Rule 43 letters
Rob Collings
Neil Wallace
My opinion.
The introduction is unnecessary spin.
The rule 43 letters are good, balanced, polite and clear.
The responses come across as arrogant.
anto...@aol.com
Well, at first reading, the ARA have come out all guns blazing. They
have passed the buck to OULBC to Coaches and to clubs left right and
center.
Did I miss something or basically are the ARA going to tweak the Water
Safety Code and thats it?
Correct me if I am wrong but I read a lot of poorly disguised snipes
and an incredibly rightious and aggressive almost response. They seem
to have pushed back hard to the Coronor and said fundementally it's not
our job?
Jonny
common sense.
Why all the fuss I wonder?
I switched on safety committee could fix this lot in 2 hours (plus time
for typing it up etc and getting the message out).
Rob Collings
awful lot of "blame the victim" and blame placed on the clubs.
According to the ARA, all the info is there but got ignored. Even if we
assume that is the case, I think anyone who assumes that the message is
heard elsewhere is naive in the extreme. The lack of attention to
current regulations and guidelines is a pretty common theme up and down
the country IMHO and if the clubs aren't listening then the governing
body isn't doing a good enough job of getting the message over. The ARA
acknowledges that there is a common theme in both incidents, yet
doesn't think it has to do anything to put that right?
I seriously hope that much of the ARA membership has sufficient
intelligence to see through the spin and buck-passing and takes the
coroners' letters to heart and not the ARA's. My bullshit detector
broke while reading the ARA replies...
I fail to see how any body that receives a rule 43 letter can write
back to the coroner and basically say "sorry, but you're wrong" (that
is how I read the responses). You would expect reasonable people to
take a rule 43 as a wake-up call but the ARA don't seem to be waking
up.
I hope clubs can take on board the recommendations and implement them
of their own accord even if their governing body doesn't. The
recommendations would serve as a good list for *all* clubs regardless
of country to check against their own procedures and make improvements
as necessary. The coroners' recommendations all seem pretty sensible
and balanced to me.
And WTF is "inherent buoyancy" vs "inbuilt bouyancy"?? When I read
stuff like that in technical reports it's usually to try to baffle the
reader into submission and prevent probing questions.
Rob.
Henning Lippke
> And WTF is "inherent buoyancy" vs "inbuilt bouyancy"?? When I read
> stuff like that in technical reports it's usually to try to baffle the
> reader into submission and prevent probing questions.
That is the praised ARA expert evidence on the sport of rowing in action.
IMO a waste of ARA time to reply to the Coroner. They should 'reply' to
their members.
While glancing at the replies (I haven't read them all, I admit), there
ARE certainly some points which are addressed by various codes and
statements or whatever by the ARA, which of course shifts the blame to
clubs & rowers, but they are those who in the end have to implement all
the safety advice.
So from my point of view, it's not enough to just have a proper Water
Safety Code. It has either be so very straight forward to arrive in
everybody's minds or there is a need for strict control of its
implementation.
Christopher Shea
I do not and have not subscribed to Carl's view that the ARA officers are
evil people whose only interest is self promotion. I err towards the more
charitable view that they love the sport and that when they see something
they perceive as threatening the sport, they battle against it so single
mindedly it blinds them to seeing the occasions they are wrong. This is
exacerbated by the total absence of accountability.
Reading Harris's letter to the Coroner, I was shocked at the bile. The
description of Leo's drowning could hardly have been written in manner more
calculated to be offensive to the Blockleys.
I still do not subscribe to Carl's view, but have to admit there may be more
merit to it than I had thought.
--
Chris Shea
Christopher Anton
"Rob Collings" <robin.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138039598.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...Further to the thread which worried about the readership of this group, I
note that everyone of us forwards these responses to their club members or
even prints them off and sticks them up in the club bar, or even better
talks about issues of safety in the bar so that everyone does get the
message.
Jon Anderson
> Correct me if I am wrong but I read a lot of poorly disguised snipes
> and an incredibly rightious and aggressive almost response. They seem
> to have pushed back hard to the Coronor and said fundementally it's
> not our job?
The letter dated 19th December is very defensive.
The one thing I'd fervently hoped was that there was an olive branch but
this is more of a pointy stick.
The ARA has an image problem in that people see it as a remote,
unaccountable organisation. What this letter does is reinforce that view.
That's a shame.
Jon
--
Durge: j...@durge.org http://users.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
[ All views expressed are personal unless otherwise stated ]
Jeremy Fagan
Buoyancy aids make you less safe.
Caroline couldn't swim.
No-one tried to use their oars to help the rudder.
I don't care about safety and haven't learnt anything since the accident.
These are all lies. Along with a load more in the ARA responses.
Bastards.
Jeremy
Stephen Blockley
Where to start?
Gary Harris does not seem to have attended the same Inquest as us - so much
of what he says is not in accordance with what was said in court. We
noticed that he did not seem to be taking much notice of procedings,
spending a lot of time talking to his lady companion to the point of
distracting the court. It appeared to us at the time he was treating the
whole thing like a day out at the park. He did not appear to take any
notes.
First let us point out just a few of the factual inaccuracies in Harris's
letter to Mr Pollard - just to put the whole thing in context:
1) He is wrong about why Axel Muller did not attend court - the Coroner did
not say he need not attend, Mr Muller refused to attend - at least that is
what we and the legal teams from both sides were told by the Coroner in
court on Tuesday 4th October. This is why Harris was not called - for legal
technical reasons only. He knows he was listed to give evidence on Thursday
6th October, immediately after Mr Muller was due to appear - and we still
have the original official court witness list to prove it.
Harris may have offered to give "expert" evidence to the court on 5th
October, but Mr Pollard decided that instead he would call Jane back to the
stand at the end of procedings to give her expert evidence on rowing safety,
buoyancy and the dangers of cold water immersion. This came as an
unexpected surprise to be chosen instead of the Deputy Chair of the ARA.
2) The cox of Leo's boat was indeed able to swim - to competition level we
believe. This was an inaccuracy in the original police report, but was
corrected later. Her swimming ability was not discussed at the second
Inquest because it had already been established it was up to standard and
beyond.
3) No-one in either of the two boats was aware of the "local procedure for
crossing the river (Ebro) in high winds". None of them, to include the club
president, were present at the briefing meeting with Axel Muller. The Head
Coach confirmed she was present, but the information was apparently not
passed on.
4) It was established in court that at the time of the accident the so
called "Stay with the boat rule" was not a rule at all, but a "practice",
which is not always applicable. It was noted that it had ceased to be part
of the ARA capsize drill in !998, and was NOT mentioned AT ALL in the
contemporary ARA Water Safety Code.
5) It was established in court that many crew members had not heard of the
"stay with the boat rule". There is no evidence to suggets that Leo knew
the rule either.
6) It was established in court that there was no evidence to suggest that
Leo deliberately let go of the boat.
7) It was established in court that Leo was swept away while swimming
towards the boat.
Next let us look at Harris's comments regarding FISA's Minimum Safety
Guidelines:
1) Harris states these were based on the ARA Water Safety Code mk2, which
were superseded in April 2003. The FISA Draft Guidelines were published in
Dec 2004, and ratified in an updated form 5th December 2005.
2) Harris states adoption of the FISA guidelines would be a retrograde
step. We disagree (e.g. see below).
