Handwringing over new Preakness infield policy is hilarious

[Thousand Made-Up Loves]

I'll say it right now, so those who disagree with me don't have to: I'm not from Baltimore, I've never attended the infield at the Preakness in the past, and I just don't understand.

But I find all the whining and handwringing over the new Preakness infield policy hilarious. I'm actually shocked and appalled it took so long for Pimlico to institute this policy. Yeah, YouTube did it. I know. The infield was a flat-out dangerous environment, anywhere else in the country where people were hurling full cans of beer at other people would be considered a riot. Shitfaced 15 year old girls. The Gauntlet. Fights breaking out left and right.

The fact that people were allowed to bring in their own booze (with no limit on how much they could bring in) and with little control over who was drinking (i.e. young minors) really surprises me this went on for so long. This was the reason why many of the tailgate parties at my alma mater were shut down by the school, and we had probably 500 people max at those parties, nevertheless 100k in the infield. I know for many people from Baltimore, this was a tradition, and nobody likes "the man" taking away their fun.

But like so many who became accustomed to eating pills and waiving glowsticks at legitimate venues, you knew the party was too go to be true and had to end sometime.

RACK the Pimlico brass for having the balls to make such an unpopular decision for the betterment of the rest of the fans in the infield.

[sonickteam2]

But like so many who became accustomed to eating pills and waiving glowsticks at legitimate venues, you knew the party was too go to be true and had to end sometime.

i made this argument so many times its not even funny. nothing good ever ends, if its illegal

[vansmack]

I've been to many places on this planet, and none were more disgusting to me than the infield at Pimlico during the Preakness.  I too am shocked it took this long for change to come.

[mdh9857]

Well with a 30% decrease in attendance (something like 33,000) people, this doesn't look to be a good decision business wise.

[paul3mac]

It makes sense to me and its not like they totally ripped you off like they normally do at other sporting/concert venues.  Beers were $1 from 8am - 11am, then $3.50 after that.  I think after the initial backlash it could turn into at least somewhat respectful, well attended event.  Definitely makes me more interested in attending.  ...This is of course if it sticks around.

As far as profit margin... seems like 33,000 people buying beer would make more money than 109,000 people bring their own booze.  Not too mention less porta-potties, police/security required, less cleanup, etc.

[vansmack]

Let's try that again.

There were still 78,000 people in attendance, and yes, if half of them bought anything, this was a VERY good business decision.

[Herr Professor Doktor Doom]

I must say I'd never heard about this until the controversy arose.   But it sounds like what the Washington Mall used to be like on July 4 in the days before they banned open containers.

One of the things a recent Washington Post alluded to that occurred on the infield was rampant outbreaks of women exposing their boobs.   Sadly, this appears to be a diminishing tradition in our straight-laced region.