i was asked by several triathletes to look into this. i did so. found it all quite interesting. results are on slowtwitch home page.
Good, interesting article Dan, thanks.
I suspect it will be intrepreted however people want to interpret it.
Pat
So Dan, so is it fair to say the bottom line is at the end of the day, each of us decides what risk we want to take? I am sure glad all the waters that I swim in during my tri races in Calif. seem to be perfectly clean. I can not even imagine what it must be like to have to second guess water. I liked one comment someone made as a good test. If you would not go swimming with your family in a water way at a start of a race, then, it probably is not a good place to spend your money. Sounds like the only thing one can control is through ones pocket book. If a RD is allowed to make a profit, then by default, it says people do not care.
Dave
Thanks for looking into this.
As some may know there are two triathlons, both sprints, here on Mission Bay in San Diego each year. The first is in Spring and the second in the Fall. The swim for the first one is located in an area of the bay that does not have a lot of circulation or current. A local news team did a story on the water quality in Mission Bay and found that it varied quite a bit depending where the water was tested. They actually interviewed participants from the Spring Tri that stated that they got sick after participating in the triathlon.
It seems that one could surmise, from common sense as well ;-), that trying to find a place to swim or for that matter an RD looking for a place to host a swim, should look for an area that has good circulation of water. Ofcourse looking into actual water quality is the best way and in my opinion should be mandated by USA Triathlon.
Thanks Dan - Good work on this. Z
“Of course looking into actual water quality is the best way and in my opinion should be mandated by USA Triathlon.”
when i contacted USAT they sort of punted, and i can understand why at first blush. “we’re not a water testing agency. is it for us to say what’s clean water?”
yes. but this was before i did my research, and discovered that epidemiologists at the EPA did perform the research, and just about every state in america has heartily jumped on board. there actually is a national standard. everybody agrees what it is. nobody seems to think these standards are foolish or ill thought out. i did not find one person who thought the standards badly conceived.
so, i would say that it certainly would not be out of the question for USAT to say these standards represent a baseline.
in the case of NYC, there is no beach there where the swim takes place. so another testing agency takes over, and its personnel were quite helpful. i don’t know that john korff and bill burke handled this as well as they could after the fact. and i don’t know that USAT or anybody did as good a job of handling the PR as they could have. water quality is CERTAINLY a reasonable expectation on behalf of competitors.
here’s what would help. california has a law, it’s called AB411. illinois has another law, basically the same thing. just about every state has that same law. it’s a law that’s been mandated as a result of the clean water act, the beach act, and the EPA’s “final rules.” all a california RD would have to say is that its swim venue is tested in compliance with AB411, and/or that its beach has an A rating from Heal the Bay, or that the swim venue is tested according to the EPA’s “Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters.”
if i’m the NYC tri committee, or any other race committee, and i got an inquiry, i would construct a statement that said, "as a matter of law , this swim venue is tested in compliance with state law, with the Beach Act of 2000, and according to the EPA’s Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters. beaches with test results exceeding those values considered by the EPA safe for primary contact must post advisories as a matter of law. no such posting made, and my check with the department both the day before and the morning of the race indicated that no problem exists.
problem solved.
"i would construct a statement that said, "as a matter of law , this swim venue is tested in compliance with state law, with the Beach Act of 2000, and according to the EPA’s Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters. beaches with test results exceeding those values considered by the EPA safe for primary contact must post advisories as a matter of law. no such posting made, and my check with the department both the day before and the morning of the race indicated that no problem exists. "
Yeah, I think that’s at least what I would like to see. Why is it that something as simple as a clean water standard has not been put into place by USAT? I think that I may assume from your dealings with them that you would have an idea. Is it just something that hasn’t been brought up? Or it was just easier for them to say to follow your local BS ordinance or law? (I guess that is actually rhetorical ) Is this something that we can push for as legislation in USAT? Is it viable to actually mandate clean water? It sure seems that the health of the participants should be of importance. If so, how can we or I, go about doing this?
Unfortunately, there are so many races outside of USAT that would not be mandated by this but we can hope that they would follow suit especially with some encouragement from participants.
“Is it just something that hasn’t been brought up?”
no, it absolutely HAS been brought up. but it was shot down. it needs to be brought up again, i think. it’s just a line, you know, on the sanction form. you EDUCATE the RDs, tell them that virtually every agency tests in accordance with the EPA standards, so, if you’re the RD find out who is doing it for your event, and if they’re NOT testing at your swim venue just ask them if they can. these heath dept / water testing agencies are pretty darned helpful, as it turns out.
i don’t know what USAT is now doing, but it could be doing just a little more. basically, what it says to RDs is, “don’t break the law.” that’s it. i don’t think we need a risk manager employed whose job it is to issue that statement. a bit more might be in order.
so one of the end results of your investigation was that the water quality of the Hudson was indeed up to standards as reported by the race committee. Maybe someone can do some investigative reporting on why this Hudson River controversy started and who really was at the root of it? Hint: it had nothing to do with water quality.
BTW, Ralph’s was 16 weeks before NYC Tri, not 6 weeks as mentioned in your article.
Mike, if your statement is true, can you explain why the RD and USAT will not release then numbers? I can think of no logical reason. As a former RD, I can tell you that if I was asked any questions about the race, I would answer. The reason why I am “former” is I had to quit because our RD will not follow the USAT rule for wet suits and will not allow them period. The last 4 years the water has been below 78. We have two days to the Lake of the Pines Triathlon, and the temp this morning was 78.1 and dropping fast. I know I have been attacked by our HOA board and others that I somehow have a personal issue with the RD. So, I know first hand how things can be twisted. Just like you saying “hint”. Why does it seem on this issue no one will just put the FACTS on the table?
(I know nothing about the race, and never would enter but just have a hard time understanding the USAT actions, or lack of, on this issue.)
Dave
<< if your statement is true, can you explain why the RD and USAT will not release then numbers?
I really don’t know. It could have saved a lot of trouble, true. But then as Dan reported:
<< The information is available, both online and through local testing agencies. Those agencies are easy to find. We were able to find the responsible testing organization in any town we chose, anywhere in America, within 15 minutes of our starting our search.
Thank you Dan for a well researched and reasoned article. One point however (and I realize pathogens were the focus of your article)-
“Check with your local county health department regarding the body of water in which you’ll swim, pick up the dog poop in your yard, and don’t overwater your lawn. Do this, and consider your duty done.”
Not quite done: Wash your car only at responsible car washes that discharge to a water treatment works (or if you do it at home, wash in an area that drains to landscaping; never the street), inspect your vehicle frequently for leaks and have them repaired immediately, and finally, drive as little as absolutely necessary.
Motor vehicles are the number one contributor to water degradation in urban settings (agricultural practices are the big polluters in farming regions, logging in the mountains, just to be fair in finger pointing) and as soon as we move away from petroleum fueled engines, the better off all our water will be for it.
Down with petro-death, long live renewable energy sources!
Otherwise, top notch article Dan. Top notch.
“Maybe someone can do some investigative reporting on why this Hudson River controversy started and who really was at the root of it? Hint: it had nothing to do with water quality.”
i spent quite a bit of time talking to john korff. he was and is very mad. partly he’s mad at me, for not censoring the forum. he is mad for people who keep asking questions, etc. and so forth.
but honestly, two things appear true to me. first, that the water in NYC was fine. second, that this would’ve been easily provable with a little bit of research. had USAT done what i did over the last 2 days, it would’ve found out what i found over the last 2 days. or, john could’ve diffused this very quickly spending a couple of hours doing what i did.
john just handled it badly. one of his comments was, “people aren’t going to understand the numbers. they’ll hear the word ‘fecal’ and just go off on that.”
well, no. people aren’t that stupid and reactive. the numbers really are quite easy to understand. nobody expects to be swimming in a river of evian water. the question is simply whether the water is safe, and i think it might’ve been nice for USAT, or maybe just john himself, to come up with a coherent narrative to diffuse the issue. i never saw that narrative.
i didn’t see any agenda here other than water. john seems to spend a lot of time spinning around in circles on this question. you seem to have bought into this. water quality is a legitimate issue. instead of figuring out who’s behind the conspiracy, and why, better to just answer the question asked, and do so in a sufficiently comprehensive way. if john korff and/or USAT want to jump into a bunker and pretend there’s a war against them, fine, but we’ll all be going about our business oblivious to this, rendering those in the bunker irrelevant. aint no conspiracy. just a question about the water. question answered. end of story.
i was one of those yelling loudly and often at the outset, and one of those who contacted you.
i bowed out of the thread(s) with what i thought was a pretty clear explanation after talking with Bill Burke.
i agree that simple disclosure up front on John Korff’s part, to say nothing of USAT, would have avoided much of what at least got me going. i know all too well i am on Korff’s list of least favorites as this developed.
maybe i bulled too hard, too openly and apologized for same. but an RD, event spokesperson,and/ or USAT, should bull just as hard with data in response to questions, not mutual fingerpointing in either direction accompanied by “…you don’t have a right to know.”
thanks for spending the time on this. it will have an impact.
It is very troubling that usa tri staff didn’t produce what they knew as soin as someone asked for it.
There seems to be an attitude that the staff is the federation and we get in the way of work they are trying to do by asking all these stupid questions like “What was the fecal coliform count at the NYC triathlon” or “How exactly did Amino Vital become the drink sponsor?”
The staff is not the federation, we are the federation. You and me and everyone else that pays the money. We pay their salary and we elect board members to act on our behalf who in turn hire the upper level staff. End result is that whenever we ask a question the answer should never be, “I know the answer but I’m not going to tell you.” The implication being that the riff raff doesn’t deserve to know the answer.
Maybe someone can do some investigative reporting on why this Hudson River controversy started and who really was at the root of it? Hint: it had nothing to do with water quality.
I think the controversy comes from a RD who has a lack of willingness or ability to communicate. If the RD (or USAT even) had stated the facts in a clear manner then this would have never gotten legs. The RD, according to Dan’s post, essentially believes that if he had stated the *facts *that the average person and Slowtwitcher would not be smart enough to understand them. I find it telling that his response to Dan was that Dan should censor the posts.
It is reasonable to me that if a racer asks a direct question about race safety (in any portion of the race) that he should get a honest and timely response without devoting his time to undertaking a research project or investigation and the RD failed horribly in this case.
Dan, thanks for clearing this up.
“It is very troubling that usa tri staff didn’t produce what they knew as soon as someone asked for it.”
in usat’s defense, they did respond. they just didn’t produce any written test results. they did this because they were honoring a request of the RD, who asked that information that might lead to a flood of calls to the testing agency not be made public. the RD’s concern was that the water testing agency is not prepared to field calls from a bunch of people, and there should be one point of contact, and that should be usat or the RD.
i think all that is fine. usat did release a statement. their intentions were good. i don’t think there was anything nefarious on behalf of anyone on either side.
but look, the swim is 1/3 of triathlon. in many cases, water doesn’t LOOK very good. the quality of the water is a BIG question, and i don’t think usat has spent much time looking at this. it’s looked at a LOT of other safety issues, but nobody seems to me to have spent very much time looking at the state of water quality in america’s coastal and inland recreation beaches. had usat done this and retained this body of knowledge, the NYC issue would’ve been easily dealt with.
fortunately, we have a really first rate guy running usat, and he’s not going to handle this the same way the next time. he’s just not been on the job very long. he can’t know everything immediately. i feel fine about how this is going to be handled in future cases.
“”Accordingly, rainy conditions prior to an event are most likely the culprit when a triathlon swim leg is cancelled, and this brings us back to the Hudson River. The section chief of the New York Department of Environmental Protection runs the Harbor Survey Program, and as such is responsible for testing at the New York City Triathlon venue. According to this agency’s testing, following a rainy spell the fecal coliform count was over 300 cfu on the Monday prior to the New York event. This was clearly higher than the EPA guideline for this bacteriological criterion.
Normally, the testing would not be done again until the following Monday. However, at the request of the race organization follow-up testing was performed, and on Thursday prior to the Sunday race the Hudson River sample taken close to the race course had a reading of 197, a hair under the limit. As the Hudson flushes itself quickly in a current that can flow up to four knots, the trend line pointed to a relatively clean river for the Sunday race, barring further rain prior to the event.”
A couple research points were missed in a well written piece.
The current did not hit 4 knots prior to the event, there WAS significant rain prior to the event and a test 24 to 36 after the tri that was on Sunday morning can yield very different results (if the river takes 48 to 96 hours to flush).
So PLEASE go back to the section chief of the New York Department of Environmental Protection who runs the Harbor Survey Program and ask him/her to go on the record and advise how much rain on Friday or Saturday would have placed the water over the limit. And also what is his/her gut or what does the model say, if Friday’s rain actually put it over the limit into the unsafe zone.
Finally, it would be great to have the section chief comment on why beaches were closed in the area and was the Hudson the reason the Manhattan Marathon was cancelled the day before.
This would put this one to rest and let John Korff off the hook…
Thanks
the hudson river information is NOT online.
This article doesn’t answer, or address, the two core issues of the NYC Water debate: Why did the RD mislead athletes? This isn’t a failure to communicate, this is a blatant falsehood: participants were told repeatedly and directly that the water was tested everyday, including Friday, and there was never a bad reading. There is a big difference between blatant, willful falsehoods and the “bad communicator” defense. Now we are told that the water wasn’t tested everyday and that there were bad readings. Did they use an EPA model for rainwater effect on the water quality given the very heavy rainstorms we had on Friday. Does the EPA mandate that they should be used and nd what did the model indicate?
We do seem to be getting some facts out (and again, no one wants to have the water to have been unsafe) but why on earth is it so hard for people to ask a question and get a straight answer?