3) WRT to boat buoyancy, Harris states the FISA Guidelines only state that
a club boat would "merely have to carry a plate stating whether or not it
met the (FISA Minimum Flotation) standard". Has Mr Harris actually read the
FISA Guidelines? He is wrong. See Section II A bottom of page 2:
http://dps.twiihosting.net/fisa/doc/content/doc_7_1087.pdf
This clearly states "Boats should meet minimum flotation requirements. When
full of water a boat with the crew seated in the rowing position should
float in such a way that the top of the seat is a maximum of 5 cm (2 inches)
below the static water line." It goes on to describe ways of adapting older
boats to meet the standard.
4) The FISA Guidelines actually define a performance standard for heel
restraints, while the ARA Code does not. Hardly a retrograde step.
5) The FISA Guideline advice on cold water conditions is more detailed and
more appropriate that the ARA code, and gives useful specific advice - see
section B3 bottom page 5 (link as above). Hardly a retrograde step.
6) Mr Pollard did not suggest a wholesale replacement of the ARA Code with
the FISA Guidelines. He only comments that he understands that the FISA
Guidelines are not mandatory at internal national level - which Jane
explained to the court during her second appearance on the stand. It
appears that Mr Harris is being somewhat disingenuous in his reply.
......and finally (for the moment)
The ARA seem to be claiming that they cannot have any influence over rowing
safety - the "We can only advise" position....they maintain it is the
responsibility of boatbuilders, clubs, rowers, club safety advisers i.e
anybody but the ARA.
SO, why do we have an NGB? Why does the ARA exist?
In the light of Mr Harris's inappropriate, unhelpful, denigratory, offensive
and inaccurate response to the Coroner, we are now considering our position.
Jane and Stephen
Jonny
club is the one at the business end of this whole rowing caper and in
this case the one particular club has shown themselves to be (if I
shall put it politely) rather inadequately prepared.
I have a feeling that if the coaches and administrators of the club
involved had been dragged into the woods and shot - WHOOPS! - I mean
given a thourough roasting, then many clubs all over the country would
suddenly be looking at what they are doing (or not doing) with regards
to safety and have a long hard look at themselves (even if only to
cover their arses!).
What seems to be happening is nothing (Carl and the Blockleys not
included in that statement) because no one has been held accountable
and no one knows about it.
If, as the ARA say, most of the correct information (OK, it is not
perfect) is out there, then why are people so ignorant of it? The ARA
should get of its fat backside and force clubs and coaches to read this
stuff (even test it). Instead they sit mute, saying they have done
enough.
The apathy of many rowers is truly astounding. Clubs (coaches and
admin) need a wake up call that tells them loud and clear that a tragic
'accident' like these 2 can happen to them - they have only been lucky.
Even from way over here I feel like we should 'tar and feather' the
dopey club officials involved and then plant a few Guy Fawkes rockets
up the rear of the rowing association.
Stephen Blockley
Sorry guys, it has been a long day, but having re-read Harris letter of 19th
December to Mr Pollard, we are amazed that he has chosen to "disagree" with
the findings of the court regarding buoyancy - its role in Leo's death, and
the need for all boats (old and new) to have full buoyancy provision
(meaning a defined performance standard) by a certain date.
Official sworn evidence for the Inquest was gathered by both parties and the
Coroner over a period of some eighteen months. The Coroner's court papers
measured approx 2 feet thick. The evidence was heard over four days The
issue of buoyancy in all its aspects was heavily featured in this evidence.
In addition, specific written evidence from FISA about buoyancy was formally
admitted to the court. Mr Pollard pondered all this for a further day
before delivering his judgement - in which he ruled that lack of buoyancy
had contributed to Leo's death.
Harris's arrogant dismissal of Mr Pollard's judgement on this and many other
aspects of the case is an insult to the Coroner, an insult to his court, an
insult to all those who gave evidence (and we think libellous to some), and
an appalling low snide attack on our dead son. Shame on him.
The matter will not end here.
Jane and Stephen
PS We can answer Harris's query to FISA asking how they arrived at their
definition of "sufficient" buoyancy (which has yet to receive a reply).
FISA discussed the matter at length (for approx 1 year) in three of their
expert Commisions, consulted with all boatbuilders and NGBs worldwide, and
took notice of our evidence and accident data. Does Harris think he knows
better than all of these? Oh, sorry, he got his idea from his one time
observation of one boat in Dartmouth harbour....how very scientific of him!
The rest of the world must now believe the earth is flat, as Mr Harris has
only seen a little bit, and that didn't look round at all.
anto...@aol.com
You need your army Stephen.
Despite disagreements with tactics there cannot be a reader on here who
is not convinced you A) speak truthfully, wisely and with good
intention and B) have a water tight case.
The ARA have in my view just hung themselves. I truely believe that by
spreading the word you will achieve the exposure you need to strike
back. In my business we call it a "mailshot". You have everything in
place. All you need is to direct those who are oblivious to your fight
to the evidence.
Just direct the rowing community to your website. Prepare it with the
full story clearly set out on the site. In days you will have increased
awareness 50 fold at the very minimum. You hit count on your wensite
will prove it.
Flyers at the Boat Race, Flyers at the Women's Head, Flyers at the
men's head.
Cheap effective and easily done. Certainly easier than everything else
you have endured.
Jeremy Fagan
welcome. I'm not paying to transport myself out there for you to do the job.
Sadly, you're believing too much of what Harris has written. He is
trying to blame everyone and anyone but the ARA for what happened - even
though no-one else (including the coroners and Stephen and Jane) have
been interested in blame - simply in finding out what happened.
What he has written is simply untrue in such large parts, that all of it
should be quite simply disregarded.
Jeremy
Edd
> Letters and responses now posted at
> http://www.ara-rowing.org/news/060122_rule43.php
Well, I won't go back over what other people have said, but I'm
somewhat befuddled by the statement
' this suggested compulsory provision would present clubs with
potentially crippling costs that would be disproportionate to the risk
involved. Many boats are never used in a situation where there is the
risk or history of swamping. Over the sixty years since the Second
World War we are aware of six fatal incidents in English rowing,
including the death of Leo Blockley in Spain'
in
http://www.ara-rowing.org/docs/rule43_7.pdf
when in the same letter it's clear that non-fatal swamping incidents
are sufficiently common that it happened to the author's own club:
'I have observed one of my clubs Janousek four oared boats being
swamped at a regatta in Dartmouth harbour in rough conditions.'
and happens often enough that Leo was involved in two swamping
incidents:
'had previously swum successfully for the shore following a boat
swamping whilst he was a student at Cambridge '
--
Edd
Jonny
more than just the ARA stuff.
To coin a quasi-legal phrase - 'the matter speaks for itself'.
A man died under the watch of a club and its senior members. These
people were faced with a number of situations, any one of which might
be described as an accident. The sheer number of seemingly small things
that added up to the point where one man was dragged away mean that
this was no longer an accident. The military have a saying: 'Once is an
accident. Twice is a co-incidence. Three times is enemy action.'
For all the things that are wrong with how the ARA had dealt with the
situation, they were not there on the day. Lack of buoyancy would have
saved that man and will hopefully save many in the future, but the lack
of it is not the reason he was in the bad situation he found himself.
A lack of planning and forethought is obvious in the actions of the
club and its senior members. Before the event (ie at home, general
proceedures), at the event (on the camp) and during the event (while
everything was going from bad to worse).
The sooner that club and its senior members admit that they were
underprepared and that lack of preparedness contributed to the death of
one of their own, the sooner we will begin to see the kind of culture
change that people are hoping for.
