Let's Go, Bro Jays?

How about those polite Canadian fans, eh? Viewers across Canada and the United States witnessed yet another example of boorish behaviour last night when a Rogers Centre bleacher creature threw a beer can at Orioles' LF Hyun Soo Kim as he was tracking a routine fly ball. An embarrassing but isolated incident—the actions of one drunken idiot. Right?

Wrong. I wasn't there, but here's an eyewitness account from CBC reporter Jamie Strashin, who was: "Unfortunately, it's not just one idiot. There were again numerous fights at last night's game (I witnessed two from my seat along the first-base line) and a beer can may not have been the only thing hurled from the crowd. There were reports of racial slurs lobbed at Orioles outfielders Jones, an African-American, and Kim, who hails from South Korea. CBC sports reporter Scott Regehr was at the game and says Orioles first-base coach Wayne Kirby, a heavyset black man, got a rough ride from four 20-somethings decked out in Blue Jays garb sitting near him. 'They were yelling at him to go get some more fried chicken,' Regehr says. Regehr says the same quartet that was going after Kirby almost came to blows with another group nearby. Ushers came to speak to both groups but nobody was ejected and the tension remained. 'Watching this great game became secondary,' he says. 'People were concerned about their safety and whether this fight was going [to] erupt.'"

I'll quote another section from the article because it's spot-on, and not coincidentally the main reason I rarely attend Jays' games these days: "With Jays tickets relatively affordable compared to those for Leafs and Raptors games, the Rogers Centre seems to attract a younger crowd. And it's a crowd looking to have a good time. For many, the game appears to be only a backdrop to party. In a province obsessed with liquor regulation, the Rogers Centre sometimes resembles a free-for-all. If anybody was actually cut off Tuesday night, I didn't see it. It seemed everywhere you looked, somebody was double-fisting a pair of tall cans. Beyond carding people, is anybody actually monitoring beer sales? Yes, you can only buy two at a time, but in my section alone, at least a dozen clearly intoxicated people continued to return to their seats with fresh rounds. Who knows how many cans of beer the team sold at prices ranging from $10.50 to $14? A whole lot, as the long lines for the men's bathrooms would suggest. By the seventh inning, the same uncomfortable edge felt during last year's playoffs had set in. For the most part, stadium staff and ushers appeared overwhelmed and unable to contain unruly behaviour. After last year's incident-filled playoffs, there hasn't been a noticeable increase in security or police personnel to deal with combative fans."

The solution is obvious, and you know and I know that no one will go within a million miles of it: stop selling liquor at sporting events. Let the bros who use watching the game as an excuse to drink themselves stupid do so in bars or in their own homes, where they can pelt their TV sets with beer cans and yell any base insult of their choice. If my surefire fix is unpalatable, how about at the very least (a) cutting off liquor sales earlier and enforcing that cutoff; (b) jacking up the prices to whatever level it takes to prevent public drunkenness; (c) expanding the non-alcohol sections at Rogers Centre?

In a statement on their Twitter feed, the Blue Jays apologized to the Orioles and Major League Baseball, and among other things made a vague promise that "we will also enact heightened security measures and alcohol policies that will ensure the fan experience and safety of everyone involved." Translation: someone like me will be barred from bringing a plastic water bottle into the stadium, while sales of tall cans go on unimpeded. Cheers! And let's go, Bro Jays.

St. Patrick ...

... was a saint, not a drunkard. Just saying.

Opening Salvo

For those of you who don't know, I am a smoker who doesn't drink. It's an odd combination and rather a lonely one, too. Every day I'm deluged by messages telling me, "Hey, loser, you picked the wrong addiction." The preponderance of feel-good alcohol advertisements is surpassed only by the ubiquitous no-smoking signs. Ever noticed just how many there are, everywhere? For fun, try counting them. Without going out of your way to find them, see how many turn up in the course of your day. In a typical day in Toronto I could hit a hundred by noon, easy.

Anyway: our hero is fighting back. There are still (miraculously) places in which you can't drink, but have you ever seen a sign indicating such? I haven't either, but I found one using Google image search and added my own little embellishment.

Coming soon: I'm Dry and I'm Proud, the clothing line. No, seriously. If I had the cash and knew a good designer, I'd do it tomorrow.

Ontario to "Relax" Liquor Laws

From cbc.ca:

"There's 'overwhelming' public support for Ontario to relax its liquor laws—something the provincial government will deliver this summer, said Attorney General Chris Bentley. Adults will soon have more freedom to wander around at festivals with a drink in hand under new provincial regulations, he said in an interview with The Canadian Press. No date has yet been set for their release, but the new rules should take effect in time for the summer, Bentley added. The public's chance to comment on the proposed changes ended May 1. While a few people disagreed with the idea, most supported it, he said. 'The overwhelming majority were for more flexibility,' Bentley said."

Guess who was one of the six nutters to disagree? Uh-huh. Sadly, society's attitudes toward drinking are where they were vis-à-vis smoking circa 1955: it's harmless, it's relaxing, it's stylish and everybody else is doing it, so what's your problem?

Interestingly, the article goes on to say that law enforcement officials—notably the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police—expressed concerns, "saying it could encourage underage drinking, create unsafe environments for families and logistical headaches for officers trying to enforce the law." This apparently led to the province to make some changes to their original proposal.

Read the full article here, and for the record, below is my letter to the minister.

-------------------------------------------------------

Dear Minister Bentley,

I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed "modernization" of Ontario's liquor laws. As a non-drinker, I believe the province's liquor laws are already far too lax. Every day I am deluged by alcohol advertisements and the ubiquitous presence of liquor in Ontarian society. Government outlets such as the LCBO and Beer Store sell liquor and lifestyle part and parcel, their stylish veneer a cloak of denial obscuring the truth about the world's most dangerous drug.

The preceding statement is not mere opinion; science backs me up. A recent study by the World Health Organization found alcohol to be the world's leading killer, accounting for over 4% of all deaths annually. Several months ago, a study in The Lancet found alcohol to be far and away the most dangerous drug, both in terms of harm to individuals and to society as a whole. Based on The Lancet's figures, alcohol is in fact four times more harmful than tobacco, the McGuinty government's favourite whipping boy.

I can also speak of the devastating effects of alcohol from personal experience. As an adult child of alcoholics, liquor has wreaked havoc on my life—and I am a lifelong teetotaller. I invite you to read The Problem, a summary of  liquor's impact on those who grew up in families where alcohol abuse was rampant. Needless to say, these effects persist well into adulthood.

In summary, the laws you are seeking to change are not "outdated restrictions"; they are necessary measures to prevent drinkers from further encroaching upon the well-being of those who choose not to imbibe. If you refuse to tighten Ontario's liquor laws, I urge you to at the very least leave them alone.

The Most Harmful Drug

A recent study published in the Lancet compared the harm caused by various drugs, legal and illegal, to the user and society. The results:

Adult children of alcoholics have long suspected as much based on our experience; the scientific corroboration is welcome. Expect drug czars and the like to pooh-pooh the findings, not to mention the alcohol industry and its apologists.

Still Raining at Rogers Centre

Mr. Mario Coutinho
Vice-President, Stadium Operations & Security
Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club
1 Blue Jays Way, Suite 3200
Rogers Centre
Toronto, Ontario M5V 1J1

Dear Mr. Coutinho:

I am writing to discuss your recent attempts to remedy the problem of drinking patrons frequenting the non-alcohol section (520/521).

First, I will summarize the changes that have been implemented of late, presumably in response to my letter of May 4:

• The dry area has been reduced by approximately a third, with a tarp at Row 14 acting as the dividing line between the drinking and non-drinking parts of 520/521;
• “NO ALCOHOL” is now printed on any ticket sold in Sections 520/521 (to Row 14 only);
• Approximately five inconspicuous 8½ x 11 flyers announcing the new non-drinking area (stated as “Section 520, Rows 1 to 14”—no mention at all of 521) appear in the washrooms, concourses, and once in a while, the beer cart;
• The Budweiser cart—after a brief and blessed absence of perhaps a week—has been reinstated in the concourse directly behind the section.

Predictably, these superficial remedies have done nothing to alleviate drinkers’ continued presence in the non-alcohol area. The only tangible result has been a smaller section facing the very same problem.

In my previous letter, I outlined the following contributing factors:

• Inadequate signage
• No promotion
• Improperly trained beer vendors
• The preponderance of empty seats, especially in the upper rows
• Ill-situated concourse beer stand

Of these you have addressed only the fourth, and this in a most infuriating way by lopping off a third of the section. Signage remains poor; the non-drinking section is still Rogers Centre’s best-kept secret (the “NO ALCOHOL” designation on tickets informs only those who already know); vendors continue to hawk beer to non-drinking patrons; and business remains brisk at the Bud cart below.

