need to faces the consequences of his actions. However you't punish a man for crimes he didn't commit whether that be from moral choice or blind luck. To do so would lead the legal system down a very dark road. To punish a man for a crime he could potentially commit is getting very close to "thought" crimes.

To further your point...

In OSC's example above, the shooter would be held accountable for illegally discharging his weapon, but he won't get hung for murder if no one was killed. Likewise, JI will face the prospect of punishment for driving under influence, but not for the possibility that he maybe possibly could have hurt someone.