As an athlete, if I knew this about a race director, I would be extremely hesitant to participate in their event. I'm sure this attitude is more common than I am aware of, but it is scary none the less.
Word gets out. When I participated in triathlons, there was a race director who was notorious. His events were rogue and unsafe. Basically he couldn't hold an event anywhere twice, since after one, the city/town would ban him from ever running an event there again. I heard a friend wanted to participate in one of those events, so I told him what I knew. That was a few years ago. Now I can't find any trace of that race director on the internet. I haven't experienced an unsafe event, but one small tri that I did was kind of sketchy in other respects so I didn't enter any more of their events.
None of you posting to this thread can appreciate just how close USMS came to being a virtual organization at the beginning of 2013, with no insurance to cover any of our operations, sanctions or members. It would have been very easy to cut OW loose and save USMS $135,000. But USMS has had a very keen interest in building OW for the last 4 years, and did not ever consider shutting down that branch of the business. The gratitude shown for this hard work and dedication are an exodus of sanctioned events.
That's probably true. Based on what I've read in the USMS statements, the communications painted a pretty clear picture of an unexpected cost increase, and a scramble to make the best of what was available in such a short amount of time. While disappointing, I understand why certain sanctions were pulled, and why certain race directors made the decisions that they made. While my emotions swing my opinion one way, I really don't think that either race directors or USMS have acted in the wrong.
I think that a lot of the reason for the contention is that there's been no indication that, with a longer timeframe to research the best alternatives for everyone, USMS is going to reconsider any of the new requirements for 2014. While not all of the new requirements are all bad, for some events, they won't work. That's why, for example, Tampa and Kingdom Swim are no longer going to be USMS sanctioned events.
With the new requirements, it seems to me like there will need to be a lot of change. If USMS is interested in supporting the growth of open water swimming, will there be any means by which to at least recognize events such as these, even if USMS cannot put itself in a position to insure these events? Perhaps something like event recognition, like Ron Collins suggested? Perhaps an option where the swimming rules of USMS are abided by, even if the insurance isn't (like 8 bridges is doing this year)?
I don't think it should be too hard, now that there is ample time to come to a measured and reasonable solution, to find a solution that is more amenable to everyone. While I don't know if the Open Water Taskforce is still around and working, but I hope that they are, and I hope that they take their time, reach out for more input, and come up with a more thorough solution.
The gratitude shown for this hard work and dedication are an exodus of sanctioned events.
and as i wrote to the board of my lmsc (of which i am a part of) 3 weeks ago. this is just the tip of the iceberg Michael.
in that note i stated how usms was facing the same exact situation that the ama (american motorcycle association) faced 10 years ago with sanctioning offroad races. how a few lawsuits had raised the insurance for events (meets) from the $800 range to the $2000 range. for those events that continued to host, most of them have gone rogue (ie no ama). some have insurance (maybe no way to prove) and most dont. some provide ambulance service on site, others say they will call in careflight and you will pay the entire bill.
all have waivers. which in some states means nothing when it comes to gross negligence. today most of the series (lmsc's) have folded up or gone rogue. the very largest of series in the usa (gncc) has totally gone rogue. not only that, but bought another series (OMA) and taken it rogue as well. a year long ama membership is $49 (up $10 for the 1st time in 13years). yet, in 2 weeks when the us national enduro comes to texas there will only be 20 or so ama members from texas in the event. there will be a rogue event the same weekend that is more centrally located to the biggest cities.
in summary, if you think OW has become difficult, wait till a usms pool event has a major lawsuit (and yes i've personally seen this way back in '78 to the tune of $16million at an aau practice) and when those pool event premiums jump to the same levels. little meets will dry up just like they have in the ama.
i know this is sounds all doom and gloom, but the ama is the largest motorcycle group of its kind in the world. and yet it has already shown the path to hard times with 100x more members. how will usms prevent the same from occuring to it as what has happened in the ama?
our ED was able to find one insurer that could write a policy for USMS that included open water events.
Thanks for your explanation, Mike. Forgive my ignorance on these matters, but is it necessary to have a single insurer for both types of events? Can't USMS have one insurer for pool meets and another for OW events? They seem to be so different.
I understand that organizations are not people (though some might disagree...but I digress...) but I don't have to have the same insurer for my car, my house and my health.
Or is it a matter of cost, being much more expensive to insure them separately?
In the interest of better accuracy, I want to clarify my previous post. The board of directors did not know about the initial insurance premium jump until November 9 in an informal announcement. It was a video available to the entire board. I do not know how many of the directors actually saw it. There may have been an email as well, I have not been able to find it. Officially, the entire board became aware of the actual numbers in a conference call on December 17.
Why so late? Because our insurance company did not release the premium information until November 1. USMS knew it was in for higher premiums because of recent claims, but the actual premium amount was a surprise to even the most jaded.
Or is it a matter of cost, being much more expensive to insure them separately?
Precisely. Economies of scale.
USMS actually has a dozen or so policies. As far as I know, this year is the first time open water has had its own category.
Passing on part of the insurance premium that is exclusively OW dedicated is just a business decision.
And one I think I agree with, because all the other options for dealing with the cost increase seem to have bigger down-sides or smaller up-sides than the one the Board chose. My point was to contradict the specific suggestion that the new sanctioning rules have no negative consequences for races on "smaller, closed-loop courses."
My team puts on a race on a closed-loop course in a lake. Last year we drew about 300 swimmers and about broke even. We think we can satisfy the new boat equipment and insurance rules, but we are going to have to raise the entry fee to cover the cost increase that is trickling down to us. We think the increase will be small enough and the overall entry fee still low enough that we can do it without compromising attendance. On the other hand, the director of a 60-person race might have to make a different business decision, which would not mean a lack of "gratitude" but rather a lack of money.
If USMS identifies more expansive or less restrictive insurance for OW events for 2014 and beyond, but only at even higher premiums, that situation will present even more difficult business decisions for the USMS Board and for race organizers.
If I were the USMS OW Task Force, I would absolutely want these people's input, and if possible, have them directly involved in the decision-making. Not just for better decisions, but for the perceived legitimacy of the process.
Evan, I called Rob Copeland back in January, to offer input. We discussed the insurance, safety, etc. and asked him to refer me to any place that would be able to offer our support boaters the insurance required by USMS. He listened to my concerns, and I felt he had a good understanding of the challenges that some race directors will now face. I let him know that the Tampa Bay Marathon Swim will do whatever it takes to stay USMS sanctioned, but there is just no way to get insurance certs on 20+ power boaters. So, at least I feel like I had some input, but it was after their 12/31/12 letter that initially broke the news re: sanctioning OW events.
one of my issues is that USMS doesn't seem to have researched the availability before imposing this limit.
Perhaps I was not clear in prior posts. USMS does not have discretion in some of the sanction requirements. This is one of them. The prop guard is another. These exist in order for USMS to offer insurance at all.
This thread was started by a swimmer frustrated by the fact that a perennial favorite OW event was cancelled...You do me and my fellow event directors a disservice by suggesting this "exodus" is simply a matter of convenience.
It is just picking a nit since I agree with your last statement, but I don't believe the LV swim was canceled.
I haven't participated in either of your events but from everything I've heard you and Ron are outstanding race directors. Still, I imagine Mike and others have been lambasted by race directors who thought this was a capricious decision. My wife is our LMSC's sanction chair and has also been on the receiving end of tirades. Some race directors simply want a sanction rubber-stamped to get insurance and event exposure, and then want USMS to get out of the way. One local race director bristles at the suggestion that a safety plan is even necessary at all.