I don't mean to have a go at you - I don't know your role - but it is
obvious from the evidence at the inquest that the club got caught with
its shorts down. The vague attempts at cover-ups don't help either.
I campaign for safety here and much of what I do is based around
thinking out potential problems and addressing the possibility - rather
than reacting to the eventuality. It is called risk-analysis.
'She'll be right' is an Australian phrase that could translate to 'it
might go wrong, but we fancy our chances. That is what happened on that
day in Spain.
Neil Wallace
(snip)
> I have a feeling that if the coaches and administrators of the club
> involved had been dragged into the woods and shot - WHOOPS! - I mean
> given a thourough roasting, then many clubs all over the country would
> suddenly be looking at what they are doing (or not doing) with regards
> to safety and have a long hard look at themselves (even if only to
> cover their arses!).
I disagree.
IMO such a witch hunt wouldn't make the sport safer.
Should you find a Reading coach to hang from a tree, and an OULBC coach to
burn, you and Gary Harris will probably be quite delighted with yourselves.
Meantime, let the rest of us ponder over the rational, sensible
contributions from the two coroners, and consider why they chose NOT to
apportion blame in the way you obviously wish they had.
Jonny
get people thinking about fixing things!
No one reacts (people here have commented on lack of action from the
rowing masses) because no one sees any consequences. If club officials
and coaches (who have a legal duty of care) suddenly realised that they
could face criminal charges for negligence or be open to a civil suit,
they might sit down together and check if their house is in order.
Nothing like a good scare to get people motivated!
I have followed the Leo Blockley drowning fairly closely for a number
of years (I have not really read enough on the other case to comment)
and it is fairly clear that the whole event was surrounded by a
cluster-fcuk of stupidity on the part of the people organising and
running the camp (and possibly the entire culture of management of the
club). Ask a solicitor for a text book definition of 'duty of care',
'negligence' and 'liability'. I am actually quite surprised that the
club has not been sued by the family - seriously.
As for the ARA, Gary Harris may or may not be a 5 star knob - I don't
know or really care - but OULBC were the clowns running the show in
Spain at the time. They need to look at themselves rather than pointing
the finger at Leo or the ARA. Getting buoyancy in boats is a later
bun-fight that has sprung from this earlier event. The issue of
buoyancy is secondary in the sense that he (Leo) wouldn't have been in
the position of needing it if so much else had not gone horribly wrong
before hand. Buoyancy will be great and I support it - but wouldn't it
be nice to think that we were bright enought not to need it?
My suggestion (in the earlier post) is that if someone from the club
was held responsible (duty of care and all that jazz) then we would
either see a mass exit from leadership roles at clubs - or a serious
culture change that would hopefully see ALL clubs operate in a much
more planned and safe manner.
I would love to see someone at OULBC stand up and say 'we cocked up and
because of our lack of forethought, we have caused the death of our
mate'. That would be a genuine and honest thing to admit to. We know
you didn't mean to cock up, but the evidence suggests you did.
It is not going to happen. Why? Because everyone there knows that it
would open them up to legal liability. So they sit on their thumbs and
hope that it will all blow over.
The reason why I have posted strongly on this recently is that it
really, really sh!ts me that no one ever thinks that they have to take
responsibility for anything.
Rower123
clubs/organisations need to take responsibility for their activity.
However:
Bouyancy is exactly the issue here.
You never know when you're going to get swamped - wind can blow up very
quickly and without warning - weather forecasts cannot be relied on.
And, there is no forecast service at all for passing launch wash.
Boat Bouyancy costs nothing extra at build stage and does not hinder
performance in any way. In fact - it's very convenient as it enables an
outing to finish even if difficult conditions occur and boat fills.
So, bouyant boats, capable of supporting a crew seated when fully
swamped is the only answer.
Your line of argument regarding being clever so should not need to rely
on bouyancy is flawed - bad things happen and if possible to mitigate
against them, we should.
This does not advocate going rowing in dangerous conditions, merely
puts in place a measure to control an unexpectedly bad situation
We don't say that we should not need seatbelts or crash-helmets if we
drive or cycle carefully.
Phil
Rower123 wrote:
(snip)
> Boat Bouyancy costs nothing extra at build stage and does not hinder
> performance in any way. In fact - it's very convenient as it enables an
> outing to finish even if difficult conditions occur and boat fills.
>
> So, bouyant boats, capable of supporting a crew seated when fully
> swamped is the only answer.
Buoyancy is a no-brainer, but it is not the only answer, merely a large
part of it. Other risk reduction systems should be in place such that
we should (ideally) never be in a position to need it. You wouldn't
neglect to drive safely just beacuse you have airbags, would you?
Phil.
anto...@aol.com
The matter will not end here?
Well you need a game plan now because I recon you have played most of
your cards, hit them with your hardest punch and they are not only
still standing but effectively they just slapped you in the face.
We have heard Carl's "wait and see". "They are in trouble now". But
clearly they do not think so?
Whatever you interpreted in court, the 43 letters at a second reading
look pretty tame and the response to the ARA letters is very timid
indeed.
I suspect the ARA view both you and the other lads parents as
irrational parents suffering from grief.
Bottom line is it's taken 5 years to get here and Harris has just hit
you for 6.
Jonny is right, OULBC cannot pass the blame. There was undoubted
incompetence and unprofessionalism in Spain. They cannot pass all the
blame to the ARA. You are never critical of OULBC. People assume OULBC
is on a par with OUBC. Well forget it. It's a side show and the people
involved are not like the OUBC set up.
At what point do you sit back, realise that the ARA have ignored you,
insulted you etc.etc.
OK I am having a bad day. But you need to start playing a bit clever
and dirty. And you need exposure. exposure exposure.
Harris's letters say.
I am not scared of the Coronor!
I am not scared of the Blockleys!
You need to make him scared of the membership!
If your response to this is to write a letter to the coroners
suggesting that the ARA response is not sufficient etc. etc. then I
suspect you will be wasting your time.
Edd
> As for the ARA, Gary Harris may or may not be a 5 star knob - I don't
> know or really care - but OULBC were the clowns running the show in
> Spain at the time. They need to look at themselves rather than pointing
> the finger at Leo or the ARA. Getting buoyancy in boats is a later
> bun-fight that has sprung from this earlier event. The issue of
> buoyancy is secondary in the sense that he (Leo) wouldn't have been in
> the position of needing it if so much else had not gone horribly wrong
> before hand. Buoyancy will be great and I support it - but wouldn't it
> be nice to think that we were bright enought not to need it?
OULRC and other OU clubs will probably have looked at themselves quite
carefully. It's the clubs who're not involved directly who are most
likely to not change their practices following an incident. They're
the ones who most need guidance following experience gained by others
through such incidents.
--
Edd
Rower123
my email:
"This does not advocate going rowing in dangerous conditions, merely
puts in place a measure to control an unexpectedly bad situation"
Of course the presence of boat bouyancy does not negate other safety
measures
Paul
was appalled after reading Harris's response to Mr Pollards Rule 43
letter and the accompanying correspondence. While it is difficult at
times now to know lies from half truths and speculation around this
case there seems to be no evidence that Leo Blockley deliberately swam
away from the boat and to repeatedly imply that he did so is an
unnecessary smear. Given what I have read, even if he had swam away
from the boat I would still lay the blame at the feet of those at OULRC
responsible for this camp, for placing him in the position he found
himself, given that the description of the procedures surrounding
safety at the Amposta camp are as described by Harris (no one has
challenged them).
