Jim Irsay arrested, charged with DUI & drug possession

Rob Ford's been in the news since he was a councilor and getting kicked out of Leafs games.

I would imagine that Irsay is one of the most prominent businessmen in the city. If a reporter knew what was going on which you are hearing now about the whispers, I don't understand why this wouldn't be investigated. Drunks and drug addicts leave trails. Seems like it would be huge story for your readers. Maybe it was looked at and Irsay covered his tracks much better than most junkies, maybe the prominent journalists are too comfortable with the team or maybe they are simply too lazy to do the story. I don't know I just hate hearing after the fact that people knew what was going on.

 

I'm not a fan of saying "I knew this all along, but couldn't tell you" either. I should have made that clear in my initial post.

I am, however, saying that anyone who believes you can just "investigate" and call someone out for being an abuser/alcoholic is being somewhat naive about journalism. As Kevin Pollack says in A Few Good Men, it's the difference between paper law and trial law. I agree that Irsay may very well have been a public menace. Proving that is easy to say and hard to do. And remember, this is not just a reporter/columnist deciding to be dogged in his/her pursuit of the story. It also requires the editor and perhaps the publisher (Hi Gannett!) signing off on a story that could easily result in legal action by Irsay (even if it's true and Irsay knows he'll lose, it's still in his interests to sue for libel anyway). What higher up at Gannett would ever sign of an investigation like this? Would they mandate an equal number of minority sources accuse Irsay of pill doctor shopping as white accusers?

I'm not saying that the Star shouldn't have pursued this story further, just understanding the realities. This is a situation where being an after-the-fact critic allows you to have it both ways. Had Kravitz written a story suggesting Irsay was an addict, wouldn't Deadspin and Poynter and others been up in arms over the accusation? Wouldn't Colts fans have been outraged by such a breach of privacy?

It's easy to have answers when posting on a message board, or after you have a police report. Just keep that in mind.

 

Ain't this the truth.

Raise your hand if you've ever been part of or privy to a Gannett "legal review."

 

Dead-on nails.

Of course, in this day of message boards, etc., where fans throw out all kinds of shit without legal repercussion (they hope), no one understands this.

And having a source is one thing. Having a source willing to go on-the-record is another ball of wax.

 

Who is saying anything about writing speculation?

It's amazing that any writers can get any investigative reporting done with all the road blocks they face. Why bother even trying.

 

Still waiting for someone to explain the overwhelming public interest served by this story that warrants invading Jim Irsay's privacy and accusing him of something that was near-impossible to prove.

 

One did -- in 2002, when Irsay testified in the trial of the doctor who prescribed him his pills. Didn't I already say that?

 

Proving he's a junkie and a drunk is hard to prove? If you can't prove don't write it but should you not at least dig into it?

He's the owner of the football team, for the Colts fans you don't think there is any interest in knowing whether or not the man in control of making key decisions is a junkie. A man who has also benefitted from tax breaks and public funding.

 

I'd be willing to bet a sizable majority of sports fans don't care at all about their team's owner. Irsay admitting to a painkiller addiction while presiding over one of the NFL's most successful franchises doesn't seem like something that would whip the Colts fan base into a frenzy.

Still, reporting on what happened in court or as part of a DEA investigation during which his name came up is different than just investigating his drug use on your own, as a standard operating procedure.

It's easy to say now that anyone could see Irsay was a drug addict. It's also easy to shake your head and wonder how anyone could think Marge Schott was not a frothing racist.

But, at the time, it's entirely possible that it wouldn't cross most people's minds to investigate something like that, let alone devote valuable resources to it day after day on the off chance it turns up malfeasance.

If I spent time investigating every erratic/eccentric sports team owner, I would literally not have time to do anything else, including sleep.

 

Can we be looser with the facts?

When was Irsay arrested for -- or under suspicion of -- drunken driving?

He was held under suspicion of driving under the influence, and presumably, that's referring to the pills he had.

The number of places reporting he was charged with DWI, or was driving while drunk is staggering. Even one of the initial officers said alcohol did not appear to be a factor.

 

I believe the Star has two full time writers on the Colts. I would be surprised if the Star had more than two reporters at the city/county building (does anyone know?) I also think the Star promotes the fact that they are the go-to source the Colts coverage more heavily than the fact they are the go to source for the the happenings of Indianapolis/Marion County. So I really don't see the difference from a point of reader interest. If the Mayor or the owner or the local sports franchise are druggies I think the reader interest is there.

You may argue that the Mayor is a public figure and the owner of the local NFL franchise is not. But the Indianapolis Colts argued very vociferously that millions of dollars should be given to the team because they represent all the citizens of Indianapolis/Marion County. So I am not sympathetic to the argument that the owner of said team is not a public individual and not subject to the same scrutiny as the Mayor.

 

Jim Irsay, as the owner of a team that receives tax breaks out the ying-yang, is certainly worthy of scrutiny. The question, still, is what evidence you have before you go to print with any accusations he's off the wagon.