Tiger-Cats NOT responsible for drinking and driving

I had to rub my eyes to make sure I was reading a letter to the Spectator editor correctly today. The author suggests that because a new stadium would probably include much more parking, this would suggest that Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats are encouraging and/or condoning impaired driving…huh? :roll:

May I remind those, who might think this, that impaired driving is criminal behavour and is excercised by CRIMINALS.

This has nothing to do with the amount of parking spots available at a stadium for cripes sakes. People have choices to make and the Tiger-Cats can’t follow 30,000 patrons out the gates to see who climbs behind the wheel of a car and how many drinlks they have had. All they can do is refuse people who are clearly intoxicated at the point of sale.

As a public service they can also remind people over the PA system to not drink and drive…WHICH THEY DO ALREADY.

Here’s an excerpt from the letter to the editor (and the link):

“And why the need for all the parking spaces when so many attendees drink alcoholic beverages during the game? We are always hearing, “Don’t drink and drive.” Does Young intend to stop the sale of alcoholic beverages at the games? I hardly think so.”


[url=http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/814718]http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/Lettert ... cle/814718[/url] :)

This is a joke right? I should read the Spec to get a few laughs. Must be one of those WH supporters. :roll:


First of all, I am a WH supporter so please don't paint us all with one brush.

Second, that is completely ridiculous. There is a certain level of responsibility that is required when an establishment sells alcohol and from what I've seen the Ticats adhere make every effort to be responsible. They stop sales when they should. They limit the number of drinks purchased at one time etc. There isn't a whole lot more they can do.

An idiot who is going to drive drunk will do it whether they attend games or not and whether there is extra parking or not.

I'll say.

If you follow the letter-writer's "logic", then no bar or restaurant with a liquor license would have a (horrors) parking lot.

Let me see, any suburban mall is encouraging people to drink and drive if they include a restaurant that has a liquor license.

Whatever there letter writer, poor guy, looks a tad, well won't say, Spec shouldn't have published that for pete sakes. I'm sure they got a laugh out of that letter, hence why they published it. :smiley:

With the price of stadium beer these days who can afford to drink? With the price of gas these days who can afford to drive? Soon, nobody will be able to drink and/or drive. People will be riding horses.

Everyone is entittled to an opinion.
My opinion is that those with stupid opinions should keep it to themselves.
We are responsible for our actions; if you are so intellectualy challenged that you think drugs and driving can be done at the same time, an educational work term in a penitentury should be the corrective course, no excuses.

"Ok judge sir, see I paid for a parking space, and had money left for $8 beer, so obviously I had no choice. It clearly the parking lots fault."

Ok so the opinion is the worst kind of stupid, but even worst : what kind of rag would print it ?

Lol, ya cat ya beat me to it.

Keep those fermented oats from the horses too.

..............and Ralph Wilson stadium is 15 miles South of Buffalo - 75,000 fans from all over the region most driving there!!

Well, since i am a firm believer in EM. I might as well start drinking.


Following the letter writer's logic, all of the Niagara Region (Grape and Wine Festival) and the Kitchener Region (Oktoberfest) must be promoting drinking and driving :roll:

....and we all know it's simply not true

In fact, most major fundraisers for causes such as the Children's Aid Societies hand people a glass of wine as soon as they walk into the event.........they assume ( correctly ) that most people are responsible .........are they condoning impaired driving?........of course not !

So the recent rumblings I've seen printed in a few places that a new East Mountain Stadium all of a sudden equates to more drinking and driving is absolute rubbish. People who want to break the law do so no matter where they are.

So...somebody writes a letter to the Spec in which contains an absurd statement and that justifies a thread here?

With the way the team is playing you should be grateful we have some dumb schmuck to ridicule rather than the alternative of ridiculing our players

As I mentioned, aside from this particular letter, I've seen a few other places where people have equated a new east mountain stadium with a potential increase in drinking and driving.

So, I'm here to debunk theory ..... to shreds. :wink:

Pretty factual wording, actually. Refer to section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

I've always had a 2 beer limit if I'm driving, no matter what function I attend. In fact, the first time I have ever had more than that at a Ticats game was this past Father's day weekend... (I really went wild and had four (4)) :wink: ............... because my daughter did the driving that day

I'm fully aware of the wording, its just that some are quick to point fingers. Think of the glass houses scenario.

I'll not say any more.

Pretty factual wording, actually. Refer to section 253 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
I'm fully aware of the wording, its just that some are quick to point fingers. Think of the glass houses scenario.

I'll not say any more.

You must be thinking of someone else there mate........nice try though :lol:

Nevertheless, we are talking about an inference in the Spectator leveled towards Bob Young

Levelled towards Bob Young but obviously they didn't have much ammo from readers on this day to shoot Bob between the eyes if they had to pick a joke of a letter like this one. :wink:

Ok. Enough abuse!! I was bored when I wrote it. lol