Lock_N_Load wrote:
Whoa, I never argued that the contract the participant signed means nothing. It is legally binding. However, it is a whole other matter to enforce that clause. You as a company can do that, as Lake Tahoe Triathlon has done, but that is not the best move for the long-term prospects of your race. My point is you should do everything you can to provide consideration for the participants loss. Rather this triathlon decided to simply say: Sorry suckers, you all agreed to this and you are out of luck. The participant is left thinking: Umm, all their costs are covered, I'm screwed, and they just threw in my face the fact that I agreed to be screwed. What they are doing may be legal and even "fair" but it's still very stupid.
You know I've seen a bunch of threads on this type of situation over the years and this always seems to be the sort of the "last resort" gripe in these situations. It seems to always proceed like this
First it's fraudulent. But it isn't.
Then it isn't legal. But it is.
Then it isn't "fair". But entrants agreed to it.
Then it's "stupid" of the race organizers -- as if now we are looking out for their bottom line.
But they don't need our help. It's not stupid of them. Their bottom line will do a hell of a lot better than if they offered a 100% refund. For all the bad will you might imagine this would generate, they are not going to suffer from any big drop in signups next year. Plenty of races have cancelled for various reasons and for all the stink that a few people raise, they keep coming back for more the next year. For the same reason IM events sell out in hours no matter how much they raise the price.
If they made a pattern of this, that would be different.