What's new
By:

Spence Checketts gone

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Archie Moses said:
Dude was about as real as you could get. Loved his takes. Can't imagine going through brain cancer.
Click to expand...
He had brain cancer? This might explain the lack of judgement, seriously. I don't listen to sports radio much anymore but I used to, and I thought he was an excellent broadcaster. It's really hard to understand why an obviously intelligent guy would do a thing like this.
 
Avery said:
Wonder who will replace him with Gordon in the afternoon.
Click to expand...
This interests me for no particular reason since I believe he had been the perfect host with Monson with his contacts (I don't think the amount of national guys rooted in New York like Frank Isola on the program could be attributed to anyone else given the Checketts name) and willingness to ground Monson. I believe they've been rotating guys the last couple of weeks, but that's not a solution, obviously. Garrard could be an option, but he's the program director and has a lot of other duties, so I doubt he'd do it. I don't personally think the other hosts have what I would think is radio clout to host the show. Only one I would think of is Olson, but I don't think that's a good fit.

My guess is they look outside. Maybe try to drag someone from 700 or go to a different market to recruit someone in.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
This interests me for no particular reason since I believe he had been the perfect host with Monson with his contacts (I don't think the amount of national guys rooted in New York like Frank Isola on the program could be attributed to anyone else given the Checketts name) and willingness to ground Monson. I believe they've been rotating guys the last couple of weeks, but that's not a solution, obviously. Garrard could be an option, but he's the program director and has a lot of other duties, so I doubt he'd do it. I don't personally think the other hosts have what I would think is radio clout to host the show. Only one I would think of is Olson, but I don't think that's a good fit.

My guess is they look outside. Maybe try to drag someone from 700 or go to a different market to recruit someone in.
Click to expand...
I can't stand listening to Monson. Checketts was the only reason I would ever tune into that show. I would tune in again if they got Kyle Gunther, though.
 
str8line said:
How brazenly stupid do you have to be to go 120 mph on I-15 at 1:30 AM while drunk with an open beer in your car after already having 3 DUI's? **** this guy. Give him 10 years minimum. I don't want him killing my family.

As others have said, if you have 4 DUI's it means you're driving drunk ALL OF THE TIME.
Click to expand...

What was his BAC? If he's an alcoholic then there's a good chance he might not have even realized he was still over the legal limit after sleeping a binge off. Also, those with higher tolerance often can drive as good or even better with a much higher BAC than the limit.
 
franklin said:
What was his BAC? If he's an alcoholic then there's a good chance he might not have even realized he was still over the legal limit after sleeping a binge off. Also, those with higher tolerance often can drive as good or even better with a much higher BAC than the limit.
Click to expand...
Back that up. I don't believe that at all.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Back that up. I don't believe that at all.
Click to expand...

I can see the point that some people function better than others when drunk. But would an alcoholic experience less of a drop off in performance? Would be an interesting study. Get two people drunk to the same BAC and have them each perform a complex task to see how they fare compared to when sober. I wonder if the alcoholic does better than the casual drinker?
 
str8line said:
I can see the point that some people function better than others when drunk. But would an alcoholic experience less of a drop off in performance? Would be an interesting study. Get two people drunk to the same BAC and have them each perform a complex task to see how they fare compared to when sober. I wonder if the alcoholic does better than the casual drinker?
Click to expand...
Have you ever heard of a functioning alcoholic?
 
franklin said:
Also, those with higher tolerance often can drive as good or even better with a much higher BAC than the limit.
Click to expand...
This is idiotic. I would be stunned (and very skeptical) if you can find any evidence that motor skills improve for anyone in any category as their alcohol level increases. Some elite level skiing friends and I once did an experiment with ski racing and discovered that half a beer is enough to make a negative difference. I'm talking about a sport where precision is critical. Nobody got more precise as they got more drunk.
 
Darkwing Duck said:
Back that up. I don't believe that at all.
Click to expand...

Joe Bagadonuts said:
This is idiotic. I would be stunned (and very skeptical) if you can find any evidence that motor skills improve for anyone in any category as their alcohol level increases. Some elite level skiing friends and I once did an experiment with ski racing and discovered that half a beer is enough to make a negative difference. I'm talking about a sport where precision is critical. Nobody got more precise as they got more drunk.
Click to expand...

It's called tolerance and it's a physiological fact of life where our bodies adjust to the inputs. Are you two telling me it's idiotic to say that the more you go out into the sun the more melanin you will produce? Or the more water you drink the more you will pee?

Yes, there are plenty of studies on motor function of alcoholics and they show a much higher tolerance rate to the drug. There are also studies showing alcoholics have functioning issues without the drug, hence my comment. These aren't novel ideas at all; they're quite old and well researched.
 
franklin said:
It's called tolerance and it's a physiological fact of life where our bodies adjust to the inputs. Are you two telling me it's idiotic to say that the more you go out into the sun the more melanin you will produce? Or the more water you drink the more you will pee?

Yes, there are plenty of studies on motor function of alcoholics and they show a much higher tolerance rate to the drug. There are also studies showing alcoholics have functioning issues without the drug, hence my comment. These aren't novel ideas at all; they're quite old and well researched.
Click to expand...
Saying that the more water you drink the more you will pee is agreeing with my point, not yours. The more alcohol you put into your system, the more drunk you will get. And being more drunk does not improve your motor skills. Drinking does not improve the motor skills of teetotalers and it does not improve the motor skills of lushes. Drinking certainly has a lesser effect on someone with greater tolerance, but the effects do not move in the opposite direction from someone with greater tolerance. The claim that you can improve your motor skills by drinking is every bit as false as the claim that you can cause a balloon to float by filling it with rocks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top