"No sports mistake is supposed to be fatal"

On Feb 15, 2:52*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
What do people do these days?


barriers. if that's not possible I'd narrow the road somehow to keep
the racers away from the edge of the road.

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Bob: Something got lost in the translation. I was talking about the
fact that races are safer because you have pre-screened who's in each
event. You don't have less-experienced cat-4 guys mixing it up with
your cat-1s. And while they generally ride the same course, they're
not riding the same distances. The skiing federation has taken that
thinking to the Olympics, where you can't compete, even if you're the
best in your country, if you're not competitive on a world stage.

No, nothing got lost in the translation. None of the things
you mention, none of them, matter in the insurer's risk
assessment. They don't care.

But I never brought up anything about insurance. I don't know why you're
bringing that point up with me. You could say that I don't care that
they don't care.

Mike, you responded to a post on risk assessment in cycling
that referenced an interaction with the representative of
an insurer. You expressed an opinion that both I and the
major cycling event insurer disagrees with.

Except that you're wrong.

And here you respond in the future tense to something that
I am stating in the present tense. Yes, if the **** hits
the fan things will be different. But no matter, today I
can still cover the risks of a cycling event with an
insurer and today they do not care about any of the things
you claim they care about. Today. Now.

I haven't run an event under USAC rules in years. I'm
telling you, they are completely, totally, utterly
irrelevant to the risk that the people that are professionals
at such things assign to the event. Today.

Yes, if I bring a gun to an event and start picking off
yellow line violators I might have difficulty permitting a
future event. As if I needed a permit.

But that wouldn't change what is available to me today.

The insurance companies would care very much if you ran races that were
too dangerous, and the cycling federation has set up rules and
requirements to try and keep things reasonably safe. There are
*expectations* that you will run a safe event, and if you fail in those
expectations, you'll likely not get a permit for your event next time.
Because a series of unsafe events, leading to injury claims, is going to
scare away the insurance companies. So there is, in fact, an
almost-direct linkage between insurance and holding an event that's
relatively safe. The insurance companies would certainly care if you had
a mixed-class event in which people were getting tangled up because
competitors were in an event beyond their skill level.

I can run a bike race in the US ignoring all the stuff you
talk about. I can insure that event without going through
USAC, and I can get the same terms that USAC would give me
or better. The risk management people think the stuff you
are talking about is irrelevant.

They wouldn't if there were too many claims. You are already doing
things to reduce that likelihood. If you did not, if claims increased in
general, you wouldn't be able to get affordable insurance (if at all).

And I think it's irrelevant too. Some of the most dangerous
and most crash prone riders I know are very highly skilled
Cat 1s.

That is relevant, and probably goes to an increased willingness to take
greater risks in exchange for a podium placing at the higher levels of
any sort of competition.

By the way, none of this is new to me. My father put together and ran
the Redwood City Criterium for a number of years, a race famous/infamous
for its every-other-lap beer prime. We had Coors as a sponsor, and it
was amazing what guys would do for a case of beer. These days, not so
sure that would be very PC. But it sure made for spirited racing,
surprisingly more so than primes for cash that would have been greater
than the value of the case of beer. Go figure.

More on-subject, we had to deal with a whole lot of parking meters, and
figure out which ones required hay bales and which ones would be OK.
And, of course, on a long straightaway, someone somehow managed to find
one that had no hay bale and got nailed pretty good. Came out OK in the
end (broken bones which healed). Should every single one of possibly
hundreds of parking meters been protected? We took care of any parking
meters in and near corners, as well as the finishing stretch. What do
people do these days?

Bob Schwartz

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

On Feb 16, 10:11*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 15, 10:44*am, Michael Press wrote:



In article
,

*DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:22*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"One thing I know for sure is that no sports mistake is supposed to lead to
a death. No sports mistake is supposed to be fatal," President Mikheil
Saakashvili told reporters Saturday.

