nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Two die in the Ironman at Youghal

Furze99

https://www.rte.ie/news/2023/0820/1400656-cork-ironman/

This was reported this morning and RIP to the two men who died in the swim part of an Ironman competition this morning. Our sympathies to the families of these men and their friends and also to the volunteers manning the event.

Doubtless there will be serious questions to be asked of the organisers and if they arranged sufficient rescue boat coverage for a field that would spread out during the swim.

What I found very odd though, was that the event carried on with participants cycling and running. It'd be normal enough in bike racing or motor rallies etc for the event to be cancelled when there are fatalities.

Personally I don't think I could possibly just carry on as if nothing happened. Perhaps the competitors weren't aware of what had happened behind them but they could easily have been told.

Serious questions for the organisers....

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dr.Tom

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121014079#Comment_121014079

I have to agree with the comments above. There is a serious amount of a "pub talk" element to the whole aspect of training and competing in Ironman in my opinion and experiences based on being in the company of work colleagues, fellow cyclists and town folk who train for these events.

A lot of people see it as a bucket list item and train for Ironman specifically. They do nothing triathlon related in the lead up to it. Tunnel vision.

Average age of competitor globally is 44 I believe.

I have the utmost respect for all endurance athletes as there's no doubt its a serious mental challenge also.

I do not compete before anyone asks the question.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015050#Comment_121015050

is the beach a public venue?

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013927#Comment_121013927

You should have stopped after this: I always think there must be

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013922#Comment_121013922

Cost of living..

What?

Large bottle small glass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015050#Comment_121015050

That's great, but which section of the 1989 Act would you charge people in charge of race with if you were the HSA inspector?

Rebelbrowser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015051#Comment_121015051

I've never competed in a triathlon, so I'm guessing here, but I assume it was advertised as a TI sanctioned event (eg on the event website etc)? Or to put it another way, if I walked amongst the competitors at 7am last Sunday, and asked them was this a TI sanctioned event, would they have said "yes" or would they have said "that's yet to be determined"? From talking to people who do these events, I'm told it would almost certainly be the former. That then would (if Im correct) create the obligation for TI to clarify this to competitors as soon as they decided not to sanction it.

Even if Im wrong, then the problem for TI is the suggestion (which Ive seen reported and been told second hand by people) that TI staff were assisting the swim. Thats simply not consistent with saying it shouldn't go ahead - it gives the very opposite impression to competitors. Again, if they didn't assist and I have that wrong, apologies.

griffin100

Some discussion of the race on Slowtwitch (a big mainly US triathlon forum) and one post caught my eye.

One swimmer posted his strava for the swim and it took him 5 minutes per 100m to swim the 300m to the first buoy against the current, and then when he turned he swam at 1.15mins per 100m pace for the rest of the race (a very fast swim speed even in a wetsuit and with a following sea). That means that he’s a very very good swimmer and even he struggled to get to the first buoy. He talks about how strong the current was, so much so that kayaks couldn’t hold position and at least one pro athlete had to rest on a rescue boat. Once the organisers realised how storing the current was they tried to change the course mid race and that resulted in bedlam.

Also lots of talk about how at no stage did TI tell the athletes that sanction had been revoked. Given that anyone who bought a race licence from TI for a sanctioned event is also extended cover under their insurance policy you could argue that TI were duty bound to tell athletes.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015104#Comment_121015104

I'd be surprised if there was a criminal case to be answered here. Mistakes happen, people make poor judgements etc.

But there could very well be civil cases for damages, both by the families of the unfortunate men and any others who were injured or traumatised. This is where Ironman and possible Triathlon Ireland are on sticky ground. Once you receive an entry fee for an activity that you organise, then you've a duty of care to the participants. Yes it's a potentially risky sport but so are many other outdoor type activities that are organised around the country.

csirl

Firstly, I know llittle about the ironman event - Im talking in general terms.

In recent years there have been ongping issues between the Dept of Sport and a number of sports governing bodies over the sanctioning of sports events run by private companies in sports where there is the potential for injury if safety protocols are not followed.

Im aware of at least one sport where the then Assistant Secretary General in the Dept ordered that the sports body be given a dressing down for refusing to relax its safety rules for private events.

Things like safety/medical crews and other requirements cost money. Some event organisers simply dont want to spend the money. These are usually the smaller commercial operators in low profile events

The Departments view is that the ecomomic benefits outweigh the governing bodies safety concerns.

The sports body who got a dressing down told the Department that a commercial operator should be able to comply with the same safety requirements as a local Irish club made up of volunteers, but it fell on deaf ears. it wanted the events sanctioned. (It was later discovered that a private operator with a chequered safett record had lobbied the Assistant Secretary.

Dept was bluntly told its policies could result in deaths/injuries.

A construction company isnt allowed operate a building site without complying to safett requirements, but a private company running sports events is exempt. Doesnt make sense.

seanin4711

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121013262#Comment_121013262

all about the money,the main reason it went ahead,the fear of refunds.RIP

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015303#Comment_121015303

Interesting observation as it is currently anyway the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media.

That's quite a bundle of areas of responsibility and you can see potential for conflicts of interest there. With reference to above, whilst Tourism and Sport could overlap, they could also conflict.

But there's hardly a suggestion that Cork CoCo were pressurising the organisers here. Woudn't be any need, as the money was already spent by the participants etc. If anything make more sense for Cork CoCo if they had an input to call for postponement rather than have poor publicity.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015333#Comment_121015333

That is the whole sorry saga summed up in a nutshell.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015210#Comment_121015210

You're doing a lot of guessing and surmising.

Your point that TI assisting the swim is somehow not consistent with them not sanctioning the event is not valid.

What would you expect any decent person experienced enough in this field to be known and trusted as "expert" to do?

They made an expert assessment that the race should not go ahead due to safety reasons, you think they should then have abandoned the athletes and just went home knowing lives were in danger? They stayed to help as best they could in the interests of health and safety.

The facts are the National Governing Body declared the event unsafe to go ahead and the representatives of the private company that run these events to make massive profits decided not to heed the advice.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015390#Comment_121015390

What's the point in sanctioning or not sanctioning if TI staff/volunteers are going to help marshal it either way?

This seems irresponsible or murky to me, and would definitely contribute to competitor confusion IMO. If you saw TI staff/volunteers present, you would assume that it's an event TI are happy to go ahead with.

Surely the decision to sanction or not is taken before the event starts, and in the event of no sanction, TI staff/volunteers should be withdrawn? It's not like they sanction it mid way through, and staff/volunteers withdraw while people are mid-swim?

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015482#Comment_121015482

Funnily enough all your questions are answered in the post you quoted.

Rebelbrowser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015482#Comment_121015482

Exactly, what I was referring to were TI staff ushering people into the water, not rescue crews. Of course the rescue crews (no idea if they were TI or Ironman) should plough on regardless.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015514#Comment_121015514

Not really though.

You said:

They made an expert assessment that the race should not go ahead due to safety reasons, you think they should then have abandoned the athletes and just went home knowing lives were in danger?

The decision to not sanction was taken before the event started, right? How would they be abandoning athletes if they left before the event started? What lives were in danger before anyone stepped foot into the sea?

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?

Rebelbrowser

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015390#Comment_121015390

Fair comment that I am doing a fair bit of guessing. Also, wholly agree with your last para fwiw.

Large bottle small glass

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015482#Comment_121015482

"As such, federation representatives were present during the event and performed their duties. Several hours after the swim was completed, they communicated to the onsite IRONMAN Ireland officials that they would not approve the sanctioning for the event".

from here

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cork-county-council-says-ironman-has-sole-responsibility-for-management-of-youghal-event-1517770.html#:~:text=Brendan%20Wall%20and%20Ivan%20Chittenden,due%20care%2C%20skill%20and%20attention.

griffin100

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015333#Comment_121015333

Nope. IM don’t do refunds. The swim was cancelled in 2019 and when that happened we did a duathlon instead (and that happens across the world).

What might have been a bigger issue on the day (as it was in 2019) were the logistics in cancelling the swim and getting thousands of cyclists away from the start in 2’s and 3’s, which would have taken hours to organise (IM is not draft legal so can’t have a mass cycle start).

I wonder also if they were thinking about 2024. If they cancelled the swim then that would have been a cancelled swim in two of the three years it has run, and getting entrants for 2024 would have difficult.!

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015520#Comment_121015520

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?

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015562#Comment_121015562

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?

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015520#Comment_121015520

Really.

Read my original post again.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015613#Comment_121015613

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.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015628#Comment_121015628

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.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015561#Comment_121015561

Your last paragraph is about money.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015655#Comment_121015655

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.

Rows Grower

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015689#Comment_121015689

It's was always about the money.

Padre_Pio

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_triathlon_fatalities

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.

lbunnae

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121015713#Comment_121015713

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