Draft Prospect T’Vondre Sweat Arrested

[redsoxsuck05]

Hell be taken with a late pick and people will act like he's a steal who fell for no reason. Happens every year with these guys.

[babyatemydingo]

Everyone here is either a cop, a lawyer or a psychologist, but no one is an alcoholic.
So, here goes.

I am a big guy (240) and I drink.
I have no problem downing two bottles of wine, 15 beers or half a bottle of bourbon or vodka at a sitting.
It takes me that much to get drunk.

Now, I don't do that every day or every week even and I don't condone it.
But when I do it, people often hand me their keys and say, "You drive."
It doesn't really show on me.
It's not that I would pass a field sobriety test, I just handle it well.

So, this notion that he's a drunk because he drank more than you can is dubious.
What if a kicker prospect had three seltzers and got pulled over and blew the same numbers as Sweat?
Is it better because it was only three?
I mean, that's beyond his capacity ... and he was driving.

The drinking AND driving is the issue.
With today's ride share economy there is really no excuse for it.
Not that it is socially acceptable,either, but the structure of the law connotes that it is "forgivable" in small doses.
First time offenders get what equates to a slap on the wrist.
The consequences only increase if you continue to do it or if you kill or seriously injure someone, which wasn't the case here.

One in every 10 arrests in this country are for drunk driving.
That means it is not considered legally "severe" for one time offenders, just a life lesson.
My point is that it is not treated as seriously as its potential for harm.
And it is no wonder that young people with the means do it.
By no means am I suggesting that his actions should not be considered in regards to his draft status.
But, they are not the end of his career and do not diminish his value as prohibitively as described unless more heinous activity is discovered.
Then we'll see.

I do, however, take exception to all of the Mother Teresas on here who are looking to the volume of consumption in a single instance to summarily indict him.
I guess the old adage "an alcoholic is anyone who drinks more than you" holds true.

 

[ThatJerkDave]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:08 AM, ET80 said:

I've heard someone use the term "functional alcoholic" when describing this sort of ability - to seem like you're in control of your facilities when your BAC is well above expectations and you drank enough to where you should at least look inebriated.

Hi, my name is Dave.  I promise that I could pass a field sobriety test while failing a breathalyzer.  I could also reliably operate a motor vehicle.  I have also learned to act responsibly.  I know when I can still function and when I need to call a ride.  I also plan ahead.  If I am going somewhere 5 minutes away, I can probably have more to drink than if it is an hour away.  Tomorrow, some friends and I are doing my birthday celebration, knowing that I am going to drink excessively, I planned it for a venue that I will be walking to and back home from.  

[babyatemydingo]

26 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Hi, my name is Dave.  I promise that I could pass a field sobriety test while failing a breathalyzer.  I could also reliably operate a motor vehicle.  I have also learned to act responsibly.  I know when I can still function and when I need to call a ride.  I also plan ahead.  If I am going somewhere 5 minutes away, I can probably have more to drink than if it is an hour away.  Tomorrow, some friends and I are doing my birthday celebration, knowing that I am going to drink excessively, I planned it for a venue that I will be walking to and back home from.  

Hi Dave.

[e16bball]

2 hours ago, babyatemydingo said:

Everyone here is either a cop, a lawyer or a psychologist, but no one is an alcoholic.
So, here goes.

I’m two of the things you named, and only one of them is my job. There’s no moral condescension from me towards Sweat, as I’m in no position for that. For me, it’s just about interpreting the data points that we do have.

2 hours ago, babyatemydingo said:

I am a big guy (240) and I drink.
I have no problem downing two bottles of wine, 15 beers or half a bottle of bourbon or vodka at a sitting.
It takes me that much to get drunk.

Now, I don't do that every day or every week even and I don't condone it.
But when I do it, people often hand me their keys and say, "You drive."
It doesn't really show on me.
It's not that I would pass a field sobriety test, I just handle it well.

So, this notion that he's a drunk because he drank more than you can is dubious.
What if a kicker prospect had three seltzers and got pulled over and blew the same numbers as Sweat?
Is it better because it was only three?
I mean, that's beyond his capacity ... and he was driving.

