“Pre-funking” is an art. Start too soon, and you’ll run out of steam by 10 p.m. Start too late, and you’ll be the awkward sober one in a crowd of gloriously happy drunks, desperate to catch up. When it comes to Oregon sporting events, booze is rightfully banned – alcohol has no place being sold at a college-sanctioned event. Consuming alcohol before a sporting event, however, is a whole other story.
Although pre-game pre-funking is primarily a student-led ritual, early morning drinking bonds fans into family, uniting every Duck demographic. What’s better than waking up at 8 a.m. to drink and eat delicious food before a noon game? What’s better than getting that pre-game firewater with a few friends before entering the majestic magnificence of Autzen? And what’s better than seeing the Ducks stomp ASU’s devil-worshipping guts out in person with almost 60,000 family members? For Duck senior David Thygeson, passing through the front gates would have been enough.
David – affectionately dubbed “T” – was denied entrance to Autzen Stadium for Saturday’s epic victory against fourth-ranked Arizona State. T is a pre-funking veteran, both in terms of consumption volume and possible legal ramifications. He arrived at the student entrance eager, optimistic, and slightly drunk for the impending Duck’s victory. But as he handed his student ticket to the authorities, a Eugene Police Department asked him to step aside for a personal search. He respectfully obliged the officer. He removed the items from his left jeans pocket, which contained his wallet and his cell phone. He then removed the items within his right pocket, which contained an empty 12-ounce flask. I repeat: The flask was empty. T had already consumed the legally purchased whiskey before entering Autzen.
Now T is also our school’s biggest Ducks football fan, and that is no exaggeration. He knows everything there is possibly to know about the program. It’s fantastic when you need some inside information on anything. The point is, he’s not the type of guy that gets bombed before football games because he actually wants to watch and remember it. So when he showed up to the gates last Saturday, he was admittedly drunk, and yes, he was carrying an empty flask. But was that enough to warrant a pre-game ejection?
A Eugene Police Department spokesperson informed me that any visible signs of overt drunkenness is enough to deny entry to a game, and that decision is made by officers on duty. Essentially, you can be denied entrance to any game even if you appear drunk and in fact are not. And we all have friends with sleepy eyes. They usually appear drunk or stoned when they are sober.
ANYWAY, the point is, decisions on levels of appropriate drunkenness are determined by varying officers’ opinions. I understand that different officers react to every situation differently. I was recently at a great Christmas party, and the police came. After no doubt smelling the waves of pot seeping from behind the front door, these officers spoke with respect and professionalism that I have never seen in police before. They had perfectly good cause to bust the homeowners on multiple violations, but instead used their discretion to determine that the party was not actually a threat.
How are these two spectrally opposite examples both determined with police discretion? If T can get ejected for an empty flask, while he watched his friends and roommates pass through, why were the hosts of a most glorious extravaganza are let off the hook? Look, I’m not really complaining at all because I was one of those hosts, but it’s confusing and frustrating knowing situations like T’s exist.
No doubt students generally have a “f— the police” attitude, because they ruin our fun. But can’t the police department make some friends if officers’ discretions are a little more streamlined across the board, like Federal Sentencing Guidelines for cops? I will never oppose an officer’s right to discretion, but consistently clear expectations of an officer’s discretion would reward both students and police.
[email protected]