As tragic as the death of the luger was, and as seemingly-obvious the
dangers of that track were, it's still hard to believe someone making that
statement, and have it embraced by so many others.

I understand that statement to be a response to the bizarre
implication from some official sources that the competitor was at
fault or somehow not up to the task of competing. But even the
defending gold medalist crashed. Yes, the fatal crash was unusual,
maybe not foreseeable.

I expect any luge guy will tell you not to steer into the
inside of a turn; and so it is foreseeable.

I would think a broad application of "**** happens" and/or Murphy's
law should dictate how safety precautions would be implemented - i.e.
take every precaution possible.
It would not seem that the racer was unqualified.http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-feat...9540.html#luge...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/353691...lympic_sports/
"But the International Luge Federation and Vancouver Olympic officials
said their investigation showed that the crash was the result of human
error and that 'there was no indication that the accident was caused
by deficiencies in the track.' '

My take on it - *Crash no. Injury yes.
DR

I feel a lawsuit coming on

On Feb 15, 4:13*pm, Henry wrote:
On Feb 16, 10:11*am, DirtRoadie wrote:





On Feb 15, 10:44*am, Michael Press wrote:

In article
,

*DirtRoadie wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:22*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"One thing I know for sure is that no sports mistake is supposed to lead to
a death. No sports mistake is supposed to be fatal," President Mikheil
Saakashvili told reporters Saturday.

As tragic as the death of the luger was, and as seemingly-obvious the
dangers of that track were, it's still hard to believe someone making that
statement, and have it embraced by so many others.

I understand that statement to be a response to the bizarre
implication from some official sources that the competitor was at
fault or somehow not up to the task of competing. But even the
defending gold medalist crashed. Yes, the fatal crash was unusual,
maybe not foreseeable.

I expect any luge guy will tell you not to steer into the
inside of a turn; and so it is foreseeable.

I would think a broad application of "**** happens" and/or Murphy's
law should dictate how safety precautions would be implemented - i.e.
take every precaution possible.
It would not seem that the racer was unqualified.http://www.nbcolympics..com/news-fea...9540.html#luge...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/353691...lympic_sports/
"But the International Luge Federation and Vancouver Olympic officials
said their investigation showed that the crash was the result of human
error and that 'there was no indication that the accident was caused
by deficiencies in the track.' '

My take on it - *Crash no. Injury yes.
DR

I feel a lawsuit coming on

That would not seem to be out of the question, although that makes me
wonder what sort of waivers, if any, are signed by Olympic athletes.
Or, for that matter, any athlete competing in an elite level
international sport with some inherent risk. Anybody know?

DR

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
: In article ,
: Bob Schwartz wrote:
:
: Ryan Cousineau wrote:
: I saw the video. The implication is that they never expected a racer
to
: leave the course there, which is possibly fair. It was super-late: he
: was actually past the last corner, but had such a drawn-out
corner-exit
: incident that he ended up riding up a (fairly tall) wall and popped
out
: of the chute.
:
: Seriously? No one would expect someone to come off the
: course at the bottom when speeds are highest? Over the
: lifetime of the facility, which will host competitions
: where Olympic level skills are the exception rather
: than the rule?
:
: Seriously?
:
: Bob Schwartz
:
: Expected to fall off their sleds? Yes. Expected a luger to exit there?
: Well, one assumes a basic level of non-ghoulishness among the course
: designers.
:
: What is obvious in retrospect is less so beforehand.
:
: Heck, every cyclocross race I tend to have disagreements with designers
: about what I consider a reasonable route, and acceptably consequential
: obstacles. Sometimes I get my way* and sometimes I don't. So far,
: despite my qualms, there have been no deaths and I can recall only one
: or two minor injuries. There may have been a broken bone in the last few
: seasons, but I haven't seen it. Worst CX injury I ever saw was on a
: training ride, when my friend BP sprinted into an invisible ditch in a
: park, broke his fork, and couldn't remember his own phone number.
:
: Sorry, back to my point. The course was vetted by numerous agencies,
: including the luge federation. They may not have known what they were
: doing, but presumably "kill riders" was not part of the plan. It was
: also in use for a few years. We're also talking about a sport that
: involves unpadded racers on ice at 150 km/h.
:
: In hindsight, the barrier needed to be higher there. I'm glad they did.
: I hope there are no further injuries. I hope nobody skis into a
: snow-making machine, or collapses during their event and hits their head
: (two actual ways Olympians have previously died).
:
: *mainly because my friend and club-mate Jak designs two of the courses
: each year, and I do some of the pre-riding.



Dumnbass -

In bike racing the finish line isn't contested going downhill at 90mph.

If it were, there'd be some elaborate safety precautions wouldn't there?

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Feb 15, 5:16*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:


And here you respond in the future tense to something that
I am stating in the present tense. Yes, if the **** hits
the fan things will be different. But no matter, today I
can still cover the risks of a cycling event with an
insurer and today they do not care about any of the things
you claim they care about. Today. Now.

dumbass,

this has been my experience as well. they will naturally care about
issues that might lead to claims.

they never card about the skills of riders or any sort of vetting
process. they didn't even see a need to make a distinction between a
race, an organized ride, tour or some other type of event like say a
bmx freestyle competition.

In article ],
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Sorry, back to my point. The course was vetted by numerous agencies,
including the luge federation. They may not have known what they were
doing, but presumably "kill riders" was not part of the plan. It was
also in use for a few years. We're also talking about a sport that
involves unpadded racers on ice at 150 km/h.

Well, no one has tried to say that the track was designed with fatalities as a
positive part of the plan. But I heard this afternoon that the course designer (who
has done the last three Olympic luge tracks) stated that the athletes are going
almost twenty mph faster than he expected. He wasn't sure what happened between the
design and the construction that could account for the extra speed. As for how long
the track had been in use, I read yesterday that the Canadians (yeah, you!) had made
it kind of hard for competitors from other countries to get runs in. The average
Canadian team member had something over 250 runs while other countries' teams were at
a fraction of that number. Kumaritashvili (the Georgian) only had about 25. But even
the best guys are crashing on the track - the extra speed probably has a lot to do
with that. As for the place Kumaritashvili ended up going off, it's at the exit of
the turn, isn't it? The athlete that crashes ends up sliding for ages and at the
speed they're going it's not all that surprising that someone could crash in a way
that launches them out. Even if they thought the wall was tall enough, it couldn't
heve been out of the question to pad the poles that are inches away from the course.
That kind of thinking isn't in the realm of "making it so safe that it's not real
sport," it's simple common sense insurance.

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Feb 16, 3:27*pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article ],
*Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Sorry, back to my point. The course was vetted by numerous agencies,
including the luge federation. They may not have known what they were
doing, but presumably "kill riders" was not part of the plan. It was
also in use for a few years. We're also talking about a sport that
involves unpadded racers on ice at 150 km/h.

* *Well, no one has tried to say that the track was designed with fatalities as a
positive part of the plan. But I heard this afternoon that the course designer (who
has done the last three Olympic luge tracks) stated that the athletes are going
almost twenty mph faster than he expected. He wasn't sure what happened between the
design and the construction that could account for the extra speed. As for how long
the track had been in use, I read yesterday that the Canadians (yeah, you!) had made
it kind of hard for competitors from other countries to get runs in. The average
Canadian team member had something over 250 runs while other countries' teams were at
a fraction of that number. Kumaritashvili (the Georgian) only had about 25. But even
the best guys are crashing on the track - the extra speed probably has a lot to do
with that. As for the place Kumaritashvili ended up going off, it's at the exit of
the turn, isn't it? The athlete that crashes ends up sliding for ages and at the
speed they're going it's not all that surprising that someone could crash in a way
that launches them out. Even if they thought the wall was tall enough, it couldn't
heve been out of the question to pad the poles that are inches away from the course.
That kind of thinking isn't in the realm of "making it so safe that it's not real
sport," it's simple common sense insurance.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tanx,
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Howard

* * * * * * * * * * * * *Caught playing safe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * It's a bored game

* * * * * * * * * * *remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

now I REALLY feel a law suit coming on.
the media (and organisers too ?) need a f*cking good kicking for
releasing images of the poor bast*rd crashing to his death; beyond
despicable. I'd like to see criminal charges too.

In article ,
"KurganGringioni" wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
: In article ,
: Bob Schwartz wrote:
:
: Ryan Cousineau wrote:
: I saw the video. The implication is that they never expected a racer
to
: leave the course there, which is possibly fair. It was super-late: he
: was actually past the last corner, but had such a drawn-out
corner-exit
: incident that he ended up riding up a (fairly tall) wall and popped
out
: of the chute.
:
: Seriously? No one would expect someone to come off the
: course at the bottom when speeds are highest? Over the
: lifetime of the facility, which will host competitions
: where Olympic level skills are the exception rather
: than the rule?
:
: Seriously?
:
: Bob Schwartz
:
: Expected to fall off their sleds? Yes. Expected a luger to exit there?
: Well, one assumes a basic level of non-ghoulishness among the course
: designers.
:
: What is obvious in retrospect is less so beforehand.
:
: Heck, every cyclocross race I tend to have disagreements with designers
: about what I consider a reasonable route, and acceptably consequential
: obstacles. Sometimes I get my way* and sometimes I don't. So far,
: despite my qualms, there have been no deaths and I can recall only one
: or two minor injuries. There may have been a broken bone in the last few
: seasons, but I haven't seen it. Worst CX injury I ever saw was on a
: training ride, when my friend BP sprinted into an invisible ditch in a
: park, broke his fork, and couldn't remember his own phone number.
:
: Sorry, back to my point. The course was vetted by numerous agencies,
: including the luge federation. They may not have known what they were
: doing, but presumably "kill riders" was not part of the plan. It was
: also in use for a few years. We're also talking about a sport that
: involves unpadded racers on ice at 150 km/h.
:
: In hindsight, the barrier needed to be higher there. I'm glad they did.
: I hope there are no further injuries. I hope nobody skis into a
: snow-making machine, or collapses during their event and hits their head
: (two actual ways Olympians have previously died).
:
: *mainly because my friend and club-mate Jak designs two of the courses
: each year, and I do some of the pre-riding.



Dumnbass -

In bike racing the finish line isn't contested going downhill at 90mph.

If it were, there'd be some elaborate safety precautions wouldn't there?

Yes, they would have a brace of ambulances at the finish.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article ],
Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Sorry, back to my point. The course was vetted by numerous agencies,
including the luge federation. They may not have known what they were
doing, but presumably "kill riders" was not part of the plan. It was
also in use for a few years. We're also talking about a sport that
involves unpadded racers on ice at 150 km/h.

Well, no one has tried to say that the track was designed with fatalities as a
positive part of the plan. But I heard this afternoon that the course designer (who
has done the last three Olympic luge tracks) stated that the athletes are going
almost twenty mph faster than he expected. He wasn't sure what happened between the
design and the construction that could account for the extra speed. As for how long
the track had been in use, I read yesterday that the Canadians (yeah, you!) had made
it kind of hard for competitors from other countries to get runs in. The average
Canadian team member had something over 250 runs while other countries' teams were at
a fraction of that number. Kumaritashvili (the Georgian) only had about 25. But even
the best guys are crashing on the track - the extra speed probably has a lot to do
with that. As for the place Kumaritashvili ended up going off, it's at the exit of
the turn, isn't it? The athlete that crashes ends up sliding for ages and at the
speed they're going it's not all that surprising that someone could crash in a way
that launches them out.

He did not go off course because he crashed.

--
Michael Press