How does the civil disobedience work in one of the lack of insurance scenarios listed above. At that point the offending protester probably starts suing people or apologizing. Please, civil disobedience in a retail situation is to refrain from purchasing the product.

Didn't think you'd answer. Since rules are rules, we know what your answers are.

Cute comeback.

---

__________________________________________________
Follow my blog - Follow me on Twitter - Facebook Page
Powered by Accelerate3

You have to sign a waiver when you go through athlete check in, the person who completed the race did not sign the waiver, the person who supplied the bib did.
Why should the insurance cover someone who should not be there?

Its not WTA, its WTC a private for profit company.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

Rover24 - Defending the insurance company for accepting money (the same fee from everyone, regardless of health, age) yet deciding not to cover the person is one thing. That's what you appear to be doing.

However, the WTA isn't selecting a coverage off the store shelf here. It's a custom policy, that has attorneys on both sides ironing out the details. For the WTA to know there are possibly racers in the race who aren't the same people who paid (since this post points that out, we now have precedence) yet not insist coverage is extended to them or others hit by them is a significant oversight by them.

You can still be angry that people might give a bib to someone, but that doesn't address the WTA's choice (or lack of discretion) in signing a policy that protects it's athletes from all circumstances that exist (again, we know this).

You raise some valid points. Insurance policies have definitive wording regarding coverage. This is, of course, because insurance companies are seeking to generate a profit.

Let's say that WTC does negotiate a policy that would cover all athletes under all circumstances. How much do you think that policy would cost? Furthermore, who do you think would have to absorb most of that cost? I am going to make a wild guess and say that that expense would be passed on to the athletes. So, do you really want to pay an even higher registration cost because two people do not have a respect for rules or the race? I, for one, do not.

---

-TMT

For what it's worth, I think KyraMorgan should be banned for 6 months for failure to report this incident to WTC. Failure to report a crime is often worse than the crime itself. Just look at Joe Paterno.

Also, the tri-club president who facilitated this transaction should be jailed. Like Jerry Sandusky, he will continue to commit crimes like this until he is put out of triathlon forever.

Sorry, my mistake, WTC. Thanks

WTC is inadvertently encouraging a black market for this type of activity. With plenty of demand in the market and no viable way to sign up on a waiting list registered athletes will try to "hook up" a fellow athlete or make a profit from the transfer of a registration slot.

Easiest way to manage the majority of black market activity is to set up a waiting list and establish a partial refund policy prorated by the month of cancellation prior to the event. I recognize that WTC "plans" for a certain level of no-shows, wonder how the percentage of no-shows is trending over the past few years now that Ironman events are selling out in minutes.

---

http://www.abbeybiketools.com

I'm sure the insurance company attorneys would like to argue that they could charge more for that coverage... yet any good attorney could point out that it accounts for no increase in risk compared to all people racing with the bib's they bought.

3000 people paid = 3000 people covered. It's not like they charge different rates depending on your health, age, sex (since entry fees are all the same for any given race).

As many of you know insurance is a "risk" business.

WTC should have coverage assigned to bib #'s in rewriting the policy, thus excluding the risk they are putting their athletes at currently.

To allow an insurance company to have the out is negligence on WTC's part (and all athletes will continue to be at risk, since there's no way to prevent the scenario we just discussed). As it's WTC who should protect it's athletes from all circumstances (as the event organizer).

I'm not angry, I could really care less about the bib transfer, what bothers me is people thinking everything in life should conform to their views and in this case a business should mould their policy's to what you feel are right.
If WTC wants X insurance policy than so be it, you dont have to register for the events they hold.

I never asked you to agree with me.

It's clear the WTC's current policy is leaving it's athletes at risk. Blame who you want. Reading TriMom's post shows they know of the potential.

I guess, but I'd hate to see what would happen if she cheated on him!

Dude, it's WTC, World Triathlon Corporation.

You are ignoring the waiver, and the precedents.

This is not theory, bandits have gotten hurt in races and sued. This puts the race in serious jeporady, not to mention all the other parties.

http://www.runnersworld.com/...-paralyzed-sues-race

Edit: Another link related to the same article where it mentions where he got the bib: http://www.letsrun.com/...d.php?thread=4581424

So let's ignore that bandits will exist (precedence however clearly established) and not insist the WTC change it's insurance policy to protect the athletes in the race from all circumstances.

Let's also act like it's the bandits fault (and defend or remain silent on the WTC not changing it's insurance policy).

Does that cover it?

No, lets not pretend that the word Corporation and Evil are the same thing.

WTC has to play by rules too. The rules of the Insurance company in this case. The insurance company has rules as well.

Yes, they could possibly get better insurance, for more money, that would cost the racers more money.

And lets not pretend that if you are ignoring the rules that are clearly laid out you are blameless.

I have no problem with someone sending a message to the WTC asking for a policy change, or racing somewhere else and voting with dollars. But simply ignoring the policy means you take the risk of a ban, and you put at risk other people and the race itself.

"But simply ignoring the policy means you take the risk of a ban" - Yes, fact.
...and you put at risk other people and the race itself" - No, opinion. The race organizer (in this case WTC) is neglecting to protect its athletes and itself fully (since they know bandits exist). I could decide to not consider doing this in the future. Does it change the risk you and anyone else in WTC race face regarding bandits? No.

So blaming bandits only gets you back to square 1, where there still is risk to racers (who paid for their bib and are healthy and racing with it) that they might be denied coverage if struck by a person racing with another persons bib.

Their policy isn't comprehensive and we've found it to be severely lacking here in our discussion. They are choosing not to cover this scenario. Their choice. Why? (profit?, neglect?, ignorance?, a little risk of their own?)

It's also your choice to compete in a race that doesn't protect it's athletes from a clearly known precedent. You don't have to take that risk, but then I guess there's a little risk in everything we do.

Whilst you are right, that's still not cheating.

---

I am more worried about the stalking OP. Who the frick cares if someone who cannot use their entry gives it to a friend? As long as they are not placing high, it does not matter to the OP one bit. Cheating is someone using a slot that was paid for? Give me a break.

x2

I hardly call it "stalking" when the parties involved had open discussions with me about the entire situation...ALL WEEKEND!!! Or when hen the tri club president brought it up and had a 10 minute conversation with me while she was still in the finishers gate! Or the fact I had a 2 hr breakfast with the person who raced. I'm pretty sure we have vastly different definitions of "stalking"....

Circumvention of rules governing conduct and procedures of a sport can also be considered cheating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating