Safety, responsibility and freedom
By Julien on Thursday, July 2 2009, 11:07 - Thoughts - Permalink
As you probably already know, three runners died [fr] about ten days ago on the Grand Raid du Mercantour (82km +6,600m in the Alps). The preliminary survey suggests that they've died of hypothermia after taking a fall and/or getting lost at 2,300m. Beyond the pain, this adverse event raises a number of questions about the safety and responsibility on mountain trail races.
At this point, it's not clear whether this could have been avoided [fr]. The organisers decided to stop the race when the weather conditions went suddenly wrong, but was the decision taken too late? Did the runners have the compulsory equipment, and was it checked? Is the compulsory equipment simply enough to handle a snow storm high in the mountains anyway? Is it just bad luck?
1. When should the organisers decide to stop the race?
As often, people not related the race suggest the organisers could have avoided that by stopping the race earlier because of the bad weather. A row that looks somehow similar to the Original Mountain Marathon (OMM) 2008. The runners on the OMM happened to be generally much better equipped and shelters/escape routes were probably more accessible than in the Alps, and therefore nothing dramatic happened there. It's also interesting to note that the media made the OMM organisers appear very irresponsible (in a sensationalistic way, hoping to sell more), whereas later comments from the runners on this subject were rather positive. In events organised in the mountainous, there is always a fine line between safe and unsafe conditions. After all, even in good weather, there is a risk of fatal fall. Moreover, a number of people entering mountain ultra expect to deal with bad weather and that's part of the game.
Similarly, there is also sometimes a need to stop individual runners (rather than the entire event), if not deemed fit enough to carry on. This is not a easy issue to deal with, as this would involve checking every single individual for symptoms that might not be very obvious. In this respect, the UTMB organisers recently decided to stop providing light paramedical treatments (blisters, tendinitis, ...) and to focus their medical teams on the more severe cases. Every single medical intervention can now potentially send you off race if the staff decides so. Again, it's not an easy decision, as from a medical perspective, most doctors wouldn't recommend the majority of runners to even start the race anyway...
2. What is the ideal compulsory equipment list?
Following last year's minimalist yet legal compulsory equipment carried by the UTMB winner Kílian Jornet, the UTMB organisers are getting tougher on compulsory gear specifications. In particular, the total equipment weight has to be higher than 2kg when getting out of an aid station. But nevertheless, this list is really the bare minimum, and I don't think you'd survive very long with a pair of long tights and a light poncho by -10°C with a bit of wind, should you be unable to move.
This is somehow related to the previous question, as the quality of equipment carried by the runners will influence greatly their survival capabilities.
3. Who is responsible for what?
This is actually the main underlying question. Two families have decided to sue the organisers [fr], arguing that the race should have been stopped and the alert given earlier.
By entering the race as a runner, do you assume that everything is done for you to finish in safe conditions? Or do you feel responsible enough to decide when you should stop? In particular, is it fair enough to consider as responsible a runner who hasn't slept in 40 hours?
When should you, as a runner, withdraw from the race? When you know a priori that the organiser will stop the race if necessary, you will naturally assume that you can carry on in the current conditions. In other words, you leave the responsibility to the organisers. If you were alone, you couldn't make such assumptions and would have to take your own, good or bad, decisions.
Even if the organisers try more and more to "responsibilise" the runners, they nevertheless have a role to play with your safety. If they were not here for your safety, why would they be here for then? This is particularly obvious on the PTL, where only a GPS tracking service is offered (no food, no shelters, no official rankings). In these conditions, you might as well go on your own if not for safety reasons, shouldn't you?
What do you think?
Ultra questions...
At this point, it's not clear whether this could have been avoided [fr]. The organisers decided to stop the race when the weather conditions went suddenly wrong, but was the decision taken too late? Did the runners have the compulsory equipment, and was it checked? Is the compulsory equipment simply enough to handle a snow storm high in the mountains anyway? Is it just bad luck?
1. When should the organisers decide to stop the race?
As often, people not related the race suggest the organisers could have avoided that by stopping the race earlier because of the bad weather. A row that looks somehow similar to the Original Mountain Marathon (OMM) 2008. The runners on the OMM happened to be generally much better equipped and shelters/escape routes were probably more accessible than in the Alps, and therefore nothing dramatic happened there. It's also interesting to note that the media made the OMM organisers appear very irresponsible (in a sensationalistic way, hoping to sell more), whereas later comments from the runners on this subject were rather positive. In events organised in the mountainous, there is always a fine line between safe and unsafe conditions. After all, even in good weather, there is a risk of fatal fall. Moreover, a number of people entering mountain ultra expect to deal with bad weather and that's part of the game.
Similarly, there is also sometimes a need to stop individual runners (rather than the entire event), if not deemed fit enough to carry on. This is not a easy issue to deal with, as this would involve checking every single individual for symptoms that might not be very obvious. In this respect, the UTMB organisers recently decided to stop providing light paramedical treatments (blisters, tendinitis, ...) and to focus their medical teams on the more severe cases. Every single medical intervention can now potentially send you off race if the staff decides so. Again, it's not an easy decision, as from a medical perspective, most doctors wouldn't recommend the majority of runners to even start the race anyway...
2. What is the ideal compulsory equipment list?
Following last year's minimalist yet legal compulsory equipment carried by the UTMB winner Kílian Jornet, the UTMB organisers are getting tougher on compulsory gear specifications. In particular, the total equipment weight has to be higher than 2kg when getting out of an aid station. But nevertheless, this list is really the bare minimum, and I don't think you'd survive very long with a pair of long tights and a light poncho by -10°C with a bit of wind, should you be unable to move.
This is somehow related to the previous question, as the quality of equipment carried by the runners will influence greatly their survival capabilities.
3. Who is responsible for what?
This is actually the main underlying question. Two families have decided to sue the organisers [fr], arguing that the race should have been stopped and the alert given earlier.
By entering the race as a runner, do you assume that everything is done for you to finish in safe conditions? Or do you feel responsible enough to decide when you should stop? In particular, is it fair enough to consider as responsible a runner who hasn't slept in 40 hours?
When should you, as a runner, withdraw from the race? When you know a priori that the organiser will stop the race if necessary, you will naturally assume that you can carry on in the current conditions. In other words, you leave the responsibility to the organisers. If you were alone, you couldn't make such assumptions and would have to take your own, good or bad, decisions.
Even if the organisers try more and more to "responsibilise" the runners, they nevertheless have a role to play with your safety. If they were not here for your safety, why would they be here for then? This is particularly obvious on the PTL, where only a GPS tracking service is offered (no food, no shelters, no official rankings). In these conditions, you might as well go on your own if not for safety reasons, shouldn't you?
What do you think?
Ultra questions...
Comments
Hi Julien,
It seems to me to be an impossible situation. Having been a racer myself (albeit of limited ability) I was quite happy to take on any adventure I could and relish the opportunity of challenging the extreme elements in all their glory - from deserts to jungles to Arctic.
However, now sat on the other side of the fence, being the organiser of possibly the most extreme ultra on the planet (6633 ultra) with my responsibilites to the athletes taking part, my attitude has somewhat changed. I relish the idea of the athletes going beyond their previously percieved limits, but its a very hard call to make for an organiser to decide an athlete (or an event) cant go on. In 2008 I had the unhappy experience of pulling a very high profile athlete out of the 6633 ultra for severe frostbite acros her face only to be accused subsequently by the athlete of pulling her for financial reasons whilst her face was in absolute tatters. It beggars believe and it goes to prove you cant do right for doing wrong.
Similarly on another event we organise that is at a "lesser level", with the Beacons Ultra we have found quite a few people want to flaunt the rules regarding the carrying of bad weather kit even though the race crosses open mountains in the middle of winter. Whilst we have no desire to burden the athletes unduly, we are frequently being asked if wind proof clothing will tick the box for a waterproof, why do we need waterproof leggings, etc etc. Following last years OMM incident, these queries were considerably less, but again it goes to show the conflcts between trying to be safe, sensible and not taking the fun and challenge out of an event.
Whilst I certainly dont know all of the facts of the Grand Raid du Mercantour case, my immediate (and quite possibly wrong) gut reaction is that its a regretable situation that the organisers are being sued following the deaths - if they are proven to be unduly negligent then I thinks its probably right, but my fear will be that such a case will be determined by a judge who quite probably wont understand the psychi of ultra running and its participants and may end up crucifying the events we all love and as a consequence events of this nature will cease to be worth organising and our lives will become more sanitized.
Cheers
Martin
p.s Love the blog by the way.... :o)