And the latter, I suspect, is the telltale indicator of where your priorities lie. Tell me: if the non-drinking section is such an affront to drinkers—and evidently, an utter enigma for you to administer—why are you bothering? If your recent attempts to mollify the teetotal are any indication, the non-drinking section will be whittled to nothing by season’s end.

Once again, I urge you to seriously address my concerns.

Sincerely,

Vern C. Nicholson

cc: Richard Wong, Senior Vice-President, Stadium Operations
Liquor Enforcement, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario

The Non-Alcohol Section: So Wet I Need a Raincoat

Mr. Mario Coutinho
Vice-President, Stadium Operations & Security
Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club
1 Blue Jays Way, Suite 3200
Rogers Centre
Toronto, Ontario M5V 1J1

Dear Mr. Coutinho:

I am a loyal Blue Jays fan who attends upwards of 70 games per season. A lifelong non-drinker for a variety or reasons, I choose to sit in the non-alcohol section (520/521).

I wish to draw your attention to the failure of Rogers Centre to consistently maintain Section 520/521 as an alcohol-free section, a state of affairs that hampers my enjoyment of the game.

First off, I wish to note that by and large, your ushers do a good job of enforcing the non-alcohol policy. When they happen to spot a guest consuming alcoholic beverages in the prohibited area, they politely inform the guest that the section is alcohol-free and ask them to move. Yes, most guests do comply, but I raise this point to illustrate the crux of the problem: ushers shouldn’t have to haul hordes of beer-drinking patrons out of this section night after night.

Why do drinkers flock to an ostensibly alcohol-free section? I offer several reasons:

• Inadequate signage. Unless a patron is looking for one of the modest signs adoring the passageway from the concourse to seating areas, one would never know that this section has been designated alcohol-free. There is absolutely no signage in the seating area. This paucity of signage can be rectified by: (a) painting the seats in 520/521 a different colour; (b) slapping a (large, visible) sticker on every seat in the section—perhaps a beer stein enclosed in a red circle with the words “NON-ALCOHOL SEATING AREA” would do the trick; (c) hanging a banner in the top row that spans the width of the section, with graphics/text as in (b) above (the banner would be immediately visible to patrons as they turn to go up the stairs to their seats); (d) providing larger and more plentiful signage throughout the concourse.

• Lack of awareness. A simple in-stadium announcement, together with a graphic on the video board, could be made once per game—ideally in the second or third inning—to ensure that all fans at Rogers Centre (a) know that this section (and the corresponding Level 100- and 200-areas) exists, and (b) are reminded that those who choose to sit in these sections cannot consume alcoholic beverages.

• Improperly trained beer vendors. On at least three occasions, I have seen beer vendors (a) hawking beer in the non-alcohol section and/or (b) selling beer to patrons seated in the section. Presumably, neither the vendor nor the patrons realize that the section has been designated alcohol-free. Beer vendors must be trained to (a) refrain from hawking beer in the non-alcohol section; and (b) refrain from selling beer to patrons seated therein. (Ignorance on the patron’s part is not a valid excuse.)

• This-section’s-empty-hey-let’s-sit here syndrome. I understand that—despite its prime location down the first base line—520/521 is usually the most sparsely populated section in the upper deck because the vast majority of guests prefer beer with their baseball. That’s fine, but the lure of empty seats combined with inadequate signage and utter lack of awareness (see above) ensures a steady stream of “migrants” into 520/521. As noted earlier, the ushers do their best to stem the tide; with adequate signage and increased awareness they wouldn’t have to.

• Strategically misplaced concourse beer stand. If Rogers Centre is serious about creating a non-alcohol seating area in Section 520/521, why is a Budweiser cart situated in the concourse directly behind Sections 520 and 521? Irrespective of the actual seat number printed on their tickets, patrons tend to line up, grab their beer, and head up the nearest aisle, which of course leads directly to the non-alcohol seating area.

I love watching baseball, but I can’t say I enjoy the split focus that makes up my in-game experience. I spend half my time focusing on the field and the other half playing unofficial section cop. Often the usher is busy tending to other duties, or there are too many migrating drinkers for one usher to handle.

It is my steadfast belief that implementing the simple structural changes outlined above would go a long way toward making Rogers Centre a more hospitable place for drinkers and non-drinkers alike. Though I may be the only one writing, I’m not the only regular in this section who is troubled by these ongoing infractions. As such, I urge you to give my concerns your utmost consideration.

Sincerely,


Vern C. Nicholson

cc: Richard Wong, Senior Vice-President, Stadium Operations
Liquor Enforcement, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario