Study: Another piercing look into the obvious
Don't know about you, but I've been wondering for quite some time if it's true that a lot of people drink at sporting events. I know there are long lines for beer, because I once missed a whole quarter in the upper deck at a Ravens game waiting to buy one, but I never actually had proof that people (other than me) go back to their seats and actually drink that seven-dollar lager.
Now, I can rest easy, because there's a real study out there that proves a lot of people leave sporting events less than sober. If you want to read about it, you can take a look right here.
Disclaimer: If you've listened to me on WBAL Radio (1090AM) over the years, you know that I'm about as anti-drunk driving as you can get. If you get in your car drunk, I hope there's a checkpoint right around the corner. So, I'm not making light of drunk driving, which remains a huge public safety issue.
However, the fact that somebody actually commissioned a study to determine the extent of alcohol consumption at sporting events confirms my belief that there are a lot of people out there with too much time and money.
The study was done by asking 362 volunteers at 13 venues to take a breathalyzer test on their way out of sporting events. The results indicated a lot people had significant alcohol in their systems. The issue, of course, is whether they drove themselves home, but the study apparently didn't monitor that. Seems like a fairly important point, don't you think?
I'm not a researcher, but this "study" seems to have more holes in it than the Buffalo Bills defense. The sample was self-selecting, since sports fans had to volunteer for it, so there's no way to know if the 8 percent reported to be over the legal driving limit was a legitimate number.
There's also the small matter of objective selection. The people doing the testing chose, I presume, about 30 people at each venue. Did they just pick the people stumbling out of the arena? Did they wear blindfolds so they couldn't gauge the visible impairment of the subjects? Did they do the study in Pittsburgh?
The conclusion, of course, was that a lot of people leave sports stadiums with unsafe blood-alcohol levels, though anyone who has attended an Eagles game would tell you that 8 percent figure is probably pretty low.
Howard Cosell used ot have an expression for a conclusion like that. It's in the headline of this item.
> 
Comments
In a true scientific study, you could not draw any meaningful conclusions from a sample size of 362.
Posted by: Will | January 19, 2011 12:43 PM
who commissioned this "study"? what organization did this "study"?
and a sample size of 362 can hardly be counted as being scientific.
Posted by: brandon | January 19, 2011 1:37 PM
A sample size of 362 is perfectly fine if selected appropriately. Unfortunately this one wasn't.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 19, 2011 1:55 PM
The study was done outside of 13 baseball games and 3 football games.
I've done a study of 13 Negative Nellies and 3 Positive Petes who comment on this board. The overwhelming response was this:
How can you watch an O's game sober?
Posted by: Chris in Hawaii | January 19, 2011 2:59 PM
when im old enough to drink you can bet i will be taking a cab home.
I dont have a car yet either but Im sure once i get my high school diploma the job offers will come rollin in
Pete?
Posted by: wayne | January 19, 2011 3:19 PM
Working in the medical field, I often come across these "studies," the results of wish appear to have been taken from the latest issue of DUH magazine...you know, studies that indicate that people who are obese have a higher incidence of diabetes and heart disease than those who aren't obese. Really. You needed to commission a study to prove THAT? I think part of the reason though is that neither the legal nor medical fields will move forward on ANYTHING unless there's a definitive study to back it up. Where I come from, no doc is going to say that such and such is good for you or bad for you or whatever unless they've got a JAMA or a New England Journal of Medicine study that says it is so. Plus, there are organizations that have agendas, perhaps in this case, groups that want to stop the flow of alcohol at sporting events, and so having a study in hand that says yes, people really do get drunk at the ballpark, helps move their agenda forward. Personally, I'm not much of a drinker so if we didn't have beer at Oriole Park or Ravens stadium wouldn't mean diddly to me, i.e. you want to drink, go to a bar. You want to watch the Orioles, go to Camden Yards. But that's me. Granted I'm sure there are folks out there (hi Wayne) would would say the only way in recent years to bearably watch the Orioles would be while imbibing large amounts of alcoholic beverages, and I can't really dispute that. Hopefully this season, the need for mood-altering substances won't be nearly so dire when it comes to watching the Birds...Go O's!
Posted by: maxmorf | January 19, 2011 3:59 PM
If the sudy was done at Camden Yards when either the Red Sox or Yankees were in town I'm surprised the results were so low. Those slobbering cretins curl up in the fetal position at the hotel after a cab ride.
Posted by: Gil | January 19, 2011 4:18 PM
Why do I always get stuck sitting next to those "8%" when I go to a game?
..............................................................................................
Pete's reply: Amazing, isn't it? What are the odds?
Posted by: DCB | January 20, 2011 10:34 AM
With the high ballpark beer prices, you have to wonder why fans get drunk at games. Not to mention that the beer is so watered-down that you could spend half the game going to the washroom!
Posted by: TerryP | January 20, 2011 1:35 PM
check it out: http://www.thepostgame.com/blog/futuresport/201101/bottoms-beer-revolution-brewing
Posted by: for you, Pete | January 20, 2011 8:44 PM