As for what the ARA is going to do now. I have some sympathy with their
position. They can send out all the safety information they like, but
if clubs and individuals choose to ignore it there is little that can
be done. Some of the suggestions by the coroners, such as compulsory
capsize drills are clearly not workable, while others, such as
retro-fitting boats to increase buoyancy may be possible within a
sensible time frame/cost. Perhaps Carl can comment on that.
Jeremy Fagan
> Jeremy, I do not know your role in any of this but I have read much
> more than just the ARA stuff.
You can't have read much more without realising that I was the President
of OULRC (not OULBC) at the time of the accident. In fact, since Gary
Harris spends several paragraphs trying to blame me for the accident
(along with blaming everyone else but themselves), I struggle to believe
that you've even read his stuff.
>
> To coin a quasi-legal phrase - 'the matter speaks for itself'.
>
> A man died under the watch of a club and its senior members. These
> people were faced with a number of situations, any one of which might
> be described as an accident. The sheer number of seemingly small things
> that added up to the point where one man was dragged away mean that
> this was no longer an accident. The military have a saying: 'Once is an
> accident. Twice is a co-incidence. Three times is enemy action.'
And of course, you have heard the evidence more than the coroner, so are
in a position to reach different conclusions to him?
>
> For all the things that are wrong with how the ARA had dealt with the
> situation, they were not there on the day. Lack of buoyancy would have
> saved that man and will hopefully save many in the future, but the lack
> of it is not the reason he was in the bad situation he found himself.
>
> A lack of planning and forethought is obvious in the actions of the
> club and its senior members. Before the event (ie at home, general
> proceedures), at the event (on the camp) and during the event (while
> everything was going from bad to worse).
>
> The sooner that club and its senior members admit that they were
> underprepared and that lack of preparedness contributed to the death of
> one of their own, the sooner we will begin to see the kind of culture
> change that people are hoping for.
I've given my evidence in court, and publicly apologised to the
Blockleys and to the court for my part in what happened at the time and
what happened since, both in court and on rsr. Frankly, I don't see the
need to apologise to you or to the ARA.
>
> I don't mean to have a go at you - I don't know your role - but it is
> obvious from the evidence at the inquest that the club got caught with
> its shorts down. The vague attempts at cover-ups don't help either.
>
> I campaign for safety here and much of what I do is based around
> thinking out potential problems and addressing the possibility - rather
> than reacting to the eventuality. It is called risk-analysis.
>
> 'She'll be right' is an Australian phrase that could translate to 'it
> might go wrong, but we fancy our chances. That is what happened on that
> day in Spain.
>
I suggest to you that you know far less about what happened than you
think you do. For the last 5 years, I've heard other people telling me
what happened out in Spain, almost always at odds with what actually
happened, with the information not coming from those of us who were there.
Jeremy
Neil Wallace
(snip)
> Bouyancy is exactly the issue here.
only in one of the cases.
Jeremy Fagan
> While I have never been in the ARA bashing camp I have to say that I
> was appalled after reading Harris's response to Mr Pollards Rule 43
> letter and the accompanying correspondence. While it is difficult at
> times now to know lies from half truths and speculation around this
> case there seems to be no evidence that Leo Blockley deliberately
> swam away from the boat and to repeatedly imply that he did so is an
> unnecessary smear. Given what I have read, even if he had swam away
> from the boat I would still lay the blame
Why are you so interested in laying blame anywhere at all?
at the feet of those at OULRC
> responsible for this camp, for placing him in the position he found
> himself,
How about the responsibility of the ARA in ignoring a letter warning
them that boat buoyancy was necessary? Don't you think that that
contributed to the situation that Leo found himself in?
How about the ARA refusing to give advice on suitable cold weather
clothing even now? Writing an article in Rowing & Regatta talking about
clothing suitable for cold weather, without ever mentioning what would
be safer / more dangerous in the event of sudden cold water immersion?
given that the description of the procedures surrounding
> safety at the Amposta camp are as described by Harris (no one has
> challenged them).
OK. Here goes for the challenge.
>
> 3. Alcohol and coaching. I entirely concur with your comment; it is
> totally unacceptable for coaches to be under the influence of alcohol
> when they are responsible for safety during rowing. We are very
> disappointed that there was no disclosure to the ARA, just as there
> was no disclosure to the first Inquest, by those senior individuals
> at OULRC who were in a position to do so, of their concerns about
> coaches being either
> under the influence of alcohol, or suffering the after-effects of
> alcohol, during the training session when Leo Blockley died. The
> President of OULRC failed to make any reference to his concerns about
> alcohol when he reported the incident to the ARA in February, 2001,
> and the Senior Member for OULRC failed to mention the issue at all
> when the ARA Honorary Treasurer and I met him, and other members of
> the newly established Council for Oxford University Rowing (COUR), to
> discuss the incident in October, 2002. What is particularly difficult
> to understand is that the President of OULRC failed to take action
> over his concern that his Head Coach was affected by alcohol on two
> occasions. Firstly, when, as he stated at the Inquest, he believed
> that she was affected by alcohol when she was in charge of the Trial
> Eights in the autumn prior to the incident in Amposta.
I only heard about this after the accident in Spain, when she had
already left the club. Gary Harris knew this - this was in the evidence
in court. Lie 1.
Secondly, on
> the morning of the death of Leo Blockley in Amposta, he allowed the
> session to start, and then to continue, under her control, despite
> his concerns about her behaviour before and during the training
> session.
The session had started when she turned up, we were in the boat and
about to push off before I saw here, and it wasn't until we'd pushed off
that I had any suspicions at all, which were only confirmed when we were
30 minutes downstream. Again, Harris knew this from the inquest and has
deliberately chosen to tell an untruth. Lie 2.
In your verdict you state; “Although there is evidence that
> some or all of the coaches may have partaken of alcohol on the
> evening the 28th December 2000, there is insufficient evidence to
> prove, even on the balance of probabilities, that the after-effects
> thereof so affected the judgement of any of the coaches such that it
> could be said to have materially affected the outcome of an
> accidental event.”. Indeed, the collective decision making by the
> coaches and crews at Amposta was so faulty that it would have
> scarcely made any difference if they were affected by alcohol or not.
This makes no sense whatsoever. The coroner is clearly saying that there
is no evidence to say that alcohol affected the judgement of the
coaches. Harris sees this as blaming us (both crews and coaches) for the
accident, something that the coroner does not do. Lie 3.
> The chain of key faulty decisions is set out below.
Why does he have the arrogance to lecture the coroner on what happened
in Spain? The coroner heard all the evidence, and has already reached
his conclusions. This part of the letter is clearly about propaganda to
the membership, and has nothing to do with the ARA's response to the
Rule 43 letter.
>
> 1. The coaches in the catamaran launch, once the propeller shaft had
> been fouled by a rope left trailing in the water over the side of the
> boat, did not attempt to use the anchor to prevent the boat drifting
> out of control from the sheltered, calmer, side of the river, and
> over to the bank exposed to the full force of the violent wind.
By the time that they'd realised why the engine had cut out, they would
have been half way across the river anyway, in the full force of the
wind. Again, someone lecturing those of us who were there on what
happened, without _ever_ asking any of us what actually happened.
