Newman charged with DUI in Tampa


Mark Newman, the Yanks’ senior vice president of baseball operations, was arrested Monday night on suspicion of a DUI. The Associated Press says the team exec refused to take a blood-alcohol test and was released on $500 bail. The Yankees say they’re investigating the situation, and Newman refused to comment. The last Yankee executive to get charged with a DUI was then-team general partner Steve Swindal. After his 2007 arrest and subsequent divorce from Jennifer Steinbrenner, Swindal left the team.

Categories : Asides, News


  1. The Yankees have to do something, I think.

    What sort of example does it set to the young prospects if you say “yeah, you can drink and drive, but because you’re a baseball player/executive, we don’t really care” ?

    • What are you suggesting? What sort of example did it set for the young prospects when Joba got his DUI? He should probably have to do what Joba did – take this seriously, show sincere remorse and understanding of what he did and why it was wrong, and make a public effort to educate kids about the dangers of drinking and driving.

      • I agree.

        Forgive me for not typing coherently.

      • Drew says:

        One large difference being this is an old man and Joba is a young man.

        So yes, Joba is a bad example for us 21-25 yr olds. Newman is a bad example for 60-65 yr olds?
        Joba is a different situation than Newman, completely. You shouldn’t compare the two imo.

        …Even if you want to compare Newman to Larussa, they’re both old but hold totally different “get out of jail free cards.”

        Newman should teach kids about how what he did was wrong? LOL

        Have you ever been a “kid?” If a VP with the Yankees tells you, I drank and drove, look at me! I’d get wasted, steal my moms car and drive all night hoping I’d have the same luck as Newman.

        • I can’t motivate myself to respond to each of these points, but as to the last one…

          “Newman should teach kids about how what he did was wrong? LOL
          Have you ever been a ‘kid?’ If a VP with the Yankees tells you, I drank and drove, look at me! I’d get wasted, steal my moms car and drive all night hoping I’d have the same luck as Newman.”

          Are you suggesting that the only people who can teach kids lessons about the mistakes they’ve made are people 25 and younger? If Newman (assuming he’s guilty) talks to a high school class, or a drivers’ ed class, and explains what a stupid mistake he made, what a serious problem drunk driving is, how many people it maims and kills, what a nightmare it is to be convicted of DUI and have to deal with the social, legal and possible professional consequences, and all the other negative things connected with the issue… You think those kids are going to think drinking and driving is cool? I’d like to be kinder about this, but you’re just flat-out wrong.

          • Drew says:

            Now, I’m not going to answer with sarcasm because I know you’ve been a kid before. I know you’ve sat in auditoriums/gyms listening to people that you don’t give two shits about telling you what you shouldn’t do. Did you honestly take what they said to heart? Bear in mind, this isn’t a sob story, it’s an executive with the best franchise in sports who spent a night in the drunk tank. Who would my 11 yr old brother connect with? Who would I connect with? An old man who messed up or a young superstar who jeopardized everything he’s worked so hard for?

            Do I think young kids think drunk driving is cool?

            I dunno. Bradley Nowell tells me drunk driving is what I like to do. Mark Newman tells me I got my license suspended and got fined.

            Hmm.. I guess there is some sarcasm there. I tried.

            • By your reasoning, we shouldn’t even attempt to talk to kids and young adults about these issues, because they won’t listen to adults. That’s the most massive of massive boversimplifications.

              No sarcasm necessary.

              • Drew says:

                Right.. because under 60 is not an adult. Talk about boversimplification.
                Sometimes I think you disagree just for the fun of it.

                I’m telling you, without a doubt, given the two situations how they played out, Joba and Newman would have different effects on a boy or young man. If you disagree with that I don’t know what to say..

                • Short version:

                  - You’re the one who is disagreeing with me here, so I’m not so sure I’m the one who is “disagreeing just for the fun of it.” I think you might be projecting.

                  - I never compared Joba and Newman, that’s a straw-man. I’m saying there can be some good to come out of a person like Newman speaking to a group of young people about an issue like this, not that he’d be better at it than Joba. I passed no judgment on that question/comparison… I haven’t the slightest idea why you think I did and I challenge you to quote something I said that says anything to that effect.

                • Drew says:

                  My original disagreement came from your reply to Becca.

                  “He should probably have to do what Joba did…”

                  That’s where I got the comparison.

                  Also, you still haven’t addressed one of the main issues I brought up, Joba talking to kids versus Mark Newman talking to kids. I think it’s silly to assume they’d have the same effect on a young man or woman.

                • Saying that Newman should have to do what Joba did is in no way a statement comparing how good each of them would be at those tasks. Your interpretation of that statement was inaccurate.

