advertisement

Pinkel, athletics director issue statements about DWI arrest

Thursday, November 17, 2011 | 10:40 a.m. CST; updated 12:39 p.m. CST, Thursday, November 17, 2011

The MU Athletics Department emailed statements Thursday morning from MU football coach Gary Pinkel and Athletics Director Mike Alden regarding Pinkel's arrest Wednesday night on suspicion of DWI.

Statement from Head Football Coach Gary Pinkel

MoreStory


Related Media

Related Articles

“Last night after practice, I met some friends for dinner.  After dinner, I was stopped by a Boone County officer and received a citation for impaired driving. First and foremost, I am very disappointed in myself for my lack of judgment in this instance.  Nobody should drink and drive, including me. My staff and I constantly reinforce with each of our players the importance of not putting yourself into a position such as this.  I did not follow that here and for that, I sincerely apologize to the University of Missouri, to our administration, to the Board of Curators and to our fans.  I have already met with our staff and communicated with our players and have apologized to them. I accept full responsibility for my actions and will abide by whatever course of action our leadership deems appropriate.”

Statement from Director of Athletics Mike Alden

“We are extremely disappointed in Gary’s lack of judgment. He is known as a man of great character and integrity. However, this absolutely goes against everything we stand for, and everything that he teaches his players in regards to our social responsibilities. We hold ourselves to very high standards, and this is a very serious breach of those responsibilities. We are gathering facts and will take action appropriately, and when those actions are determined, we will communicate them publicly.”


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Sally Willis November 17, 2011 | 11:12 a.m.

So he made a mistake and got caught, at least he has been man enough to admit it so let's move on.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 11:32 a.m.

Sally:

Yes, he made a mistake and got caught. Yes, he "maned-up" to it. Accepting responsibility for such a thing is appreciated and respected.

But...what does "move on" mean? That all the rest of us simply forget about it and let him deal with the legal and job repercussions? That we're....square...just because he accepted responsibility?

He either drove drunk or impaired. We don't know which. Doesn't matter to me. What DOES matter to me is that he placed *everyone*, perhaps even members of my own family or friends, in jeopardy for their lives, health, or personal property. He imposed his behavior upon other innocent people to their potential harm. That makes me angry.

Move on? Nope. There are consequences here that go beyond the legal and job ones.

There are issues of respect and trust that are just as important, and have yet to be dealt with.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis November 17, 2011 | 11:46 a.m.

But...what does "move on" mean? That all the rest of us simply forget about it and let him deal with the legal and job repercussions? That we're....square...just because he accepted responsibility?

Are you kidding there are people arrested for this all the time! Do you speak this way of all of them or is it just because he's the M.U. coach? And what should be done other than the legal and career ramifications? Should we take him out behind the wood shed and beat him for his sins? Were you this upset when the Cardinals coach was arrested for the same thing? He is allowed to make the same mistakes as the rest of us without being treated any different than the rest of us! I have seen people from janitors to doctors in the paper for this act I think they should all be treated the same. Is this a regular thing for him or a one time mistake? Wow I never knew Gary Pinkel was put on such a high pedestal.

(Report Comment)
Chris Cady November 17, 2011 | 12:10 p.m.

Sally makes a good point. It's dumb to put yourself in that situation, but there are 30,000+ DUI/DWI arrests PER YEAR in MO. Yes, they put everyone at risk. I'm no more angry at Mr. Pinkel in that respect than I am at any of the others.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro November 17, 2011 | 12:22 p.m.

("The world's leading auto manufacturers have partnered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to provide funding to develop the Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS. If fully developed, this technology could instantaneously and passively detect the driver's BAC and if the driver was drunk, prevent the vehicle from starting. The technology would be set at the illegal level of .08 BAC and would not require any additional action by the driver.

The goal of DADSS is to create a passive, unobtrusive, reliable, accurate, inexpensive, and voluntary system for drivers which could lead to the elimination of drunk driving. For more information, please visit www.dadss.org.

ROADS SAFE (HR 2324/S 510) would provide $12 million per year over five years to fund this critical research. The funding would come from existing highway safety dollars which means no new costs for the taxpayer. By investing $12 million per year, the United States could eliminate drunk driving which currently costs the United States $130 billion per year.
In 2009, drunk driving killed 10,839 people nationwide. Each one of those deaths was preventable. Yet a drunk driver has just a two percent chance of being caught. Despite successful educational and enforcement initiatives, drunk driving still accounts for one third of all traffic fatalities.

