Pat Bertoletti announces on his facebook page that the attempted the 72 ounce steak challenge today at The Big Texan in Amarillo, Texas and completed it in 16:01. Joey Chestnut also reportedly attempted the challenge.

October 2, 2010 at 10:59 pm by ojrifkin · More posts about:Amarillo, Big Texan, Pat Bertoletti | Permalink * Comments (12)

12 Comments »

  1. A. Nonymous said

    October 2, 2010 @ 11:15 pm

    And where are their hand slaps, or suspensions, or ????

  2. Crazy Space Cadet said

    October 3, 2010 @ 9:55 am

    People do whatever the hell they want! If the law dosen’t stop people do you think a stupid contract will?

  3. A-Bomb said (Registered May 7, 2009)

    October 3, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

    16:01? Pat wasn’t there.

  4. anonymous said

    October 3, 2010 @ 3:42 pm

    They are the top ten, nothing can ever happen to them.Its class differential big time. Itake this as open season on eating challanges with out fear of suspentions

  5. nobodys business said

    October 3, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

    Have you ever thought maybe they asked for permission and also its really nobodys busines to know.

  6. Anonymous said

    October 4, 2010 @ 6:14 am

    Different rules for different people. The IFOCE suspends only those whose absence would not be missed anyway. If it would hurt the IF financially you won’t be suspended.

  7. no one cares said

    October 4, 2010 @ 6:28 am

    Just like I said the fed treats the eaters like cattle with the prize bulls and heffers getting special treatment and the rest just get bullshyt

  8. Stallion Italian said (Registered August 27, 2010)

    October 4, 2010 @ 9:05 am

    If they are announcing it, they certainly are not hiding it. Permission granted for sure.

  9. Mega Munch said

    October 4, 2010 @ 9:27 am

    Yeah, he probably got permission. But if it’s so easy to get permission (“Hey, can I eat a large steak this weekend?”… “Sure.”), why have the rule in the first place? We all know the rule only exists to prevent restaurants from gaining valuable publicity off of the eating feats of IFOCE eaters without having to enter a contract with the IFOCE.

    Thing is, there’s only a handful of people in the IFOCE whose eating exploits would garner attention for a restaurant (the top 10 or so eaters), yet those are the people who are given permission so easily to do these challenges while the lower ranked eaters are the ones the IFOCE is so quick to punish. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but it makes no sense.

    Am I correct in my assessment of the purpose of the restaurant challenges rule? I know the IFOCE will say it’s because they’re looking out for the “safety of their eaters” but we all know that’s crap.

  10. Stallion Italian said (Registered August 27, 2010)

    October 4, 2010 @ 11:02 am

    The lines between just eating dinner, eating dinner plus as a “challenge”, garnering attention for eating and giving publicity to IFOCE are sometimes blurry. Eaters in a certain city for a contest are going to eat and get attention anyway. But if they are making money from the IFOCE, they should pay attention to their contracts. The safety of the eaters is another matter. I do not think it is crap, it is a protection for IFOCE as well, because if someone were to choke and expire, they might/would be held responsible. Do the people doing challenges have to sign something before eating saying that the restaurant is not responsible for their safety? That would be interesting to know. Every IFOCE sponsored/sanctioned contest has an EMT standing by, and they even held up one contest because the EMT was late. If an eater (high profile or not) was going to do a contest for charity, I would bet that part of the permission included the need for the presence of an EMT.

  11. Old news said

    October 4, 2010 @ 1:49 pm

    Who really cares.Its not your business.

  12. joe said

    October 4, 2010 @ 3:40 pm

    I do believe you are correct MM

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

Log in | Register | Comments by users who have not logged in will be held for approval