                  I haven’t addressed Joba vs. Newman because it’s totally irrelevant to anything I’ve said here, and I think it’s irrelevant to the question at hand (which is what should happen to Newman, what steps the Yanks should take, what Newman should do, etc.).

                • Drew says:

                  True. Let’s end it there. The Yanks will do what’s best for the team.

                • THCM is 100% right.

                  Take it from some experts on both sides of this argument:

                  Part 1

                  Part 2

  2. A.D. says:

    I really don’t get it when this happens, you make surely a damn good salary, get a car service.

    • Bob Stone says:

      So I guess you have never experienced making an error in judgement. You are certainly better than the rest of us.

      • Mike Pop says:

        Hey, he didn’t say that.

        But yeah, everyone makes a mistake. He was probably at the point where he could drive fine. Just couldn’t pass a test.

        I’m not saying that would make it any less okay.

        • Actually, to be totally fair, we have absolutely no idea what happened last night. For all we know the guy was overtired and was driving erratically.

          Which is just to say… Let’s just see what happens with this before we talk authoritatively about what anyone did or didn’t do, or what decisions they may have made.

          • Bob Stone says:

            You are exactly right again. Most people don’t know it, but DUI in many states can mean “Driving While Intoxicated” OR “Driving While Impaired”. You can be considered impaired from just being over tired.

            Let’s see how it plays out before we all rush to judgement.

            • Mister Delaware says:

              “For all we know the guy was overtired and was driving erratically.”

              I’m all for benefit of the doubt, but he refused a breathalyzer. You don’t refuse out of fear they’ll find out you’re sleepy.

              • Actually, you should always refuse a breathalyzer exam. It serves no purpose for the accused and you shouldn’t help the police gather evidence against you.

                Look, I’m not saying the guy was tired. I’m just saying we really have no idea what happened last night. We should just keep that in mind.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  No, you should refuse when you have a reason to refuse. If I haven’t drank in a week (not likely), why would I go through tons of legal wrangling just to prevent the relatively low chance of a false positive? Knowing a false positive could be followed up with a requested blood test?

                • If you get pulled over, you’re most likely getting pulled over for driving erratically. Either way, you’re going to court and you’re going to be sanctioned/punished in some way.

                  If you take the test, even if you haven’t been drinking, there’s a chance, however small, that you’re giving the police evidence to use against you. If you refuse and you’re not drunk, you in all likelihood won’t fail any other type of sobriety test and will in all likelihood be able to prove that you haven’t been drinking by your own testimony and probably the testimony of others. In addition, the evidence of your intoxication will be non-existant, since you refused the exam. Even if you take the test and prove you haven’t been drinking, you’re in trouble, it’s not like passing that test is going to get you a get out of jail free card.

                  Look, I get why you’d think “hey, if I haven’t been drinking, I’d take the test.” I just disagree, I don’t think you ever want to help the police gather evidence against you.

                  Whatever, this is way tangential to the topic at hand.

                • Just FYI and FWIW, I’m not speaking blindly on this subject. I helped a friend out with a DUI issue, and I spoke to other attorneys who were experienced with those types of matters/cases when I did so, and everyone I spoke with for background/advice… every single one of them… said it’s always advisable for the accused to refuse the breathalyzer.

                • Bob Stone says:

                  I disagree.

                  It is NOT tangential to the point. It is totally ON point. We have no sane or logical reason to presume he is guilty of some terrible trangression that demands immediate termination.

                  We just don’t know and you have supported that position well.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  Agreed, but I think the knee-jerk defense of Newman is probably more willful ignorance than justice seeking. If this were Mark Snewman, a guy who was just in a no-fault car accident that injured Phil Hughes at 11:00 PM and then refused a breathalyzer, the reaction would be completely different. The inputs wouldn’t be different, just the actors and the outputs. (I’m hoping I covered my bases in the hypothetical. Not an accident caused by Snewman, just one he was involed in where he later refused a test.) What I’m saying is, its great to defend your own, but 11:00 PM plus refusal of breathalyzer looks bad unless you really, really don’t want it to.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  And I do agree with you, Bob Stone, but isn’t the proper reaction to just sit back? To make up hypotheticals where he was just tired and thus declined a test is as bad as condemning the guy because “you know” he’s guilty. The only facts we have are “11:00 PM” and “refused test”. Which like I said, look pretty bad. That doesn’t mean I advocate firing him (now or if he is found to be guilty), but I also don’t advocate rushing blindly to his defense because of who he works for.

                • I want to be clear about something: I’m not defending Mark Newman here, and my opinion isn’t shaped by an interest in seeing him exonerated. Seriously… I don’t care if the guy’s guilty. I care in that I think drinking and driving is a horribly stupid thing to do, but I have absolutely no personal interest in seeing Newman beat this rap because he’s Newman and works for the Yankees.

                  So, I disagree with your assessment. What I’ve been saying here isn’t affected one iota by the identity of the accused, I’d be saying this about anyone arrested for suspicion of DUI who refused a breathalyzer… And I feel the implication of the opposite unfairly impugns my comments/opinions on this matter.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  Then while I still disagree with a decent portion of what you’re saying, I apologize for the bad assumption.

                • Drew says:

                  lol. If you can’t afford a great lawyer and you’re innocent you don’t refuse a breathalyzer.

                  You seriously think you should “always” refuse one? Give me a break.

                • Do you have any particular experience in this area, Drew, Esq.?

                • Drew says:

                  Well, one of my best buds got busted for a DUI, deservingly so. He made a mistake.

                  I do know, nothing says guilty like refusing a breathalyzer. You can pass the two field tests, without the breath test, you better have a damn good lawyer.

                  My main point being, if you ever have a fail safe way to absolve you from any wrongdoing you take it. To say you always refuse the breathalyzer is just silly imo.

                • Jack says:

                  Yeah but if you refuse to take a breathalyzer you will lose your license for 90 days automatically. I got pulled over and refused any type of sobriety test and spent the night in jail and lost my license for 90 days. The good news is that when i went to court all the charges were dropped because they had no evidence against me. 37 more days till I can drive again.

                • Ok all sarcasm aside, since this is a serious discussion…

                  The thing you’re missing here is that if you’re not drunk, and you refuse the breathalyzer, you’re not going to be convicted of drunk driving. If you’re not drunk the only thing they have on you is that you drove erratically, since clearly they also won’t have any field evidence of your intoxication (no alcohol on the breath, red eyes, etc.), and there’s a decent chance you’ll have further evidence (your own testimony and the testimony of anyone else who might have seen you prior to the arrest) that you were not intoxicated. In that case, if you refuse the breathalyzer, you’re going to be guilty of some sort of reckless driving charge, in all likelihood.

                  You know what you’re going to be guilty of if you take the breathalyzer and pass? That very same reckless driving charge.

                  So the only thing you do by taking the test is help the cops gather evidence against you, and take the very slightest of chances that the machine will produce a false-positive or that something else in your system will trigger something in the machine.

                  That, in a nutshell, is why I think it’s advisable to refuse the breathalyzer test. If you’re not drunk, taking that test provides no benefit to you.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  Question referring to the 11:51 post. Was your friend drinking, at all, when accused?

                • Drew says:

                  You used the term “always” in your original statement. You can be pulled over for many things. You can be pulled over for anything, broken taillight, failure to signal. Again, imo, if you are given an opportunity to prove your innocence from an accusation(which to me, a breathalyzer request is one) you take it.

                • You need to stop hanging out with Ke$ha, Jack. Stop brushin’ with Jack.

                • Not that I mind answering that question, but before I do I’ll not that the answer is totally irrelevant to what I said. The advice I received was that the accused should always refuse the test, whether they’d been drinking or not.

                  Yes, my friend had been drinking.

                • Mister Delaware says:

                  Mondesi: Your post is a major worse case assumption. I have a friend who does not drink and has been pulled over several times on suspicion simply because he is (or was back then) a shitty driver. He’s always taken the tests, always passed and has never been brought up on charges. I imagine far more often than not if you can prove that you haven’t been drinking *at all*, which is the cops thinking when you’re pulled over, you’ll be back on your way minus 15 minutes or so of worry. If you refuse the tests, you’ll be in for a massive hassle.

                  * He’s real, not a guy I’m making up to prove a point, went to Georgetown, lost part of one of his fingers to a lesser version of a Mordecai Brown accident which also gave him great (HS level) movement on his pitches

                • Jack says:

                  Could you change your name please? There’s already a commenter named Jack here.

                • Jack#2 says:


                • I should note here that I get why people think they should take the test if they are asked to and they have not been drinking. Depending on the situation, I’d think seriously about that question if it was ever posed to me. I know above I said you should always refuse the test, and I’ll take that statement back. I think it’s advisable to refuse the test, but I get why someone would want to take it.

                  But, on the other hand, keep in mind that this is not as black-and-white an issue as you may think it is. As discussed above, there are very valid, and I think reasonably persuasive, reasons to refuse to take that test.

                • MD – That’s fair enough. I’ve never known anyone who drove erratically, was pulled over, and didn’t suffer any legal consequences, and I understand why that experience would change your opinion on this matter. I do think that situation you described is relatively rare, but that’s a totally fair point. Like I just said above, I get the argument for taking the test.

                  I hope this and my comment above, stating the same thing, are enough to put this issue to bed. This conversation went way too far into hypotheticals and people opining on things they don’t know much about (myself included, I don’t intend to insult anyone by saying that).