An estimated 9,000 lives could be saved every year if all vehicles were equipped with advanced alcohol detection technology.")
source & more:
https://secure2.convio.net/madd/site/Adv...

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle November 17, 2011 | 1:25 p.m.

Not at all surprising. I wonder if he's been caught before, but let off?

It's highly ironic this comes the day after the announcement that we've decided to accept and be OK with the fact that frats drink alcohol in their houses. The amount of alcohol consumed in restaurants and bars every day is staggering. It would be logistically impossible to keep all the drinkers off the roads. Almost everyone drives, most people drink, there aren't that many taxis, friends to call, or people who could reasonably walk home. Yet, we all slap the blinders on, pretend this isn't a problem, and especially, hope we get away with it like everyone else, the vast majority, who drinks and drives.

Total alcohol prohibition would fix this... right?

(Report Comment)
chris peters November 17, 2011 | 1:36 p.m.

From the brief few encounters I've had w/ the man, I was left feeling like he was a geniune individual of values. I still believe that. DWI are serious though and warrant a consequence, coach or not. It's such a bumer from a leadership standpoint. I'm sure a lot of those kids (players) take to heart the message he and his coaching staff put out. Now, it just seems like lip service. He's gonna have to rebuild their trust.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis November 17, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

No I have never had any citation other than a speeding ticket, and in that I was wrong. I'm not defending his action, I think he was wrong. The fact is he was in the wrong, he admitted he was in the wrong and he will be punished by the law like everyone else. I don't understand why people are so much more angered by him than anyone else? I don't know what people want from him? Again maybe they want a public flogging.

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis November 17, 2011 | 2:06 p.m.

Well Paul I don't hold mistakes up when people can admit they did something wrong. I don't however understand why some people have such a hard time admitting they are imperfect. Can you explain it to me? Actually on second thought don't bother I am NOT going to get into another spitting match with you. I've made my comment and to that I'm entitled, and done :)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 2:22 p.m.

Sally asks, "Do you speak this way of all of them or is it just because he's the M.U. coach?...Should we take him out behind the wood shed and beat him for his sins?...He is allowed to make the same mistakes as the rest of us without being treated any different than the rest of us!"
________________________

Yes, I speak this way of ALL drunk/impaired drivers. I despise all of them. I've witnessed firsthand their impact on very real human beings multiple times as a result of my past life's activities.

This particular incident involves a leader in Columbia and I had an opportunity to post on the topic and express my opinion. You are mistaken in your belief that I speak differently of him versus anyone else involved in a DWI. As a member of this community and a person who can/may be horribly impacted by this kind of behavior, I have every right to state that my opinion goes well beyond any legal or job implications for him.

Your "public flogging" comment is pure hyperbole, silly, and a gross exaggeration. No one mentioned such a thing...except you.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 17, 2011 | 2:29 p.m.

Is that you, Paul? We'll have to send you to Iraq.

On the other hand, if it is Paul, he cannot hold a candle to another person, who over the last few years has posted under enough names to fill a modest-sized phone book.

Our friend Ricky Gurley says he can employ software to analyze written texts, messages, etc. I use an archaic method.

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt November 17, 2011 | 2:31 p.m.

This is all a bit much don't you think?

(Report Comment)
Jim Yonker November 17, 2011 | 2:34 p.m.

Hey Pinkel, perhaps you should think about apologizing first and foremost to all the other motorists who were on the road while you were driving drunk.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 2:57 p.m.

Ellis: Yep, yer right. It's Paul

Can you say "pathology"?

(PS: I'm curious as hell about who could fill a phone book with other names. I guess I missed that.

Signed,

Qwerty Yuiop)

(Report Comment)
Sally Willis November 17, 2011 | 3:08 p.m.

@ Michael your entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. I also agree with you in that he should never have gotten behind the wheel of a vehicle after drinking. I just feel like he shouldn't be punished more because he is in the eye of the public. @ Ellis you made me laugh until I cried literally! Ohhh I can't seem to stop that was too funny! And I'll admit some of the names Paul comes up with are too funny.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 17, 2011 | 3:12 p.m.

I'll take your word that Iraq sucks; Egypt ain't no prize either (except for the antiquities).