The point you’re raising about the difference between drinks consumed and impairment is definitely an important one. The raw number of drinks for such a big man may be eye-catching, but it lacks context, as you point out.

In the context of the example you give at the end, the (very, very skinny) kicker who has 3 drinks and blows a 0.12 is every bit as dangerous (and culpable) as Sweat was in this instance. 

That’s because the BAC helps to contextualize the raw number of drinks. Factors like your weight and gender affect how quickly your BAC increases — in the sense that it would take a very heavy man significantly more drinks to reach the same BAC as a very small woman. But the BAC number itself, the concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream, is uniform across all people. Two people with the same BAC have the same amount of alcohol in their blood, regardless of any other factors. In other words, being very large keeps your BAC lower per drink — but it doesn’t make you any less drunk at a given BAC.

The issue that causes me to draw some conclusions about Sweat’s drinking history is related to tolerance. Per the preliminary breath test, he had a relatively high BAC. Assuming that number is right, he had an amount of alcohol in his bloodstream (between .105 and .130) at the time of this incident that would have caused significant mental and motor skill impairment for the average person.

But it doesn’t really seem to have impaired him very much at all.

Barring very unusual congenital conditions, there’s really only one primary way for your body to be mostly unaffected by a high concentration of alcohol in your bloodstream — which is to consume alcohol in significant quantities relatively frequently. In other words, to have developed a high tolerance.

The fact that he was able to perform rather well on the field tests despite having this relatively high BAC suggests that he has developed a substantial tolerance to alcohol — which you can typically only do by drinking a lot. Again…not trying to judge the man. It’s just a fact of the human body. 

3 hours ago, babyatemydingo said:

The drinking AND driving is the issue.
With today's ride share economy there is really no excuse for it.
Not that it is socially acceptable,either, but the structure of the law connotes that it is "forgivable" in small doses.
First time offenders get what equates to a slap on the wrist.
The consequences only increase if you continue to do it or if you kill or seriously injure someone, which wasn't the case here.

One in every 10 arrests in this country are for drunk driving.
That means it is not considered legally "severe" for one time offenders, just a life lesson.
My point is that it is not treated as seriously as its potential for harm.
And it is no wonder that young people with the means do it.
By no means am I suggesting that his actions should not be considered in regards to his draft status.
But, they are not the end of his career and do not diminish his value as prohibitively as described unless more heinous activity is discovered.
Then we'll see.

I am totally in agreement with you on all of this, so there’s no real need to go into much detail in my response. (1) What he did was dangerous and unacceptable; (2) this society has adopted a mindset where one DUI is a mistake, multiple is indicative of a problem; (3) he will not fall nearly so far down the draft board, or see his career ended, as some seem to wish.

With that said, I do think this issue is a bit more relevant with Sweat because one of the pre-existing red flags is that he’s extremely heavy. There are only two players in NFL history who have started even 30 games that were listed at 360+ pounds and 6’5 or shorter: Ted Washington and Kris Jenkins, Sr. And in all candor, I’m a Maryland fan and don’t remember the young version of Kris Jenkins being nearly that heavy (he weighed 318 at his combine apparently). 

Sweat has all the talent to be a Ted Washington (or better). But if you’re drafting him, you’re taking a big risk that he’s going to be able to keep his weight down and stay on the field (due to both injuries and conditioning). It would be a concerning additional piece of information to learn that excessive drinking is a part of the picture with a guy who is already a health and discipline concern from the first glance.

[ramssuperbowl99]

2 hours ago, e16bball said:

I’m two of the things you named, and only one of them is my job. There’s no moral condescension from me towards Sweat, as I’m in no position for that. For me, it’s just about interpreting the data points that we do have.

And I'm an alcoholic pharmaceutical researcher, if that validates any of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic discussion.

 

It's funny, I remember feeling that condescension from sober people. Now being in the other position, it's almost a silly thought because it's not only that I don't feel condescension towards addicts, I feel compassion and connection. I hope we're wrong and the young man just made a mistake but if the worst case is accurate and he does have some type of alcohol use disorder, I hope he feels nothing like I felt, and I hope his rock bottom is a whole lot higher up than mine was.

[ET80]

33 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

3 hours ago, e16bball said:

I’m two of the things you named, and only one of them is my job. There’s no moral condescension from me towards Sweat, as I’m in no position for that. For me, it’s just about interpreting the data points that we do have.

And I'm an alcoholic pharmaceutical researcher, if that validates any of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic discussion.

And @CBears019 is a police officer, so of those virtue signaling the situation - only I'm not qualified.

But, when has being not qualified ever stopped me from speaking?

[Soko]

On 4/11/2024 at 10:08 AM, ET80 said:

I've heard someone use the term "functional alcoholic" when describing this sort of ability - to seem like you're in control of your facilities when your BAC is well above expectations and you drank enough to where you should at least look inebriated.

+1.

I’ve dealt with more than a few people that I never would’ve guessed were drunk, but after getting them to the hospital, found them with BACs that I thought could kill a horse. Don’t understand it or try to reconcile with it, but I’ve seen it. Didn’t change anything of course, but it was still surprising.

[Tugboat]

8 hours ago, babyatemydingo said:

Everyone here is either a cop, a lawyer or a psychologist, but no one is an alcoholic.
So, here goes.

I am a big guy (240) and I drink.
I have no problem downing two bottles of wine, 15 beers or half a bottle of bourbon or vodka at a sitting.
It takes me that much to get drunk.

Now, I don't do that every day or every week even and I don't condone it.
But when I do it, people often hand me their keys and say, "You drive."
It doesn't really show on me.
It's not that I would pass a field sobriety test, I just handle it well.

So, this notion that he's a drunk because he drank more than you can is dubious.
What if a kicker prospect had three seltzers and got pulled over and blew the same numbers as Sweat?
Is it better because it was only three?
I mean, that's beyond his capacity ... and he was driving.

The drinking AND driving is the issue.
With today's ride share economy there is really no excuse for it.
Not that it is socially acceptable,either, but the structure of the law connotes that it is "forgivable" in small doses.
First time offenders get what equates to a slap on the wrist.
The consequences only increase if you continue to do it or if you kill or seriously injure someone, which wasn't the case here.

One in every 10 arrests in this country are for drunk driving.
That means it is not considered legally "severe" for one time offenders, just a life lesson.
My point is that it is not treated as seriously as its potential for harm.
And it is no wonder that young people with the means do it.
By no means am I suggesting that his actions should not be considered in regards to his draft status.
But, they are not the end of his career and do not diminish his value as prohibitively as described unless more heinous activity is discovered.
Then we'll see.

I do, however, take exception to all of the Mother Teresas on here who are looking to the volume of consumption in a single instance to summarily indict him.
I guess the old adage "an alcoholic is anyone who drinks more than you" holds true.

 

 

These are all fair points.  But i think the implication is more...because of those factors you're talking about, it does remove the plausibility that he just had an extra glass of wine with dinner here.  In your example with the kicker...you can envision a scenario where maybe that's the case.  Still doesn't really matter whatsoever to me.  Still unacceptable, dangerous, and irresponsible anyway.  But you could at least conceive of a scenario where they had a third glass of wine and it pushed them over the "acceptable" limit without them realizing exactly how intoxicated they are.

 

In this case...because of his size (and some of the acknowledged history), it's pretty abundantly clear somewhere around that 15th beer or empty bottle of liquor or whatever, that it wasn't just casually sitting down for a meal and imbibing an extra drink that stepped over the "legal" threshold.  Like...drinking that much is a whole project and takes time and a lot of active work.  Even if you're just pounding back shots...it should be entirely clear that you're repeating that process well over a dozen times and basically "seriously drinking".  At which point, responsible people would realize that's probably not something you should be doing before operating a 4000lbs piece of machinery/weaponry. 

It shouldn't necessarily carry some moral judgment that he's an alcoholic just because of the amount it may take to get him drunk.  But with his history, the clues start to come together.  It's also problem drinking, no matter what.  Precisely because he decided to drive while that intoxicated.  And because of his size, it's clearly not some case of a 90lbs woman getting a little bit more tipsy than anticipated off a couple mimosas at brunch.  This was drinking substantial amounts of alcohol and then still deciding to get behind the wheel.  That removes any vague illusion or excuse that it was any kind of "mistake" or "accident".  It was a deliberate choice.  And that's what really matters here.  It's not "holier than thou" condescension about the volume of alcohol consumed.  It's indictment of his decision to drive after what it requires to take in that volume of alcohol.

Edited April 13 by Tugboat

[babyatemydingo]

6 hours ago, Tugboat said:

 

These are all fair points.  But i think the implication is more...because of those factors you're talking about, it does remove the plausibility that he just had an extra glass of wine with dinner here.  In your example with the kicker...you can envision a scenario where maybe that's the case.  Still doesn't really matter whatsoever to me.  Still unacceptable, dangerous, and irresponsible anyway.  But you could at least conceive of a scenario where they had a third glass of wine and it pushed them over the "acceptable" limit without them realizing exactly how intoxicated they are.

 

In this case...because of his size (and some of the acknowledged history), it's pretty abundantly clear somewhere around that 15th beer or empty bottle of liquor or whatever, that it wasn't just casually sitting down for a meal and imbibing an extra drink that stepped over the "legal" threshold.  Like...drinking that much is a whole project and takes time and a lot of active work.  Even if you're just pounding back shots...it should be entirely clear that you're repeating that process well over a dozen times and basically "seriously drinking".  At which point, responsible people would realize that's probably not something you should be doing before operating a 4000lbs piece of machinery/weaponry. 

It shouldn't necessarily carry some moral judgment that he's an alcoholic just because of the amount it may take to get him drunk.  But with his history, the clues start to come together.  It's also problem drinking, no matter what.  Precisely because he decided to drive while that intoxicated.  And because of his size, it's clearly not some case of a 90lbs woman getting a little bit more tipsy than anticipated off a couple mimosas at brunch.  This was drinking substantial amounts of alcohol and then still deciding to get behind the wheel.  That removes any vague illusion or excuse that it was any kind of "mistake" or "accident".  It was a deliberate choice.  And that's what really matters here.  It's not "holier than thou" condescension about the volume of alcohol consumed.  It's indictment of his decision to drive after what it requires to take in that volume of alcohol.

Did you go to college (BYU/Oral Roberts/etc. discounted)?
Were you exposed to excessive drinking?
Did you ever get carried away drinking?

Most importantly, would you concede that drinking not only impairs your ability to drive, but also impairs your ability to think you can drive?
The bolded statements above lead me to believe that you are less than familiar with what has never been known as "alcohol culture," but exists for a large percentage of people.
I am not talking about Coors Light ads, but rather a lifetime of witnessing excessive consumption, adhering to it and yet succeeding in the world.

[Tugboat]

20 minutes ago, babyatemydingo said:

Did you go to college (BYU/Oral Roberts/etc. discounted)?
Were you exposed to excessive drinking?
Did you ever get carried away drinking?

Most importantly, would you concede that drinking not only impairs your ability to drive, but also impairs your ability to think you can drive?
The bolded statements above lead me to believe that you are less than familiar with what has never been known as "alcohol culture," but exists for a large percentage of people.
I am not talking about Coors Light ads, but rather a lifetime of witnessing excessive consumption, adhering to it and yet succeeding in the world.

 

I mean, i'm pretty sure i'm over the legal limit for driving right now.  😆  I'm not not saying this from the point of some teetotaler moralistic buzzkill.  idgaf what people do with their time like that (though i probably care a little more if i'm about to invest my multi-billion dollar franchise in a guy as a Professional Athlete).  Where i care, is when it crosses the line from "you do you" to "drunk driving" which i've also seen the results of.  It's a thing that literally KILLS people or can mar the rest of their lives.

 

That's where...i've got carried away with drinking many times.  Heck, i didn't even have to get to college to experience binge drinking and excessive consumption culture as a teenager and be part of it myself.  I'm not a stranger to what you're calling "alcohol culture".  But the point is...you don't get behind the wheel in that condition.  Period.  If you're going to be "seriously drinking" you go in with a plan.  Even if you didn't plan on it, there's a point at which you have to realize you've crossed a threshold from casually having a few drinks to...seriously drinking.  Designated Driver, stay the night somewhere, walk home, call a cab or car service, take a train, whatever.  Something.  You don't leave that up to your own drunken judgment to decide if you're okay or not in the moment.  That's not a judgment call that an intoxicated person is actually qualified to make.

