Upstreaming Alcohol Policy

This past Saturday I had a chance to see the Red Sox play at Oriole Park at Camden Yards in Baltimore.  It was quite a crowd – the 2^nd sellout of the season at 49,834.

Although it was a great experience (a stellar pitching performance by Josh Beckett at a beautiful ballpark), the evening was somewhat marred by the behavior of a group of 4 young (mid-20s) men behind us who had obviously been overserved. 

They were stumbling around by the 4^th inning. (Maybe they had been pre-gaming?  Don’t know).  At the 7^th inning “last call,” a beer vendor served them, although the group’s “spokesperson” was clearly intoxicated:  slurred speech, swaying, and difficulty coming up with the correct amount of currency.

This despite the stated policies that the vendor, ARAMARK, “reserves the right to refuse sale/service of beverages to anyone who appears to be intoxicated.”  Of course, that policy does not promise that they WILL refuse service, despite the fact that Maryland – like most states – has a statute prohibiting the furnishing of alcohol to intoxicated individuals.  These laws are notoriously underenforced, particularly in sports stadiums.  Traci Toomey and colleagues found that 74% of pseudo-intoxicated buyers in 16 sports stadiums (in 5 states) were able to purchase alcohol successfully, with such purchases 2.9 times more likely from vendors in the stands than at the concession booths.

One would expect ARAMARK, especially, to be more proactive, considering that they only recently settled a lawsuit for $25 million because a drunken driver returning from a New York Giants game in 1999 caused the permanent disabling injury of (then) 2-year-old Antonia Verni.  Antonia “is now a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic who will require significant medical care her entire life.” The driver, Daniel Lanzaro, was found to have a BAC of .266.   Testimony (later thrown out as inadmissible in a dram shop liability case) demonstrated that a “culture of intoxication” existed at Giants Stadium.

Perhaps this culture is fuelled by the ubiquitous availability of alcohol.  At Camden Yards, my brother noticed that beer vendors visited our section at least 6 times, with only 2 visits from non-alcohol vendors.  This in addition to the stadium’s “six full-service bars,” a dedicated, Bacardi-branded rum cocktail station, and wide array of beers and alcopops – not to mention the bevy of bars surrounding the stadium.

On the positive side, fans can simply send a text message to Oriole Park security if another fan is “infringing on … enjoyment of the game” (similar to the policy at Fenway Park).  Nonetheless, wouldn’t the problem be handled more efficiently and effectively upstream?  As Robin Room notes, “it is almost always easier to influence the behaviour of someone whose livelihood depends on compliance than it is to influence end-stage consumers …”