velocomp wrote:
I think we are getting the signals crossed. Should a race require this?
At this point if it means that the required permits from the local municipality will be granted vs denied, then yes.
If it helps with securing insurance. Yes
If it makes people feel safer and will increase participation. Yes/maybe
If this is manageable, then why not. If this becomes exclusionary, then no. If there is a secure safe way to provide proof, then why not.
Triathlons are a hobby, you don't have a right to compete. Doing this may cost races 10-15% of their revenue (losing racers) for racing. There may be added costs associated with validating proof of vaccination (Will race fees increase). In general, I doubt this will be cost effective and useful, but if it can be and the race director wants to do it, then why not. We all choose what races we participate in. Some choose Ironman. Those that don't like their (IM) policies, race elsewhere. We have choice.
At this point in the pandemic, I would say that if it is required to get permits, then 1. Is it safe to race? 2. Is the municipality just playing CYA?
Simple answer: NO! And they would be barred from doing so in Florida. Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, Missouri and Nebraska have also opposed any use of vaccine passports within their borders. I support the right of any country to require a vaccine passport to enter and will gladly get one for that purpose, especially where it eliminates the requirement for PCR testing and/or quarantine. But I strongly disagree with extending the use of vaccine passports from travel to general societal use.