FanDuel - WFBC

December 20, 2005

No suds in the Meadowlands: . Jets spokesman Ron Colangelo announced that next Monday night's game against the New England Patriots will be alcohol-free, "for the safety of our fans".

posted by lil_brown_bat to football at 03:51 PM - 25 comments

I sense that it's not the fans whose safety they're concerned for. That said, I don't see much unrest at Giants Stadium, regardless of if people are tanked or not. Unlike, oh, say, Lions fans, I sense that Jets fans are resigned to writing off this season already, and while I'm pulling for the Jets to lose out and get either Vince Young or Matt Leinart (I don't believe Chad is ever going to come all the way back from that shoulder surgery), I don't sense people are blaming Herman Edwards or the head office for the major injury bug that's been all over Gang Green this year. It's gonna be cold. Let the poor folks drink. The Jets have been a difficult team to root for this year, eh?

posted by chicobangs at 04:57 PM on December 20

TAKING YOUR WILD BOAR TO GIANTS STADIUM.

posted by drjimmy11 at 05:04 PM on December 20

Another interesting fun fact: the ban will not be in effect for the Jets' final game against the Bills.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:05 PM on December 20

what no drunk santa at the stadium this year

posted by freak at 05:42 PM on December 20

the ban will not be in effect for the Jets' final game against the Bills. Simply because they don't anticipate anybody showing up.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:49 PM on December 20

Do they think they can get Reggie Bush by setting an all-time attendance low? Immediately post-Xmas, in the cold, on a Monday night, for a shitty team and no beer. "Hey pal, remember how you're always bugging me for my season tickets . . . "

posted by yerfatma at 06:00 PM on December 20

Dude I think thats cool.

posted by bbcfootball at 06:26 PM on December 20

I am like my grandma and i think thats tight.

posted by bbcfootball at 06:30 PM on December 20

Hey Yerfatma are you still on dawg?

posted by bbcfootball at 06:32 PM on December 20

I say if the fans cannot control themselves, then take the beer away. A football game is supposed to be fun, not a place where you have to worry about some drunk jerk-off throwing a beer bottle and hitting your kid with it.

posted by mcstan13 at 06:46 PM on December 20

Worried about drunk jerks throwing beers at your kid? Have a beer, it takes the edge off.

posted by cl at 07:40 PM on December 20

testing

posted by kirkaracha at 08:17 PM on December 20

They fail to metion that the fan left the stadium and went to two other bars before getting in the car accident.... the vendor can't monitor 70,000 people... love the US court system

posted by Goaliedad at 10:04 PM on December 20

Isn't watching the Jets play without an alcohol fueled stupor "cruel and unusual punishment"?

posted by skydivedad at 10:13 PM on December 20

Goaliedad, I believe in most US jurisdictions, a bartender is responsible for making a judgment based on the condition of who he/she serves. No one's asked to "monitor 70,000 people"; you just have to make the call one beer at a time.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:11 PM on December 20

They fail to metion that the fan left the stadium and went to two other bars before getting in the car accident.... the vendor can't monitor 70,000 people... love the US court system And, going back in time (and to the links in the comments there), I can go back and see why that is exactly: The evidence in the case against Aramark showed the driver had consumed the equivalent of 16 12-ounce beers, mostly at Giants Stadium in the Hackensack Meadlowlands Evidence presented during the four-week trial by plaintiffs lawyer David Mazie showed that Aramark vendors repeatedly violated rules against selling more than two beers to a single patron at a time. There were few instances, in what Mazie called "the culture of intoxication" at the stadium, in which drunken patrons were stopped from ordering more drinks, the plaintiffs' evidence showed. "The name of the game was to sell as much beer as possible," he says. Lanzaro, who settled for his policy limits of $100,000 and is serving a five-year sentence for vehicular assault, testified for the plaintiff that he was served at the game while visibly drunk. Friends and relatives supported his testimony. At the time of the accident, he had a blood alcohol concentration of about .266, twice the legal limit at the time and three times the limit under current law. [Counsel for Aramark said] Judge Richard Donohue erred by not allowing the jury to consider liability against a club, which Lanzaro visited after the game and where employees poured drinks that Lanzaro and his friends had brought in. The club was dismissed from the case and the judge left it off the verdict sheet on grounds that it was not a dram shop and therefore not reasonably liable. So, it sounds like he went in to one other place (not two), brought in his own booze, and therefore was not served booze by the establishment. Also, the majority of the alcohol was consumed at the stadium and the guy, if I remeber correctly, tipped the vendor to give him six beers at a time, rather than what he was supposed to sell at once. Sounds like the legal system worked just fine to me.

posted by chris2sy at 02:34 AM on December 21

No suds in Jersey? Springsteen would roll over in his grave if he found out. Yes, I know.......but his music died long ago.

posted by sandman at 05:16 AM on December 21

lil_brown_bat, I took the liberty of correcting that link "Jets' final game against the Bills" for you...you're welcome.

posted by alumshubby at 06:50 AM on December 21

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm reading this right, the Jets are banning alcohol from exactly one game. Is this merely because it's a Monday night game -- presumably with national exposure on television -- as opposed to Sunday afternoon? I'm really failing to understand this as anything other than the crassest kind of window dressing.

posted by alumshubby at 06:58 AM on December 21

Just another example of the Man taking away our rights and freedoms.... Wow, my knee jerked so hard it broke my nose.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:11 AM on December 21

whats the over/under on attendance monday night?? ill take the under.

posted by patsdynasty at 08:29 AM on December 21

So friends and family were there at the game with him, and he himself asked and "tipped" for more than two beers at a time. I understand what the vendor did was wrong, but this guy should not get any sort of settlement from the stadium at all. If he wants money for being stupid, sue his friends and family that were there and then let him drive. This is just another case of someone not taking responsiblity for their own actions and sueing somebody else for their own stupidity. I hope that someone in jail with him provokes him into a fight and sues him for what he just settled for. Now that would be justice.

posted by grabofsky74 at 08:54 AM on December 21

Is this merely because it's a Monday night game Kind of. They had a mess at the last night game.

posted by yerfatma at 09:09 AM on December 21

I understand what the vendor did was wrong, but this guy should not get any sort of settlement from the stadium at all. If he wants money for being stupid, sue his friends and family that were there and then let him drive. This is just another case of someone not taking responsiblity for their own actions and sueing somebody else for their own stupidity. He didn't sue anybody that I am aware of, quickdraw. The girl whose car he crashed into sued Aramark and him as joint tortfeasors and got a 50-50 verdict. The girl he paralyzed is an innocent party and she is the one who (via her parents) sued the drunk driver and the beer vendor.

posted by chris2sy at 02:07 PM on December 21

I appoligize wholeheartedly. I was told that he had sued. It is something that happens far too often. A drunk driver sues an establishment for his own stupidity. Do I think what the vendor did was wrong, yes. Should the vendor who actually sold him the alcohol be responsible, yes. I just think that 5 years is not nearly enough of a sentence for what he has done. I worked in a correctional instituion for 7 years and know first hand how now a days these jails and prisons are more of a country club then a punishment. Fine give him 5 years, but also make him work with paralyzed individuals as part of his probation after release. That might be the only way he can come to grips with how stupid he was/is.

posted by grabofsky74 at 02:34 PM on December 21

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.