NBA star Tony Parker to sue the W.i.P club in New York for $20 million after bottle-smashing brawl left him with a risky eye injury.

by Laurent Berstecher

San Antonio Spurs’ Tony Parker may not be able to lead the French basketball team in London for the 2012 Summer Olympics on account of of an eye injury. Parker was hit in the eye by a piece of glass during a brawl between rappers Drake and Chris Brown’s entourages at the W.i.P nightclub in SoHo earlier this month.

Parker, who initially declared he was fine after the incident, recently revealed that he had to go through extensive surgery to remove a shard of glass that had penetrated 99% of his left eye. “I almost lost my eye,” said Parker, who is currently confined to his hotel room to prevent infections. Parker will have to wait until July 5th to go see a specialist in NYC, who will determine whether he is fit to play in the London Olympics. In the meantime, ‘TP’ has joined the rest of the French squad in Pau, but has yet to start training. London looks uncertain for Parker, who is already forfeit for France’s next four preparation games. However, the injury still appears to be relatively benign, and does not pose a threat to Parker’s career with the San Antonio Spurs.

Tony Parker may have avoided the worse, but it was a close call. Too close perhaps, as TP has decided to sue the W.i.P nightclub for $20 million. The lawsuit was filed on Thursday in Manhattan’s State Supreme Court. The club is accused of being negligent, as they let the two rappers inside despite their conflictual history, and continued serving them alcohol even after both parties were “clearly intoxicated.” W.i.P was also suspected of being understaffed that night, which made it harder to control the situation. Parker’s lawyer said they were waiting for the police investigation to determine whether Drake and Brown should be added as defendants.

According to TMZ, the club responded to the allegations, saying that Drake and Brown were let in because they were not particularly known to be prone to violence. In addition, W.i.P claims to have been adequately staffed, as 15 security guards were present that night. Basically, not their fault.

Tony Parker did certainly risk a major career upset in this incident, one that could have cost him a lot more than $20 million. However, it seems that, by suing the club for negligence, Parker and his lawyer are simply looking for a scapegoat. Can a club really be held accountable for the behavior of its customers? Shouldn’t the person who actually injured Parker be charged instead?

Perhaps the most convincing accusation is that organizers continued selling large quantities of alcohol to both Drake and Brown’s entourages, even though they visibly had enough. But really, imagine that you own a nightclub. When you sell a bottle for $500 net profit, it’s hard to stop. You might even be tempted to say “go ahead and break it’ I’ll bring you a new one” (evil genius smirk, rotating chair and cat-petting included.) Even more so if the clients are famous. If you cut them off, you’ll soon find yourself boycotted by all those slightly alcoholic celebs who don’t appreciate being told when they’ve had enough.

In the end, there is one question that really jumps out of all this: If there really was bad blood between the rappers, if everybody knew about it and it was public knowledge, if the two should have been denied entry and open bar, if they were wasted, if the situation was bound to escalate, and if he had the Olympics in a few weeks… Why the hell didn’t TP just go to another nightclub?

What started like another celebrity evening at the W.I.P degenerated into a full-blown bottle fight after an argument was sparked between rappers Drake and Chris Brown. Fans may already be familiar with the two star’s ongoing rivalry over the singer Rihanna, which led up to a twitter war last month. Thursday’s fight allegedly started after the two rappers and their respective entourages exchanged a series of provocations. Meek Mill, who was part of Drake’s entourage, was reportedly the first to throw a bottle, to which the other side obviously responded with… more bottles.

The fight left five people injured, including Chris Brown, NBA player Tony Parker, as well as a 24-year-old Australian tourist who was hit in the head by Dom Perignon collateral dammage. The club has since been shut down by the NYPD, who is currently investigating the events.

On Friday, Council Speaker Christine Quinn issued an official statement in which she called for an emergency meeting with her office, the NYPD and the Nightlife Association to discuss current regulations surrounding bottle service. It has been suggested that the council will consider passing a law making bottle service illegal in New York City.

While this project has been criticized by many as another instance of government over-extension, another, perhaps more pressing question shines through: Would the elimination of bottle service actually make New York clubs safer?

Let us examine the argument here. At first glance, it seems that the city’s main quarrel with bottle service is that said bottles may end up being used as weapons. Senator Tom Duane made it clear that the age of using broken bottles as means of persuasion is over in America: “This is not the Wild West […] Bar fights, bottles being used, they are not permitted.”

Ok, so the city doesn’t want people hurling bottles at each other when they go out clubbing. Point taken. Clearly Brown and Drake’s posses were not aware of that fact. But is banning the bottle really the best solution? Following this logic, shouldn’t we be banning any item that could potentially be used as a weapon?

We have all seen Prison Break, or Oz, or if you live in a cave, The Shawshank Redemption at least. We all know how easy it is to kill someone with a toothbrush. Well, maybe they make it seem easier than it actually is, but you get the point. With a little help from Bath Salts, even your teeth can become a deadly weapon, as proven by Miami’s new zombie mascot. Are we heading towards a general tooth ban? It would certainly make it much easier to outlaw toothbrushes in the process. But I think that we can all agree: probably not the best policy decision.

So, why bottles you ask? Well, there seems to be more to the story than simply using them as weapons. You see, not only can you smash a bottle on someone’s face (if there are no famous rappers around, an Australian tourist will do), but you can also drink what it contains. Before you smash it that is. However, drinking the precious liquor in the bottle may make you a lot more likely to end up smashing it. On someone’s face. Hence the dilemma.

Then again, this dilemma seems like a forced one. Supposing that booze is actually capable of turning a perfectly civilized gentleman into a blood-crazed bar brawler (and it is), there is to date no research proving that this undesirable side-effect is influenced by the container. Whether served in a bottle, or a glass, or a plastic cup, the end result is pretty much the same: people get drunk. And when they’re drunk, they break stuff. On other people’s faces. Ok, ok, you get it.

I am surprised that nobody has considered forcing club owners to tape bubble-wrap around their Grey Goose. Think about it. Not only would this be a cheap, rapper-friendly alternative to a ban on bottle service, but who doesn’t love bubble-wrap? Mr. Bloombeg, if you are reading this…

by Laurent Berstecher