                • Drew says:

                  Word Mondesi. Good enough for me.

                • Drew says:
                  March 10th, 2010 at 12:25 am
                  “You used the term ‘always’ in your original statement. You can be pulled over for many things. You can be pulled over for anything, broken taillight, failure to signal. Again, imo, if you are given an opportunity to prove your innocence from an accusation(which to me, a breathalyzer request is one) you take it.”

                  Here’s the thing, though, Drew… If you get pulled over for having a broken taillight, you can’t be arrested for drunk driving. Driving with a broken taillight isn’t reason to believe someone is intoxicated, so someone driving without a taillight wouldn’t even be asked to take a breathalyzer in the absence of some other reason (erratic driving, scent of alcohol, etc.). I think that type of hypothetical is irrelevant.

                • (Sorry to bring up that last point so late, I just realized I never addressed it and didn’t intend to skip over it or anything.)

                • Drew says:

                  Eh.. I wanted to end it but I need to defend my statement. If you get pulled over, it’s the officer’s discretion on what he/she does from there. I’ve been pulled over for talking on my cell and been requested to walk a straight line. If you stutter, have red eyes, etc.. they can ask you to step out of the vehicle and administer tests.

                • Sure, but, if I’m not mistaken, all of that will happen prior to a breathalyzer. First the cops will see if you show any symptoms (scent on your breath, red eyes, slurred speech, etc.), then you’ll take the field tests, then comes the breathalyzer. So, in the absence of any other incriminating evidence, you’re not even going to be asked to take a breathalyzer. My point was just that you’re not going to be pulled over for having a broken taillight, asked to take a breathalyzer for no reason, and then thrown in jail if you refuse. I think that hypothetical is just irrelevant due to lack of realism.

                  If I’m totally wrong on that, someone please correct me and I’ll gladly take that statement back. I’m certainly no expert in this area.

                • Drew says:

                  I’m no expert either. I could be wrong. I’d imagine though that a speech impediment(am I reaching!?) can be cause for a sobriety test. heh. It’s all good, reply if you want, we’ve gone on with this for too long!

                • Yeah I agree with the need to put this one to bed.

                  Speech impediment… I mean, I think you’re stretching a bit and getting into “one in a million” territory. I think the point is to analyze the more reasonably expected situation than the one rare hypothetical outlier that may prove your point.

                • THCM is 100% right on this, not according to me, but according to experts on both sides of the law.

                  Have a look:

                  Part 1

                  Part 2

                • Drew says:

                  lol ghost. Surely you don’t expect me to watch 2 hours of that shit. A lawyer explains why you should not immediately exonerate yourself from a situation? Right…

                • Thanks HolyGhostClaw, but it’s really not so black-and-white. There are different rules in different jurisdictions, I definitely oversimplified a bit here in this conversation.

                  Going back to the original point of the conversation, however, I do think the point has been served – that we don’t know what happened last night, and more specifically that his refusal to take the test might not mean what most people think it means.

              • Bob Stone says:

                The point is we don’t know.

                He might have been in such a good and sober frame of mind to know that he had a couple of drinks and was on the edge of barely failing a sobriety test (which in most states is only .08 these days – less than a drink per hour for most body masses). If that was the case he did the right thing from a personal litigation perspective.


                He could have been drunk out of his mind. He was only five miles from the office and only one mile from home. What are the chances you get picked up during a SIX mile trip?

                WE JUST DON’T KNOW.

                So we can’t judge.

        • Bob Stone says:

          “Hey, he didn’t say that.”

          I beg to differ. Just because he makes more than many doesn’t exclude him from making mistakes.

          Just saying.

      • A.D. says:

        Obviously i’ve made errors in judgment, that’s not what I’m getting at

  3. This just goes to prove that living in a basement apartment is the way to go. Being socially inept, hideous and living in a spreadsheet is actually a benefit—if not, there’s a chance one could go out, have fun and drinky-drivey. BOOM!, you’re arrested.

    Hope you’re listening…Newman!

    • Bob Stone says:


      • Mister Delaware says:

        This is the proper conclusion to be reached. Odds of me getting pulled over on my couch? 0%. Take that, cops.

        • Bob Stone says:

          I’m tired and maybe over the sobriety checkpoint limit after two drinks but I am going home from here . . . and to bed.

          Fortunately, I only have five steps to travel to my bed. The chances of a Police Sobriety Checkpoint are ridiculously low.

          Mister Delaware . . . I was not defending Newman. Rather, I was just objecting to a rush of judgement before we know the facts. I agree that 11:00pm and DUI arrest are, prima facie, disturbing at best.

          AGAIN . . .

          Let’s wait and see what the circumstances were and the case the state has against him and why he refused the sobriety test.

  4. Jammy Jammers says:


Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.