> Having been blown over it became stranded amongst trees where they
> had to await rescue. An attempt at rescue made by the crew of the
> mono-hull launch was unsuccessful and the catamaran launch crew had
> to wait to be rescued by a Fire Brigade launch. There was no mention
> of an anchor in the evidence to the Inquest, so it is possible that
> the coaches took the launch out without this equipment, which was
> listed as being required in a launch in the then current second
> edition of the Water Safety Code.
This is a completely irrelevant insinuation. We have no way of knowing
now whether there was an anchor was there or not - we had an ARA
purchased launch safety kit, so everything that they had sold to us was
in that bag. 5 years later, who knows what was there. If they were so
concerned, why didn't they do anything at the time?
Of course, allowing a rope tied to
> his seat to trail over the side of the launch and to foul the
> propeller shaft is an embarrassing mistake for the coach who was
> acting as helmsman, and therefore in charge of the boat, to make, but
> however embarrassing it is to that coach, it was not actually a
> faulty decision, but it was a basic failure of good watermanship.
Again, simply insulting and rude, with no function. The coroner knows
all this, and it was discussed in court. Why does Harris see fit to take
upon himself the role of judge?
One
> puzzle is, why did the coaches decide to start their first training
> session on the water in the half-light and before the Fire Brigade
> were on duty at the neighbouring boathouse and, therefore, before the
> Fire Brigade were able to offer safety cover, which they routinely
> did for the local club? After all, they did have all day in which to
> train. During the second Inquest several witnesses stated that they
> boated just before dawn as first light broke, and that the boats set
> off down river so as to avoid the risk of hitting a buoy moored a
> little way up river from the landing stage, which they could not see
> in the poor light. It does not seem to have occurred to anyone, that
> if they had boated half an hour later they would have been able to
> see the buoy clearly, and thus have the freedom to row up river if
> they preferred.
This is the first time I have ever heard that the local fire brigade
provided cover for the local club. No-one from the local club _ever_
told us that. One of my regrets is that I had taken the decision to
delay boating by an hour from previous years so that we would be
training in the light. Had we stuck with our previous practice of rowing
in the dark, we would have completed the outing before the weather
turned. I still find it ironic that a decision taken for safety should
have put us in more danger. There is a significant difference between
'just before dawn' and 'as first light broke' - usually about an hour?
My memory is of it being light enough to see quite easily by the time we
were on the water. Lie 4.
>
> 2. The coaches in the mono-hull launch, led by the Head Coach, should
> have kept both crews together and in sight, in the sheltered waters
> near the lee bank where the crews were able to row without
> difficulty, while assisting the catamaran. Instead, they sent the two
> eight oared boats, in the charge of very inexperienced coxswains,
> back to the club, round a bend and into the teeth of winds gusting up
> to 70mph; winds so strong that the coaches in the two launches, when
> they were struggling to free the propeller of the catamaran from the
> fouling rope near the exposed bank, could not make themselves heard
> to each other, even when using loudhailers at 10 yards distance.
Again, this was gone into in court in great detail and length (with
greater accuracy, of course). Harris has no need to tell the coroner
this - this is simply spin doctoring the inquest for the ARA membership.
The
> coaches gave no instructions on how to deal with the conditions,
> they did not remind the crews to adhere to the Amposta club’s bad
> weather circulation pattern, the pattern which should be used in such
> conditions to avoid swamping when crossing the river to the club
> landing stage, and they did
> not tell the crews to return around the bend to the safety of the
> sheltered water if they considered the conditions too difficult. The
> only instruction appears to have been to return to the club.
There was no such 'bad weather circulation pattern'. The first time I
heard of it was when I saw Harris' statement for the coroner, claiming
that Axel Muller had 'remembered' this pattern when he saw him at a
conference 2 1/2 years later. Muller did not mention this to the
university police when they were investigating the accident in the week
after the accident. It seems strange that he should forget it 2 days
later, but then remember it 2 1/2 years later. This alleged pattern
consisted of rowing past the club, and then allowing oneself to be blown
by the wind onto the club's landing stage on the other side of the
river. Quite simply, this plan was unworkable. As Harris heard in court,
any crew on the stretch of water by the club was going to sink, as there
was no shelter _anywhere_. Lie 5.
Again, he has no idea of what actually happened out there, and sees fit
to invent a version of events that simply is not true.
>
> 3. The Head Coach and the other coaches in the mono-hull, if they
> decided that the two crews must return to the boat house, should have
> gone to the turn in the river below the club to assess the risk to
> the crews in the two eight oared boats of going around the corner,
> out of the sheltered waters, in the deteriorating conditions.
We'd sunk in those sheltered waters - there was no such place. Harris
knew this. Lie 6.
The
> coaches could have kept the two crews in sheltered waters while the
> mono-hull went for assistance at the Fire Brigade boathouse, which
> was sited just down river of the OULRC training base at the Amposta
> club. Instead they sent the crews away unsupervised, whilst they
> concentrated their attention on the other launch, which was stuck
> fast next to the exposed bank and going nowhere.
>
> 4. The coxswains of both eights lost control of the boats when they
> came round the bend into the strong wind. There was no evidence that
> they tried to use the crew and oars to complement the rudder in an
> attempt to ensure that the bows were kept in line pointing into the
> bank, and the boats under control. Given the lack of experience of
> the coxswains, and the limited extent of training offered to them as
> members of OULRC, it is possible that they had not been taught the
> basic skill of using the oars to enhance the steering effect of the
> rudder.
This is the most arrogant and infuriating garbage. Of course we knew how
to steer a boat using oars. And the coxes all knew this as well. The
safety training offered by OU (way above and beyond any offered by the
ARA for coxes) talked specifically about using pressure steering. My
crew used pressure steering. Every crew in the country must know how to
use pressure steering within weeks of starting to row. Lie 7.
>
> 5. The coxswains should have used the local procedure for crossing
> the river in high winds i.e. go above the club, turn the bows into
> the wind and continue to face upstream to maintain control, and allow
> the wind to blow them across to the landing stage.
Those boats were going to sink wherever they were on that stretch of
water. This procedure was never mentioned in any evidence originally
offered to the inquest - if this procedure had been talked about before
the accident it would certainly have been uncovered.
This is what Axel
> Muller, the Director of the Spanish National Rowing Federation’s
> Coaching School and formerly a professional coach working at Amposta,
> and who was present in Amposta during the OULRC training camp, told
> the OULRC group when he briefed them on rowing at this venue on the
> night before the death of Leo Blockley. Axel Muller states that those
> present at the briefing included the President and some of the
> coaches and coxswains.
Lie 8. I was never at that briefing. This was explained at the inquest.
He seems certain that I was there, yet I certainly wasn't. How certain
is the rest of his memory?
Axel Muller, who is now a member of the FISA
> Youth Rowing Commission, is certain that had they followed this
> standard club practice neither eight oared boat would have been
> swamped.
Absolute and pure undiluted bullshit. My crew swamped (for the first
time) before we'd even reached the bridge, while we were still in these
supposed 'sheltered' waters.
I sent this information to you before the Inquest in the
> form of a statement given by Axel Muller to me. Axel Muller had been
> willing to come to England to give evidence in person, but as you
> know he was grateful that you decided that was not necessary.
>
> The performance of the coaches and crews at Amposta indicates that
> they were operating outside the scope of their knowledge and
> competence and it is very doubtful if the OULRC party should have
> been in Amposta at all. Some of the coaches had many years of
> experience in rowing but this seems to have been, with one exception,
> limited in scope, and their confidence in their own abilities and
> knowledge was not well founded. The Head Coach had undertaken no
> formal training or education as a coach, and neither she, nor the
> most experienced coach present could state, when asked to by you, Mr.
> Pollard, the standard navigation rule of two boats passing each other
> port side to port side. All they could state was a garbled version of
> the navigation rules used on the tidal Thames in London; information
> with no relevance to circulation patterns on the River Ebro in Spain.
> It is disappointing that coaches in positions of responsibility,
> conducting a training camp abroad, should have such a poor grasp of
> an absolutely basic navigation rule.
The mistakes that were made have been gone over in both inquests. Gary
Harris is not the coroner. Why does this have any part to play in a
response to a Rule 43 letter, written to the coroner?
Harris is quite simply inventing a fantasy story of what happened, that
bears only superficial resemblance to the events that actually happened.
He underestimates the conditions that we were in, and dishonestly
insults and denigrates everyone involved in an attempt to sling as much
muck as possible and obscure the picture for most people.
There were mistakes made, of course. No-one has ever denied that. But
Harris wants to build those mistakes up into such a gargantuan catalogue
of errors that it almost seems criminal that we were ever allowed out of
nursery, let alone going rowing. His letter is 100% about avoiding any
possibility of the ARA getting any blame for this.
Jeremy
anto...@aol.com
Jeremy
It is agreed that the ARA response is arrogant and rude.
Nevertheless, OUBLC were in Spain, not the ARA.
Of course there MUST be an element of responsibility from those that
were there and not just those that were alledgedly drunk.
Jeremy Fagan
given that the description of the procedures surrounding
> safety at the Amposta camp are as described by Harris (no one has
> challenged them).
Sorry - missed this bit out:
>
> 5. Clear differentiation between the administrative and safety
> responsibilities at training camps. We agree that there should be
> clarity about responsibilities for safety, not just during training
> camps, but at any time or place when rowing is taking place. In this
> case the responsibility lay with the President of OULRC as the senior
> officer of the club present. He had been to Amposta the previous
> winter, and he was familiar with the venue. He selected the venue and
> organised the camp, but he does not seem to have given sufficient
> consideration to the safety requirements for the camp.
What relevance does a personal attack on me, seeking to apportion blame,
have to the ARA response to the Rule 43 letter?
Some of the
> factors which could have been considered are set out in the Skeleton
> I presented to you on October 5th, when I offered to give independent
> expert evidence to the Inquest. The President also appointed the Head
> Coach, who, although experienced in preparing for, and racing in, the
> annual University Lightweight Boat Race, had not attended any formal
> coach education and held no coaching qualifications at all. The
> President was ultimately accountable for the success or failure of
> the camp and of the whole racing season. He should have set out the
> policy on safety, or he should have ensured that this responsibility
> was clearly delegated.
My Safety adviser had resigned in the autumn, and we'd been unable to
find a replacement. We had begun the process of writing a safety policy
(for the first time ever for OULRC) even before the accident happened.
Of course safety was high in my mind, but the support / help of the ARA
was non-existent, both before and after the accident.
We can see that signing a document would
> focus minds on the issue of safety, but the difficulty is that there
> is no means of enforcing such a rule. Further, there is the danger
> that such a requirement would foster just the unthinking box ticking
> mentality we wish to avoid when dealing with safety on the water.
So we should have had rules, but actually we shouldn't have had rules? Eh?
We
> prefer to encourage every individual to take responsibility for their
> own safety and not to be merely passive participants who leave safety
> to others. This is one reason why we do not ask clubs or regions to
> appoint Safety Officers. Such a title could be taken to imply that
> the individual concerned has sole executive accountability for
> safety.
i.e. we're more concerned with protecting our own backs than with
providing safety for our members.
If that were the case few individuals would volunteer for the
> role. We ask our clubs to appoint a Safety Adviser with the
> responsibility of advising club officers, committee members, coaches
> and athletes on safety matters. In this case the accountability for
> safety is more clearly seen to be where it actually lies; with the
> officers of the club.
i.e. anywhere other than the ARA
It is their role to ensure that there is a
> safety policy in place for the club and to ensure that it is adhered
> to. In the case of OULRC, which was described during the Inquest as a
> fiercely independent club which resisted interference from outside,
> even from within the University, the President, who, it seems, had
> the sole authority to hire and fire coaches, was clearly accountable
> for the safety of his club members.
and therefore, thank goodness, the ARA can't be held responsible in
anyway. Phew! Avoided the possibility that anyone can blame us, then...
As far
> as one can tell from the evidence, the President did not have safety
> on his radar screen, just the preparation for the University
> Lightweight Boat Race.
Crap.
This may seem a heavy burden for a student to
> carry, even one who is a postgraduate student. However, given the
> privileged status of OULRC within Oxford University sports, which
> allowed the club to act virtually independently, this burden was
> inescapable.
Ah - the university's fault as well, then! Well, as long as no-one's
suggesting that the ARA ever did anything wrong, or even anything that
could in anyway be improved in any small detail, we're all OK.
>
> Since 2000 the ARA Water Safety Committee has issued guidance to all
> clubs on running a training camp abroad, but we have no control over
> whether or how the current leadership of OULRC follow it.
>
It's not our fault. It's NOT our fault. IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!
>
> As for what the ARA is going to do now. I have some sympathy with
> their position. They can send out all the safety information they
> like, but if clubs and individuals choose to ignore it there is
> little that can be done.
You look at the list of things that the ARA had sent out before the
accident - it's remarkably thin compared to what they've sent out since.
And the Water Safety Code at the time made no reference to this 'stay
with the boat' rule that Harris makes much of later on, a rule which was
discredited in court. People have drowned while holding onto the boat.
Since Harris almost certainly reads rsr, he knows that.
He also claims that even if the boat had been buoyant, we wouldn't have
been able to row because of the waves. Yet, as I said in my evidence,
accident report and in court, a pair was out on the water that day, got
swamped and rowed home, raising the alarm in the process.
Jeremy
Jeremy Fagan
> Jeremy Fagan wrote:
>>
>>The mistakes that were made have been gone over in both inquests. Gary
>>Harris is not the coroner. Why does this have any part to play in a
>>response to a Rule 43 letter, written to the coroner?
>>
>>Harris is quite simply inventing a fantasy story of what happened, that
>>bears only superficial resemblance to the events that actually happened.
>>He underestimates the conditions that we were in, and dishonestly
>>insults and denigrates everyone involved in an attempt to sling as much
>>muck as possible and obscure the picture for most people.
>>
>>There were mistakes made, of course. No-one has ever denied that. But
>>Harris wants to build those mistakes up into such a gargantuan catalogue
>>of errors that it almost seems criminal that we were ever allowed out of
>>nursery, let alone going rowing. His letter is 100% about avoiding any
>>possibility of the ARA getting any blame for this.
>>
>>Jeremy
>
>
> Jeremy
>
> It is agreed that the ARA response is arrogant and rude.
>
> Nevertheless, OUBLC were in Spain, not the ARA.
>
> Of course there MUST be an element of responsibility from those that
> were there and not just those that were alledgedly drunk.
>
OULRC were in Spain.
Have you read my last 3 paragraphs? And my other post in response to Jonny?
I've apologised to the Blockleys for anything that I've done wrong, and
accepted responsibility for the mistakes that I made.
