Leonard - You should have challenged Jim Leyritz on his claim that he wasn't really drunk when he plowed into that other car. It takes more than a couple drinks to reach 0.14% blood alcohol. Sure, it's theoretically possible that he wasn't drunk at the time of the accident -- only later when the test was administered -- but it's extremely unlikely.

ed,so prosecutorial misconduct counts for nothing? in your world, is it okay for them to be exempt form prosecution,as they indeed are. the grand inquisition is here,and ed seems to have no problem with this,that is of course, until he or someone he cares about, gets falsely accused,tried and convicted. amazing,just bloody amazing! btw-the focus of my point goes well beyond the leyritz case. it is a much more general comment on the judicial system.

with eric on this one. every statement is crafted to try to manufacture sympathy for himself, about the accident and his kids waking up and not having him there afterward. What about the kids whose mom died because you thought it would be a good idea to do a shot and a beer right before you got behind the wheel? Even if she ran a red light and wasn't wearing a seatbelt, that's an accident you might have avoided if you were sober. Anytime someone starts talking about "the media" it means they are looking for someone else to blame. And prosecutors do try to make a name for themselves by putting people in jail, that's their job. I also can;t believe he's ripping into his ex on national radio (great for your kids) because she has "issues." Guess who else does? An amazing sense of victimhood from a guy who had everything. The Jim Leyritz I rooted for back in the 90s is gone for me now.

it is mindless to put HGH in the same category as steroids. to want to ban or regulate it in sports, can perhaps be a viable discussion. it works in almost the opposite way on the body,to steroids,and has wonderful legit medical applications[just not mainstream medicine]. it was not that long ago, that the radio had ads all over the place for HGH. we are so duplicitous about this.

there but for the grace of.......

how many of us, haven't gotten into motor vehicles with a degree of impairment. forgive me, but there has got to be a beter way of dealing with this, than sticking people in dungeons with some dangerous people. at the end of the day,people are still driving drunk. paying for the wharehousing of a soul, who made a mistake,and is not a violent crimminal, is insane.

He sounded very remorseful that someone passed away - but not about the fact that he was blamed for causing the accident when it was proven in court that he didn't. You guys are missing the entire point. THE OTHER DRIVER HIT HIM and he got pegged for all of it. As far as the DUI goes,all the experts testified that the booze wasn't in his sytem yet so those calcualtions are a mathematical fact. But is he sorry he drank alcohol and then drove? I thought so....

I didn't get a feeling for much sorrow or remorse on his part for anything he ever did. I don't think this interview did much to alter his public image of being a jerk.

I figured I'd wait til the end of the interview and hear what Jim had to say to pass judgment. And I must say, my skin is crawling. That explanation that he had a couple of drinks right before he left the bar sounds manufactured on it's face, and more so when it comes out of his mouth.

Wow... what a claim about the DUI. Nice excuses... you plead guilty to appease "the public" and weren't really drunk at the time of the accident. You took a drink and a shot but it "wasn't in your system yet." Or... you killed someone when you were driving drunk. Sounds like denial to me.

The way your guest described the accident makes me think he is still in denial about the fact that his actions caused a woman's death. He is not taking any responsibility for his actions. Sounds like a bunch of excuses.