Korea sucked, and they tell me Vietnam sucked. You couldn't see Korea on TV; you had to follow it in the newspapers (so if you were illiterate you missed the war).

Michael: "Phone book" is a deliberate exaggeration, but the list of assumed names isn't short. I suspect Paul could make an informed guess. Beyond that I have no more to say - for now.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.

Ellis: I sure hope there are not many folks posting under assumed names. Especially multiple assumed names.

It would make posting in this place utterly pointless. Hopefully the Missourian has a handle on this, but given the 'certainty' of your last statements, perhaps I shouldn't be so optimistic.

Such social pathology is....well....strange, to say the least. My question is.....why do it? What is gained when you are an adult engaged in playground behavior? What is the brain reward? What is the payoff?

Beats me.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 5:07 p.m.

Sally Willis says, "I just feel like he shouldn't be punished more because he is in the eye of the public."
________________

But he will be.

Because many kids will think less of him.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 17, 2011 | 5:10 p.m.

I am aware of one; there could be others. I have previously (on this forum) posed the same questions you have.

Don't sweat it. I am a firm believer in the old saying that if you give some people enough rope they will hang themselves. No shortage of rope.

How about emotional instability as a probable cause?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 5:28 p.m.

Ellis:

Generally, with few exceptions, I believe every person makes decisions perceived to be in their own self-interest. That is, one choice has a (perceived) more favorable reward than any other optional choice. I believe this applies to rational and irrational folks alike.

I was just trying to understand the reward, i.e., what is gained? The underlying cause is an entirely different question.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle November 17, 2011 | 6:02 p.m.

@Mike asks: "What is the brain reward? What is the payoff?"

Entertainment and ego stroking. If you're here for any other reason, you're nuts. I willingly admit that's the only reason I'm here.

The Missourian doesn't have a lot of good options: Let Paul be himself here, risk playing cat-and-mouse with an infinite number of Allairiases, or really lock down their registration, creating a lot of extra work for staff and potentially hurting participation.

I would have let Paul be himself here, but that's just me. I wouldn't enjoy being in Tom's shoes when it comes to issues like this.

As for Pinkel, he's apparently taking a roughly $300K hit for this mistake. That leaves him only another roughly $2M to scrape by on this year. Poor sot, however will he make ends meet?!?

Overall, I'm satisfied with his "punishment." Time to move on.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 6:33 p.m.

Derrick: Entertainment and ego stroking. If you're here for any other reason, you're nuts.
______________________

I don't think I'm nuts, but perhaps no one knows their status for sure; perhaps that decision has to be left to psychoanalysts who, after all, may have entered that job to find out why THEY were nuts.

Entertainment? Yes, I think I'd agree with that. Usually I post because there's nothing better to do and I find something that interests me.

As to the "ego" part....hmmmm. I'm unsure. It's true that ego rears it's head in any argument; everyone likes to get their point across, including me. But I don't think I get any sort of "rush" from seeing my stuff in newsprint; I got enuf of that from my profession and all the reports I wrote (some of which were published within EPA). I view this place as a forum to get other viewpoints. I have great respect for many viewpoints I read here, and the same respect extends to the originating authors. I don't have to agree with those viewpoints to feel that respect.

Hmmmmm. I'll have to think on it. Either that or see that psychoanalyst who might be right about me but wrong about himself (see above).

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle November 17, 2011 | 7:45 p.m.

"I'll have to think on it" usually means, "I think you're full of it."

Just to drive home the egotistical point: I know why I'm here; I don't really care why anyone else is here. That's each person's own problem to solve.

And yes, I do also enjoy trying to understand other people's viewpoints. Not so much to agree with anyone, but to accumulate more wealth in my own information bank.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 17, 2011 | 9:05 p.m.

"Ellis: I sure hope there are not many folks posting under assumed names. Especially multiple assumed names.

It would make posting in this place utterly pointless."

Why? Those of the left continually spray us with far more propagandic "information", than is indicated in their official identification. I'm relatively new with this experience, but initially chose (there was a choice, but the decision took not a minute) to use my name, because whatever I might want to write would be truth as I know it and (ego enters)what I might want to write would be so important that I want all to know who wrote it.

I don't recall a fictitious poster with other than a political message. imo, many will throw an opinion into the online wind, knowing it is false, but also knowing that someone, somewhere will believe it, that thought being all that matters to the poster. Can anyone recall a post of that sort around here?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams November 17, 2011 | 9:30 p.m.

Derrick Fogle says, ""I'll have to think on it" usually means, "I think you're full of it."
___________________

Bit harsh, eh?

But at least you said "usually" which at least leaves room for some doubt.

Is it too far-fetched for you to believe you raised a thought I had not considered before re: why I'm here? If you don't care why anyone else is here, then why make interpretations about someone else's motive? To make an interpretation shows that you indeed have a judgment.

Either that, or your fingers went on walkabout and typed "usually" rather than "really".

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 17, 2011 | 10:30 p.m.

Frank & Michael:

Michael notes that all of us tend to act in our own self interest. If I may mix English and German, the person in question acts with "uber self interest."

The person (multiple names poster) sometimes expresses strong views, but they are mainly apolitical. Maybe that will ease your mind, Frank.

I believe the three of us are of one mind in that if we are going to post, we should do so under our own names. I believe almost all those who post here think the same. Besides, that's clearly Missourian policy. When I feel I need to post under assumed name, I'll stop posting.

If this has disturbed either of you, sorry.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 18, 2011 | 5:12 a.m.

I think it's stupid to punish Pinkel by suspending him when he has a game to coach. There's also the issue of "Innocent until proven guilty". Until this goes to court and he is formally convicted, he needs to do the job we pay him millions to do.

After he is convicted, and the season is over (and I don't think bowl games will be in the cards this season), then worry about fines, or docked pay, or suspensions or whatever. But at this time he should be allowed to do his job without prejudice.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 18, 2011 | 7:16 a.m.

@ Mark Foecking:

I definitely agree, but if he is convicted I would place the suspension on the first game in the 2012 season. That game will in all probability not be a conference game.

Regarding bowl games, there was a detailed article in the Missourian about possibilities. If Missouri wins both the Texas Tech and Kansas games and if Iowa wins the game Saturday at Purdue (beating Nebraska may not be in the cards - but Northwestern did), Mizzou and Iowa would both be 7-5. A rematch? This time the Toilet Bowl rather than the Insight Bowl.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 18, 2011 | 7:46 a.m.

Mark F. - I'm not sure and not able to find answer here, but I believe the student athlete connected with crime is immediately suspended until offense is cleared up one way or the other. Believe Aldon was making sure the coach got the same treatment that a player would receive in the same situation.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger November 18, 2011 | 9:25 a.m.

Frank writes, "Aldon was making sure the coach got the same treatment that a player would receive in the same situation."

Well, yes, but we should remember that in Pinkel's case, he is ponying up/sacrificing an estimated $350,000 for his actions. And he hasn't been convicted.

(Report Comment)
frank christian November 18, 2011 | 9:48 a.m.

Hank O. - "I believe the student athlete connected with crime is immediately suspended until offense is cleared up one way or the other." Me. I have located proof that an MU player is immediately suspended in the case of felony accusation and as stated believe this applies to any involvement in a criminal accusation. If I'm wrong would like to read about it. A sports reporter perhaps?

Was not Pinkel fined for an admitted violation of his contract, which would have little to do with a court conviction?

I think in Mizzou athletics, to show zero tolerance for involvement in criminal actions, player or coach may be considered guilty until proven innocent.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith November 18, 2011 | 9:54 a.m.

Another wrinkle. Don't think for a minute that a mess like the one at Penn State doesn't affect the thinking of university officials elsewhere.

If there is anyone today who thinks we don't live in an age of instant dissemination of bad news, the Penn State business, University of Iowa's drug scandal in 2010, and Pinkel's oops (minor by comparison to the other two) should convince them. If you screw up, and the knowledge of it makes the wire services, you're toast.

(Report Comment)
Greg Allen November 18, 2011 | 11:36 a.m.

Having just gone through a unit on Right to Privacy, people who are considered public officials or otherwise often in the public eye are held to a different standard of privacy and culpability. There's a bevy of case law that backs this up. Mr. Pinkel is a public figure, is more 'newsworthy' than most of us, and is subject to this phenomenon. I'm sure that everyone at the J School could give you more than you want to know about this.

Ever wonder what would happen to someone driving under the influence who ends up hitting and killing a substance abuse counselor? That person would be in a world of legal hurt.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements