Two die in the Ironman at Youghal

It costs 600 euro for this rubbish?

And hundreds of people pay for it?

Does anyone have the financial breakdown of this event. 2,000 athletes at €600 each is a lot - with so many volunteers are there any professional safety people paid. Where does the money go? The incentive not to cancel could be quite high.

Its not the price, its the fact there is a commercial fee.

That commercial aspect makes it a business enterprise and so the HSA can climb all over the Ironman organisation to investigate what happened.

The Guards have said 'tragic accident, misadventure, no criminal investigation', but I think that may be premature.

The HSA can and may prosecute woth the Guards and DPP under Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Very much a criminal offence.

Running a commercial event, as a corporate entity, taking money for entry....

It is a place of work. I'm pretty confident of that case being made.

It's closer to €700 by the time you add on admin fees. That's just for the ticket to race there'd be thousands spent on travel, training, equipment etc. Not to mention the amount of money it brings into Youghal.

On the other hand many more spend thousands in the pub or in paddy power and not an eyelid batted. 🤷‍♂️

Unless it has changed, TI event sanction is made via a signed race licence, issued before an event start and after a course assessment. It is signed by a Technical Official from TI and the Race Director.

Its not verbal and should not be ambiguous.

I wonder with the chaotic morning was the race was started before a proper meeting was held between TI and the Race Director?

A race licence TI **refused to sign** (and the RD goes ahead anyway) is totally different to a scenario where the step to agree a race licence was missed. It shifts blame significantly.

IMHO if it was a refusal to sanction / over ruling, TI would have withdrawn its officials. Feels to me like the step was missed.

I always think there must be a dollop of masochism involved with these extreme sports, perhaps even a bit of Russian roulette. You're certainly going way beyond the amount of exercise you actually need to boost your health & fitness.

TheJournal is reporting that TI communicated their refusal to sanction the race several hours AFTER the race started.

"The organisers said that they work in collaboration with national federations for triathlons around the world as they organise over 150 Ironman and Ironman 70.3 events annually. The relevant body in Ireland is Triathlon Ireland.

“As such, federation representatives were present during the event and performed their duties. Several hours after the swim was completed, they communicated to the onsite Ironman Ireland officials that they would not approve the sanctioning for the event,” the organisers’ statement said."

Well this puts a new spin on things.

TI refused to sanction the race after the two unfortunate participants had passed away.

This Ironman scene is more a new money thing where middle aged people who've done the bucket list triathlon and marathon move on to this as the ultimate water cooler brag. You are looking at a few thousand disposable income to set yourself up to do one, no other sport is so brazenly out to exclude based on social status.

The tattoos and visors encapsulate the whole scene, lads who do one 70.3 half Ironman turning up at parkrun to show them off for the next decade.

Some even go so far as to set themselves back years the injuries they cause themselves in order to tick the box. You don't see it happening in the individual events.

So which scenario was it:

1) TI were willing to sanction but didn't sign the paperwork in time (then changed story later)

2) TI refused to sanction but did not tell the RD in time

3) The RD went ahead without first seeking any sanction from TI

4) TI had not made any decision before the race started

5) RD overruled TI

I think 3 or 4 most likely.

Wow,where did that chip come from?

It takes years to compete for iron man, you'd want to be doing it for more than bragging rights. I'd say that anyone who competes it deserves to brag.

Besides, I can think of plenty of sports that cost multiples of the iron man to compete in. Any Motorsport for instance. The amount of money you spend on sport rarely equates to social status.

Or 6, TI weren't happy with long swim, said couldn't be sanctioned, RD offered solution of shorter option but TI dragged their heals and didn't say one way or another whether it was acceptable until after the event.

We don't know if a TI sanction was or was not a requirement for insurance (insurance may have been via Ironman).

All we know is it was planned as a TI sanctioned race, all entrants had to pay for TI licences, and TI were providing race officials to enforce competition rules.

The race director would know that this means their event must be licensed - in writing - an hour or so before the race.

If there was no race licence say 60 mins before the scheduled start, the race director really should have no other business than trying to get one. This would mean discussing and liaising with the technical official and - if required -agreeing a delay, a different course, a shortened swim, a cancelled swim, etc.

These 'plan B' options would be set out in their plan, weather conditions are foreseeable risks.

I would be interested to know how the decision to postpone Saturdays 70.3 was arrived at. Did TI and the RD agree to postpone that event.

I have to agree with the comments above. There is a serious amount of a "pub talk" element to the whole aspect of training and competing in Ironman in my opinion and experiences based on being in the company of work colleagues, fellow cyclists and town folk who train for these events.

A lot of people see it as a bucket list item and train for Ironman specifically. They do nothing triathlon related in the lead up to it. Tunnel vision.

Average age of competitor globally is 44 I believe.

I have the utmost respect for all endurance athletes as there's no doubt its a serious mental challenge also.

I do not compete before anyone asks the question.

You should have stopped after this: I always think there must be 

That's great, but which section of the 1989 Act would you charge people in charge of race with if you were the HSA inspector?

Some discussion of the race on Slowtwitch (a big mainly US triathlon forum) and one post caught my eye.

One swimmer posted his strava for the swim and it took him 5 minutes per 100m to swim the 300m to the first buoy against the current, and then when he turned he swam at 1.15mins per 100m pace for the rest of the race (a very fast swim speed even in a wetsuit and with a following sea). That means that he’s a very very good swimmer and even he struggled to get to the first buoy. He talks about how strong the current was, so much so that kayaks couldn’t hold position and at least one pro athlete had to rest on a rescue boat. Once the organisers realised how storing the current was they tried to change the course mid race and that resulted in bedlam.

Also lots of talk about how at no stage did TI tell the athletes that sanction had been revoked. Given that anyone who bought a race licence from TI for a sanctioned event is also extended cover under their insurance policy you could argue that TI were duty bound to tell athletes.

Firstly, I know llittle about the ironman event - Im talking in general terms.

In recent years there have been ongping issues between the Dept of Sport and a number of sports governing bodies over the sanctioning of sports events run by private companies in sports where there is the potential for injury if safety protocols are not followed.

Im aware of at least one sport where the then Assistant Secretary General in the Dept ordered that the sports body be given a dressing down for refusing to relax its safety rules for private events.

Things like safety/medical crews and other requirements cost money. Some event organisers simply dont want to spend the money. These are usually the smaller commercial operators in low profile events

The Departments view is that the ecomomic benefits outweigh the governing bodies safety concerns.

The sports body who got a dressing down told the Department that a commercial operator should be able to comply with the same safety requirements as a local Irish club made up of volunteers, but it fell on deaf ears. it wanted the events sanctioned. (It was later discovered that a private operator with a chequered safett record had lobbied the Assistant Secretary.

Dept was bluntly told its policies could result in deaths/injuries.

A construction company isnt allowed operate a building site without complying to safett requirements, but a private company running sports events is exempt. Doesnt make sense.

You're doing a lot of guessing and surmising.

Your point that TI assisting the swim is somehow not consistent with them not sanctioning the event is not valid.

What would you expect any decent person experienced enough in this field to be known and trusted as "expert" to do?

They made an expert assessment that the race should not go ahead due to safety reasons, you think they should then have abandoned the athletes and just went home knowing lives were in danger? They stayed to help as best they could in the interests of health and safety.

The facts are the National Governing Body declared the event unsafe to go ahead and the representatives of the private company that run these events to make massive profits decided not to heed the advice.

Funnily enough all your questions are answered in the post you quoted.

"As such, federation representatives were present during the event and performed their duties. Several hours after the swim was completed, they communicated to the onsite IRONMAN Ireland officials that they would not approve the sanctioning for the event".

from here