Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Two die in the Ironman at Youghal

1456810

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,573 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Surely, the moment TI refused to sanction the event all of their staff/volunteers are withdrawn, which would surely have prevented the event from getting underway in the first place?

    if sanctioning is just limited to whether it counts as an official event, it could have created a more dangerous situation if they'd pulled their staff? though this all hinges on the truth of the tit-for-tat who-said-what-first story.

    if TI did tell the organisers the event wasn't sanctioned, and the organisers said 'we're proceeding anyway', does it make the situation worse or better for TI to pull their staff if they thought the situation was dangerous?



  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    If sanctioning is just limited to whether or not it counts as an official event then the statement released by TI is incredibly misleading.

    TI staff/volunteers shouldn't be involved in non-TI sanctioned events, otherwise the entire sanction process is completely meaningless. If TI don't sanction, their staff/volunteers should be withdrawn, and this should be made clear to competitors. If it's not possible to this, then surely the process is pretty flawed?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower




  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I've read it.

    If TI are going to help run an event whether or not they have sanctioned it, what is the point in them sanctioning it or not?

    "We believe this event to be unsafe, and that it should not go ahead. In response to this decision, we are going to help you run this event that we believe to be unsafe, and that we believe should not go ahead".

    This seems very odd to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    What's odd is you making up a quote and not being able to understand my original post.

    I don't see any point in asking you to read it again or continuing to engage with you to be honest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,755 ✭✭✭lbunnae




  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    I understand your original post. I'm asking for clarifications on the point you're trying to make, for whatever reason you appear unable to provide them.

    Your point is centred on the idea that TI staff/volunteers had to stick around because lives were at risk. Since the decision to sanction occurs before the event starts, and before anyone steps foot in the water, this to me seems like an odd stance to me.

    Similarly, you hang your hat on the notion that the event would have went ahead whether or not TI staff were present, which again forced their hand to stay. I don't think there is any evidence that this is the case, though I am happy for you to correct me on this.

    To be clear, I am not blaming TI for this at all, IM must carry the can. But I find the behaviour of TI questionable, it seems like their processes are inherently flawed and this contributed to what must have been a lot of confusion on the day.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,461 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    this was updated recently.

    11 deaths so far this year, mostly from half Ironman, mostly from swimming. Same for previous years.

    I think IM (maybe triathalons in general) need to enforce some minimum swim standards on athletes, such as a history of recorded swim times in ocean conditions. My own thoughts are that some athletes are well aware of the risks, yet do not train appropriately for the approach.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,755 ✭✭✭lbunnae


    Makes sense, although I don't know the characters involved in the decision making , maybe there was an element of really wanting the people to be able to compete. But yeah money seems more likely hahah



  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Green TD Mark Ó Cathasaigh, who has completed two Ironman events and helped to organise triathlons, said when he was a triathlon organiser a race would not have proceeded if the race referee did not sanction it.

    Something doesn't add up.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,373 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu



    The money was already in their account and it was never going to be leaving even if they ad cancelled the entire race, so the argument isn't really there. I get most of ye have never done any IM event but they're not keen on parting with money already paid and if you do manage to get some back it will be a pittance in comparison to what you paid.

    Deferral was offered to 70.3 entrants after Sat was cancelled/rescheduled to Sunday.

    You could argue they had 2024 in mind and previous cancellations/covid hit them hard. IM have already changed the format from a 2 day to a one day event next year as uptake in the full is low in comparison to the half. It will be interesting to see how Sundays outcome of an albeit hurried one day event will sway minds. Either way next year is their last contracted race I believe, so if they somehow push ahead with it I'm sure that will be the last for Youghal possibly Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,440 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Im still interested to hear if the water safety team actually asked to cancel the swim as well as was claimed by a poster yesterday who said they were at the event. If that's true whoever overruled them needs a serious grilling.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,050 ✭✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    This word sanction is being abused to the point of being meaningless now.

    Is there a governance process somewhere stating that if TI do not "sanction" the event, the event should not take place? Is it in writing somewhere?

    It comes across as a CYA exercise by TI unless there is due process and procedure.

    Fighting over the timing of the verbal "non sanction" is futile unless there is a defined governance process and schedule for event approval/go-ahead.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,576 ✭✭✭Rows Grower


    Looks like the Gardai will become involved, as Simon Harris said, "there can only be one set of facts and some of the disagreeing about the facts is unedifying to put it mildly."

    https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2023/0823/1401201-iroman-cork/



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,625 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The article talks of investigations but the only specific reference to Gardai is below.

    It says:

    My colleague Minister Byrne has been very clear in relation to Sport Ireland now having the space and the opportunity to help try and ascertain some of those facts and I'm also very conscious that the gardaí may be preparing a file for the coroner too, so there'll be a number of processes that are underway.

    That doesn't mean as part of that they will look into establishing all the facts about the event, or just do the minimum as part of a coroner's report.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    It doesn't really make sense and as mentioned earlier on radio, a coroners hearing may not really be the vehicle to establish the ins and outs. That will just deal in the core facts. Maybe a civil case will follow and arguments made there or an official inquiry of some other nature.

    The other related odd thing, is the claim made by many here that it's not practical or even possible to halt an triathlon event like this, once it's in progress. I can understand why you might not want to suspend the race. But surely there has to be some mechanism for this to happen, if needs be? Otherwise I don't see how they can be sanctioned by the public authorities.



  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    It wasn't in progress though, right? The sanction / non-sanction happens before it starts.

    Understandably, the sanction has to happen fairly late as they need to assess current conditions and safety setups. However, surely there has to be a mechanism by which competitors can be informed if the sanction fails.

    If they cannot inform competitors of a refusal to sanction in a timely fashion, so that people know they have no insurance etc, before the event starts and anyone steps foot in the sea, then the process is just broken.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,755 ✭✭✭lbunnae


    The argument is there. More frequent cancellations equals less future competitors.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,373 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu


    I assume you don't know the draw IM events have so.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,440 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Well thats what TI are saying but the organisers are today claiming that they werent told about the not sanctioning until it had all finished..... somebody is lying



  • Administrators Posts: 54,304 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    But similarly, competitors are saying they had no idea it wasn't sanctioned.

    The competitors pay money to TI for insurance, right? I believe they become one-day members of TI to take part in a TI sanctioned race.

    Do TI themselves not have an obligation to inform the people who paid them money that they are refusing to sanction?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,755 ✭✭✭lbunnae




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,373 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu


    No denying the system is broken or was it ever right in the first place is the real question.

    A governing body without any meaningful overall say is basically all bark and no bite.

    I'd imagine the majority of entrants weren't even aware of what TI sanctioning meant before this IM event. they probably would've been none the wiser if told on the morning also but at least they would've been informed.

    Everyone that entered the water Sunday did so of their own choice that is on each individual. The break down in water safety is the major issue, Metalman swim was cancelled this year as the current was so strong the current was dragging the turn buoys under. One person might say they should've just had bigger buoys another would realise the current was too strong for the majority of swimmers so better to cancel. 🤷‍♂️

    I'm not sure the blame game is useful. I think now it's a matter of learning from the mistakes and making water safety paramount and the the individual or organisation should be separate from the race director/organisers.

    I still firmly believe there should be a strict qualifying criteria for these races.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭Large bottle small glass


    This is a money racket like the commercial ascents of Everest.

    Once "experienced sea swimmer standard" is introduced watch numbers fall off a climb as most won't give it the time.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,440 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Indeed, personally I would say its should be up to the organisers but thats just me and ive no experience wiuth these events so not completely familiar with the relationship between the competitors, organisers and TI, there's surely a process for this that is in place as I doubt this is the first time its happened. But if there isn't an official process then that's just another problem and why we are seeing the finger pointing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,373 ✭✭✭iwillhtfu


    The swim distances aren't that colossal and imo it would be no harm to put an emphasis on swim training. People will still want to tick the box and also you can be sure where there are rules there will be guys with a work around. At least it would be seen as being proactive and they could be as simple as organised training days with your tri club.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,714 ✭✭✭✭fits


    They still shouldn’t send people into seas like that though. It was difficult to navigate the safety kayaks safely never mind watch swimmers at the same time.


    A touch of victim blaming going on here.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13 Paidin Mhaire


    Slightly unrelated but where an Ironman event like Youghal takes place, considering the number of participants and entrants fees paid we can take it over 1M euro is grossed for the event(s). Am I to understand that volunteers on the day are unpaid, including those in rescue services, in rescue kayaks etc. ?

    Perhaps someone can confirm, thanks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,353 ✭✭✭radiospan


    Main headline on Irish Times now is that they had to sign a waiver.



    Aren't these "waivers" normal for these kinds of events?

    I'm sure I've signed those for mountain runs, half-marathons, maybe even shorter distances. Hardly headline worthy is it?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭JMcL


    I'd imagine the majority of entrants weren't even aware of what TI sanctioning meant before this IM event. they probably would've been none the wiser if told on the morning also but at least they would've been informed.

    Several days after it's not at all clear from the Reservoir Dogs-like standoffs on all sides what TI "sanctioning" means. If it's only in the context of recognising the competition as counting toward TI leaderboards or qualifying for something (I freely admit I've no idea about this) and the ultimate authority lies with IM as CCC imply, then it's largely irrelevant to any argument other than "I told ye, but would ye listen?". If they were charged with assessing safety on the day, then that should have been signed off before anybody put a tow in the water - not denied several hours afterwards when the tragedy has become clear. It's also serious if their refusing sanction invalidates competitors event license/insurance.

    As regards the volunteers for marshalling, if they're volunteering, they're volunteering and TI can't really say "Right, down tools, we're out". Besides I'd imagine anyone who HAD volunteered wouldn't countenance abandoning swimmers in those conditions.

    I suspect that this is going to run for a while and will need a fairly serious investigation (not just the coroner who will only be concerned with the tragic fatalities) to get to the bottom of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 209 ✭✭thehairygrape


    Don’t know about kayaks, emergency services etc but volunteering for IM is quite common. Handing out gels, putting medals on athletes, loads of different things. I suppose a paid volunteer is a bit of an oxymoron, so no, don’t get paid afaik. People do it for many reasons: club members helping out their club mates, the sense of community, the buzz. It’s not unique to IM. Lots of commercially run races depend on volunteers. All I can say is that I’m always grateful for their help and input.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 637 ✭✭✭csirl


    Were TI staff/volinteers nvolved in tbe event or were they just observing?

    It would be normal for a National Governing Body to send observers to monitor an unsanctioned event and report back on what happened.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 118 ✭✭jnk883


    Clubs did get money towards volunteering. If you were a group you get assigned out and the club get paid (water stations, transition, check in / out etc). Another way for fundraising. This is not restricted to Tri clubs. Its paid by Ironman. Not huge money but enough to get a club involved.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭spc78


    Seems to be a huge amount of discussion & comment around the conditions of the swim start and up to rounding (or not rounding) the first buoy. However, from various comments it would appear one swimmer and almost completed the swim (so was well clear of that section) and the other swimmer could also be seen from his Strava GPS track to have well cleared that section also. Most likely cause of swim death in a triathlon is cardiac event rather than drowning from rough conditions and that's what it looks like here too. Coroner's report will obviously tell. While waivers were signed, the organizers have a duty to have sufficient rescue plans in place regardless of waiver - the waiver covers them for the cardiac event it does not cover them for e.g not being able to rescue a swimmer in distress due to not enough boats/kayaks



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,019 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    We should stop blaming orginisations / events when people voluntarily participate in an event and get hurt because they can't handle the circumstances. It's their own risk. I did an Olympic triathlon (about a quarter of an Iron Man) once, when I was a teenager and very fit. Most participants were middle aged men who were not good swimmers.

    And let's be clear here: an Iron Man is by definition a very high risk activity. The human body was not made for this (look up where the name Marathon came from). Most participants will be fine, but there will always be a high risk of death. Some would call it accidental, others would call it entirely self-inflicted.

    I watched all the videos on the start of this swim and, although not ideal because the large number of people starting at almost the same time, I have done swimming and windsurfing in much worse conditions. I would have had no problem with that, but of course an inexperienced open water swimmer could get into difficulty. If they weren't confident in the first few meters, they could have and should have safely returned to shore.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    Sure why have safety people at all, sure its pointless

    the greek marathon story is just that, a story, the human body is made for this



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,714 ✭✭✭✭fits


    All the people who say they have swum in worse conditions. ARE YOU INSANE???



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,019 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    Like I said, most trained Iron Men can handle it, but there is a strong chance participants will die. See the statistics that several people posted on this thread.

    I never said it was pointless to have safety people. Accidents happen and safety should be in place in any organised race.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 637 ✭✭✭csirl


    While not familiar with Triathlon, I have some experience of the sanctioning process in another sport. I assume most sports are similar. Generally speaking sanctioning is all about compliance with the minimum H&S standards for the sport..It generally has nothing to do with being part of the Governing Bodies own schedule of events, standings etc. Essentially going thru the 'checklist' of what needs to be in place for the event to safely take place. Applications would normally be made in advance and approved in advance subject to compliance on the day. For example, in the sport I was involved in there is a requirement for a paramedic crew/ambulance to be present. Organisers would be told that if e.g. the crew were not present, the sanction is automatically invalid. The reality is that an organiser may agree to do X,Y, Z in advance, but until the day of the event, you dont really know if they will.

    The big problem is that there is a huge inbalance in power between the National Governing Body and these private organisers. They seem to have a direct line to the Dept of Tourism & Sport and will frequently complain about Governing Bodies. The Dept ALWAYS backs the organiser citing tourism/economics etc. The Dept is also quick to threaten Governing Bodies with withdrawing funds e.g. Sporrs Capital and Sport Ireland NGB grants if sanction is not given.

    I nentionec earlier in this thread that a Govetning Body got a dressing down for refusing to sanction an event that didnt have safety up to scratch. This was an event involving c.50 people run by a part time sole trader - not something you'd think would get such a response from high ranking government officials.

    Two other things I came across in my time:

    1. Private operator was refusing to put in place some safety requirements (as they cost money)........The Dept made the Governing Body arrange and pay for them out of its own funds - threatening withdrawal of grants. So essentially fees collected from members including kids were diverted to this private event.

    2. Private opetator failing sanctiion process and decides to cut losses and withdraw from the event even though people from overseas had arranged travel/,hotel etc. Dept made the Governing Body run a replacement event at its own cost because of "the embarrasment to Ireland if people who paid money to come to Ireland didnt get their event.

    In each of the above no additional funding was given to the Governing Body.

    There is also the conflict of interest in that local authorities and the tourism bodies sometimes "sponsor" (i.e. grant aid) these events. They NEVER check with the Governing Body re sanctioning requirements.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    there are full and half going on at the same time, the swim had been shortened to a half IM distance, hardly extreme, other than the conditions making it so

    The whole point of what has been said on this thread is that they couldn't provide safety in those conditions, you seem to have missed that

    so we should blame the event organizers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,625 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    You seem to base this on what "most trained Iron men" can handle. But someone has to make that assessment, unless you are arguing for a free for all?

    They cancelled it on Saturday. By your argument, they could have gone ahead with it regardless of consequences, everything would still have been 'at own risk'. Or what basis would you argue Saturday should have been cancelled?

    So there appears to be a line drawn somewhere? The question is whether, if Saturday was unsafe, Sunday was too.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,714 ✭✭✭✭fits


    The picture posted by the organisers on the morning of the event announcing the change in course- the sea looked ok. A bit of a swell but fine. I wonder did conditions worsen over the course of the morning.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,353 ✭✭✭radiospan


    I would not say that they had both cleared that section from what I heard about the Strava GPS. The one I heard about looked like he had not cleared the first buoy when he got into trouble. There's a lot of information there about how long he was in the water etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66,019 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    @odyssey06 - "You seem to base this on what "most trained Iron men" can handle. But someone has to make that assessment, unless you are arguing for a free for all?"

    Every participant should make that assessment, if they didn't feel safe on Sunday, they shouldn't have started. No organisation can ever guarantee the safety of all participants in an Iron Man event swim in an ocean. And unless it turns out they had not taken adequate safety measures as are the norm in such event, they should not be blamed for anything.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,625 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Well that's the key point for me: "And unless it turns out they had not taken adequate safety measures as are the norm in such event."

    So you accept there is an onus on the organisers to take adequate safety measures.

    Yes, the participants should make their own assessment, but if the organisers give the impression it is 'safe' then that will sway \ factor into the individual assessment.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,503 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    The fact they shortened the swim proves that even the people in charge, with the most to lose by cancelling the event knee the sea was not suitable for the event.

    Of course there's personal responsibility at play but that's neither here nor there really.

    If I pay money and attend a badly run gig/festival/sporting event where my personal safety is put at risk you can be damn sure the organisers will take the brunt of the responsibility. This is no different.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 122 ✭✭spc78


    I've seen the strava track - it looks pretty clear from stroke rate recorded that he got over 1000 yards and was well out of that area



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    It's fairly clear they could not put those safety measures in place from the video evidence, evidence from spectators and those who took part and the TI statement

    And the resultant deaths





  • Not a HSA Inspector, so I’ll leave that to a HSA inspector



  • Advertisement
Advertisement