 

 

And that's where...given Sweat's size and noted drinking history...this wasn't just him having an extra beer before he decided to drive.  It was having half a dozen extra beers or more, or an entire extra half a fifth of liquor+ or something.  Because of his size, this was well beyond the (imo far too lenient) threshold of light, casual drinking before driving.  This was deliberately making a choice to drive drunk.

 

 

I noted earlier that there's a deeply toxic culture of "acceptance" especially in some circles, to driving while intoxicated.  Car culture and the layout of a lot of cities and areas in North America has always been at odds with responsible, non-permissive drinking and driving rules and culture, compared to the rest of the western world.  But that's still just not an excuse.  Especially not for a prospect on the cusp of a multi-million dollar career as a professional athlete.  With everything to lose and every tool at their disposal to come up with a more responsible alternative.

 

That's what makes it "problem drinking".  It's showing distinctly poor judgment and/or a lack of self restraint, when it comes to decisions around alcohol...and driving.  And doing so in a way that very well could have killed someone.  Regardless of how much alcohol his mass allows him to take in to achieve what was an illegal level of intoxication while operating a motor vehicle, or how "well he handles it".

[dll2000]

Some points from someone who has seen a lot of DUI trials in past.   

As pointed out by others the PBT is not admissible in most states because it is not considered accurate.  It is not the same as a breathalyzer test.  

Their form is a little weird to me because it says "Performed as instructed" along with the clues.  But that is a good thing.   One of 'clues' of intoxication is an inability to follow directions.  I am not sure if that is supposed to be in negative or positive.  

The blood test will tell you a lot.  It was likely a mistake to agree to that.  They didn't offer the breathalyzer?  Usually the blood test is for drugs, not alcohol.  No mention of drugs anywhere here.  

Those things often take forever to come back though.   A trick defense lawyers sometimes do is demand a speedy trial in light of that.   Puts a lot of pressure on labs to get it done and sometimes they don't.

Without the blood test at jury trials these things come down to the video for Jurors.  He could be in trouble with a blood test.  People generally trust 'science' or they used to.  

If the guys seems drunk on video they will convict.   Basically if he is slurring and swaying and can't answer questions.

If he isn't slurring and not swaying you can often get a not guilty from a jury even if someone doesn't do the Standardized tests perfectly.  Because jurors think, heck, late at night, I am nervous and scared.   Lights are on me.  I couldn't do that either.  

Nobody except judges at bench trials gives a darn about the HGN (eye tracking test).  Nobody understands it or cares and few officers even do it properly in first place.

 

[dll2000]

They usually have to get a warrant for blood test, but then I think their report would say refused.

So it sounds like he agreed.

FYI, the labs will show any drugs in his system going back a ways.  Not just from night in question. 

 

 

[dll2000]

According to this Sweat was rear ended.  https://www.si.com/college/texas/football/texas-longhorns-tvondre-sweat-dwi-charge-arrest-details-revealed

So you have no bad driving.  Which is pretty big in a DUI case.  You can't pull someone over without cause.  In this case we have an accident and an admission of drinking (idiotic to admit that).   Also idiotic to agree to blood test (depending on how it comes back).   If he has done any drugs in last month he was ... ignorant ... to agree to that on his own.  

So evidence we have thus far is you have an admission of drinking 3 shots, which isn't good, but it is from one of largest humans on planet.   Of course in IRL maybe he drank a lot more than 3 shots.  People often say they drank a lot less than they did to officers and the officers generally assume that to be the case.  The PBT is not admissible.

I haven't see any video, but the standardized results in affidavit are far from worst I have seen on paper.

  I would have to see dash and body cam video to give a better opinion.   The blood could be a problem.  

Don't be surprised if he doesn't get offered a very lenient plea deal.  An amendment to a lessor offense and supervision or probation or whatever they have in TX.

 

[dll2000]

Everything that happens in a traffic stop is evidence kids.  Including everything you say.  

Unless you were doing nothing wrong, keep your teeth together.