This is related to the post on waivers, but a stand-alone topic itself so I started a new post:
Related to the liability debate is the question of what OUR responsibilities are as athletes. It's the morning of IM Utah, you are on the beach. conditions are, at best, very difficult for swimming. You have a fundamental choice: Assess the risks on your own and elect to either compete or not start -OR- Relinquish and defer this decision to race management and trust that if they say "go" they beleive it is reasonably safe to race. Now, here's the problem: If it is not safe to race and the race management was in error (negligent or not) who pays the price? You. You drown, you are injured, you incur some type of loss. You or your survivors may receive some compensation for the loss, but this does not negate the loss or make it go away. You still suffered it. No court or out of court settlement will negate it. This being the case, doesn't it make sense that we are each ultimately responsible for the ramifications of our decisions? Since we ultimately have to pay the price, we carry the burden of assessing the risks. Risk and loss are not transferable. I am still alive despite some close calls in the military and in sport. It is because I have said, several times, "This is too dangerous, I choose not to participate" and walked away. Other times I have sustained injuries becasue I did not do that and chose to take the risk. I paid with a broken back, knee surgery, concussions, broken bones, etc. No one can compensate me for the ramifications of those losses. What about this is so complex? Am I just too simple or radical a thinker? There should be no waivers: You race, you risk. Comments?
Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com
Related to the liability debate is the question of what OUR responsibilities are as athletes. It's the morning of IM Utah, you are on the beach. conditions are, at best, very difficult for swimming. You have a fundamental choice: Assess the risks on your own and elect to either compete or not start -OR- Relinquish and defer this decision to race management and trust that if they say "go" they beleive it is reasonably safe to race. Now, here's the problem: If it is not safe to race and the race management was in error (negligent or not) who pays the price? You. You drown, you are injured, you incur some type of loss. You or your survivors may receive some compensation for the loss, but this does not negate the loss or make it go away. You still suffered it. No court or out of court settlement will negate it. This being the case, doesn't it make sense that we are each ultimately responsible for the ramifications of our decisions? Since we ultimately have to pay the price, we carry the burden of assessing the risks. Risk and loss are not transferable. I am still alive despite some close calls in the military and in sport. It is because I have said, several times, "This is too dangerous, I choose not to participate" and walked away. Other times I have sustained injuries becasue I did not do that and chose to take the risk. I paid with a broken back, knee surgery, concussions, broken bones, etc. No one can compensate me for the ramifications of those losses. What about this is so complex? Am I just too simple or radical a thinker? There should be no waivers: You race, you risk. Comments?
Tom Demerly
The Tri Shop.com