But the fact remains that Harris was writing in response to a Rule 43
letter. The coroner had heard exactly what had happened in Spain, not
some fantasy from someone who wasn't there, didn't take notes at the
inquest, and seems to have deliberately have invented scurrilous
accusations to sling against us.
It has no relevance for him to try and to blame _anyone_ for what
happened. It's not appropriate in a letter supposed to tell the coroner
what the ARA are going to do about safety changes.
The contents of his letters can be summarised as: there's nothing wrong
with our procedures, everybody else but us is incompetent, you don't
know what you're talking about, we won't do anything about what you've
suggested, apart from a few tokenistic half-hearted efforts, but they
won't really make any difference, and we're only making them to humour you.
Some kind of serious engagement with the coroner's suggestions would
have been nice. Posting the Rule 43 letters when they received them, and
_then_ asking for members' opinions on safety would also have been nice.
Instead we got that rather pathetic invitation to comment on safety
after Sikander Farooq's inquest, without any idea of what the coroner
had recommended.
Jeremy
Mike Sullivan
"Rob Collings" <robin.c...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138039598.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.ara-rowing.org/news/060122_rule43.php
I read the letters, and maybe not carefully enough, but I found
no reference or emphasis on water temperatures. I know this
was a huge contributing factor in both drownings, but other
than pointing out that cold water immersion is dangerous, no
reference was made to what the water temps were.
Can someone show me what I missed?
Mike
Carl Douglas
That statement is illogical, inconsistent with the facts & entirely
without foundation.
I shall be addressing the ARA's offering in due course, but I feel
impelled to write immediately in Jeremy's defence against such bloody
stupid accusations. These 2 separate & avoidable deaths should never
have been matters of contention. They became so only because the ARA,
OU & others decided that - rather than uncover the unvarnished truth,
say "ooops" or "sorry", explain what went wrong, learn lessons & make
rational improvements - they would, to protect their own backs, do a
cover-up by denying their statutory safety responsibilities & heaping
blame on the victims.
But right now it appals me that Jeremy should find himself pilloried not
only by Gary Harris but by RSR contributors who evidently have a far
from complete appreciation of the circumstance yet dare assume
themselves experts & entitled to apportion blame. The blame game is a
shitty, underhand practice & I would ask everyone to draw back from it
immediately.
Unlike the armchair judges, Jeremy was in Amposta & did undergo the
traumatic experience of losing a friend & colleague. Unlike you, he &
his colleagues were then subjected to intolerable pressure & lies from
his University superiors - detailed in Court evidence & beyond dispute -
to hide the truth & keep shtum.
There is no evidence that any rower within the OULRC squad acted with
less than courage & dignity on 29 December 2000, & some in that squad
acted with exception courage to save the lives of others.
The same cannot be said of 3 of the 4 coaches, nor of the senior fellow
for Oxford lightweight rowing, nor of a bunch of OU heavies. The
coaches' conduct on that day & during the preceding night was
reprehensible, as was their amnaesiac conduct in court. The OU
establishment, desperate suppress a situation with potentially nasty
repercussions, swung into action to blame the victim, gag the witnesses,
suppress the relevant evidence so that it should reach neither the
Spanish nor the British police, lie to Leo's parents, lie to the press &
public, covertly sack the chief coach (since openly doing so would have
begged too many questions) & kept those students, with potentially
damaging personal effect, under implied threat thereafter. In some of
this they were later very much assisted by the ARA. And it should
hardly surprise that OU later fought viciously (& at great cost to the
Blockleys), first to defeat the legal action for a second inquest &
later to intimidate & challenge every witness whose evidence conflicted
with the joint OU/ARA fictions.
Jeremy was one of those who had, IMO, nothing for which to reproach
himself. As club president he, more than anyone, had to face the OU
oppression which put him & his squad in a situation which, I strongly
doubt, his vocal critics here could or would have resisted.
Yet, to his lasting credit, Jeremy did fight for the truth:
1. He sought the support & guidance of a number of OU heavies against
the OU conspiracy, but received every one of them told him to follow the
party line
2. He blew the whistle in an email to me, very shortly after the accident
3. He submitted an accident report to the ARA which underlined the key
part played in the sinking of the 2 eights (&, conversely, the
non-sinking of a pair at the same time) by the lack of buoyancy in those
eights.
I suppose that, had he wanted to end his Academic career, he could have
gone to the Sun with a tale about pissed coaches at a toff University.
And how much good, as we have all seen, would that have done the cause
of rowing safety?
Thus the young Jeremy of over 5 years ago conducted himself impeccably
from a vulnerable position. He fought a corrupting system with honour &
to the limit of his resources. Should he have persisted, with the very
strong chance of having his academic career screwed up for him, to
further a cause which those who were supposed to have been his elders &
betters were so clearly determined to destroy? Please remember that, at
that time, people like me were sick to death of being told by pompous
asses that we were making a fuss about nothing.
So before any more stones are cast at Jeremy, let the vocal critics of
him & his squad first examine their own lilly-white consciences. I find
few things less edifying than a lynch mob.
I regret having had to write in this manner but - just as when everyone
rushed to blame Leo, & then Sikander, for precipitating their own deaths
- I detest a rush to judgement by people whose grasp of events is so
obviously slender.
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Henning Lippke
> asking for members' opinions on safety would also have been nice.
It's a farce to ask for members' opinions when thy - at the same time -
belittle the evidence and true expertise found in the inquest.
That's not a direct response to Jeremy's quotation, more on the fact
that the ARA has asked for members' input earlier. What do you as a
member expect have they done with your replies? Well, paper has some
energy stored which can be used to start your oven... the winter is cold.
Carl Douglas
> While I have never been in the ARA bashing camp I have to say that I
> was appalled after reading Harris's response to Mr Pollards Rule 43
> letter and the accompanying correspondence. While it is difficult at
> times now to know lies from half truths and speculation around this
> case there seems to be no evidence that Leo Blockley deliberately swam
> away from the boat and to repeatedly imply that he did so is an
> unnecessary smear. Given what I have read, even if he had swam away
> from the boat I would still lay the blame at the feet of those at OULRC
> responsible for this camp, for placing him in the position he found
> himself, given that the description of the procedures surrounding
> safety at the Amposta camp are as described by Harris (no one has
> challenged them).
Paul -
Please do not fall into the trap of supposing that whatever Gary Harris
chooses to say has necessarily a meaningful relationship to the truth.
Please don't expect people to challenge his statements in every
particular only a day after we get our first opportunity to read them.
My first sentence indicates my initial impressions, but one should study
first & only then respond, so patience please. Meanwhile do not, on the
basis of such a source as Mr. Harris, make haste to judgement.
OULRC did not intentionally place Leo in that position. But the ARA, by
ignoring serious advice on shell buoyancy in 1996, & by in 1998 deleting
previous WSC references to the dangers of shells sinking, removed the
intelligence which might have made OULRC & other clubs aware of the
potentially fatal consequences of swamping. OULRC did not intend 75% of
its coaches to be drunk & barely capable. Indeed, it was OU's fear of
the potentially shaming consequences of a drunken scandal in Amposta for
the second year running, as well as whatever other blame might stick to
it in any inquest that stimulated it to ran round hiding the truth &
spreading lies just as hard as it could. And, depressingly, the rowing
establishment & rowers at large were only to happy to assist in that
deception.
Please remember that when someone starts to lie, or even to tell "half
truths", they are doing so to cover up what will not bear closer
inspection. There is no room here for softy liberal even-handedness or
equivocation: _no_ lies have come from this side of the fence; _all_
the lies have come from the ARA & from OU.
>
> As for what the ARA is going to do now. I have some sympathy with their
> position. They can send out all the safety information they like, but
> if clubs and individuals choose to ignore it there is little that can
> be done. Some of the suggestions by the coroners, such as compulsory
> capsize drills are clearly not workable, while others, such as
> retro-fitting boats to increase buoyancy may be possible within a
> sensible time frame/cost. Perhaps Carl can comment on that.
>
The ARA is supposedly a _governing_ body. Its job does not end with
"sending out safety information". It has a statutory duty, i.e. under
Act of Parliament, to provide an efficient safety framework. And as NGB
it has the duty of governance get that information through to &
implemented by its member clubs and membership. The ARA can & does
impose penalties on clubs for various transgressions, & thus it exerts
an active enforcement function and thus cannot sustain an argument to
the contrary. The buck stops at 6 Lower Mall, not somewhere out in
cyberspace.
In which respect are the Coroners making unworkable proposals? I would
welcome your explanation.
It is a straightforward job to make any conventionally built eight fully
buoyant. As a favour for a friend I recently converted an Eton eight to
give an additional ~75kg per seat of enclosed buoyant volume. It looks
smart - carbon fibre bulkheads, fancy hatches, etc. - offers dry kit
storage, is now "easy clean" & is stiffer into the bargain. That would
not be a rock-bottom-priced job, of course. But we could have done a
much simpler, faster & cheaper job giving ~50kg/place. No, I am not
offering this as a service right now, but others may choose to do so, or
you could even do a good DIY job in cooperation with a competent
boatbuilder (ask Neil Wallace).
Cheers -
Jonny
gossip, I read most of the stuff and was looking at the detail of the
event, not the personalities involved. I have re-read a couple of the
documents I still have on my computer and yes, I see Jeremy's name.
I was not asking for, nor expecting, an apology from you Jeremy. I was
commenting on the events (as reported by the coroner and the Blockleys,
and on remarks made on RSR and by ARA) and did even preface that I did
not know your involvement. I could re-read everything and get back to
you with a detailed opinion - but that is not useful and I will take
Carls (above) as read.
Yes, I am an 'armchair expert'. I have only been rowing for 18 years
and been on a club committee (capt, VP) for 7. I have even managed
student clubs and know how that dynamic works.
I spent 3-4 horrible hours on morning late last year dealing with the
immediate aftermath of a missing sculler from my club. I was the most
senior/experienced club member on the scene 10 minutes after an
upturned scull was found. Dealing with the police, getting next of kin
details, checking the boat log, checking the boat and its safety
equipment, putting the media aside until the club secretary arrived to
deal. All of that. His body was found 5 days later barely 100m away and
was hauled out infront of a school girl crew. Brilliant! We are still
awaiting a coroners hearing. We suspect we know what happened, but not
confirmed.
Quite often an overview from a distance (in time as well) can make for
clearer vision. Isn't that what they say about historians? Hindsight is
always much better?
You were there, I was not. However you were only equipped with one view
point, yours. Apart from your one view, your knowledge is no better
than the coroner (unless anyone has blatantly lied to him). The coroner
is equipped with many views (all the witnesses, evidence and
statements) and is experienced and impartial in viewing this. My
training and skills lie in problem identification and solving. This,
and my lack of emotional attachment, gives me a clear view and, I feel,
the ability to suggest what I do. I cannot claim such a view of the
incident at my club, because I am too close.
Alasdhair Johnston
>you?
People do exactly that: it's known as risk compensation
Jeremy Fagan
{snip}
Should he have persisted, with the very
> strong chance of having his academic career screwed up for him,
I never needed any help screwing up my academic career...
Jeremy
ben
Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> Rob Collings wrote:
> > Letters and responses now posted at
> > http://www.ara-rowing.org/news/060122_rule43.php
> >
> >
> I'm furious and speechless.
>
> Buoyancy aids make you less safe.
>
> Caroline couldn't swim.
>
> No-one tried to use their oars to help the rudder.
>
> I don't care about safety and haven't learnt anything since the accident.
>
> These are all lies. Along with a load more in the ARA responses.
>
> Bastards.
>
> Jeremy
I don't know if you will find this useful, but as an outside observer
with no personal involvement in this series of events, I have to say
that the ARA responses and actions don't actually seem all that
unreasonable. I actually feel guilty even saying it as people
obviously feel more than just 'strongly' about this topic but a huge
amount of the angry discourse that we read here seems borne of personal
interactions and communications that have gone way awry. Honestly, I'm
sure I'm not alone when I say that I can't even read the posts on this
topic by Carl Douglas. It's almost like something out of the Unibomber
Manifesto. Even facts and reasonable arguments are so clouded by a
sense of personal attack (which clearly have gone both ways) that it
barely means anything and frankly has had a brutal effect on RSR.
I'm not saying that any of these feelings are not warranted, but what
we read here just doesn't jive with what you read in either the
Coroner's recommendations or the responses from what's his name,
Harris. Sure, they seem a bit defensive, but their arguements about
their responsibilities and removing themselves from blame really don't
seem that crazy or 'bastard like'. Even the final coroner's response
seems like he's ok with what they are proposing.
No doubt any perception of blame is way, WAY different when you are
actually being blamed. No doubt that there is some of twisting of
certain events by the ARA to suit their positions. No doubt there are
some errors in their assumptions and arguements. But I don't know,
looking at this from the view of a regular rower not directly involved,
I get the impression from reading this correspondance (the Rule 43
thing and the ARA response) that they've more or less dealt with it in
a sensible way and that the last line of the coroner pretty much says
ok. What I read is, you know, they don't have much control, they want
the buoyancy in all boats built after x year and they can make
recommendations but they ultimately have no way of policing the
multitude of clubs and can only offer reasonable advice for safety. Is
that a one sentence summary?
The words here on RSR obviously reflect some underlying hostility that
must have come from some heated exchanges and some terrible personal
attacks from the ARA and then back again (as we can read here), but the
bottom line is that the personal stuff doesn't really affect people who
aren't directly involved.
Anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will be a bit of a
long road ahead of you if you want further change or more concessions
as there position really does seem reasonable at first glance. To
convince people otherwise, not only will you need a lot of PR work as
mentioned elsewhere in the thread but some kind of change in tone or
approach or people will get too turned off by the rage. And people who
get attacked just attack back and it all gets very ugly. I mean, it
sounds almost sickening but most people don't give much more than a
first glance to anything, even when people die. I don't know what the
answer is for you though, maybe that it might be better (and certainly
healthier for your state of mind) maybe to step back for a while.
Maybe not, who knows.
And really, I don't mean to sound flippant or understate the profound
effect this has had on you and obviously on the Blockleys but sometimes
it's hard to know what it can look like from the outside when things
are so harshly divided.
Ben
Ewoud Dronkert
> you Jeremy.
Hi Jonny, I read your message with interest but could you please reply to
the post you're replying to... You responded to Jeremy but clicked 'reply'
on a message from Henning. That was quite confusing, for me and I guess
other people with threaded newsreaders. Also, the lack of quoted lines
left us without any context. Better first click 'show options' ABOVE the
message and 'reply' from there. Google Groups can be an adequate news
interface if handled correctly.
Thanks,
E.
--
http://groups-beta.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=features
Vote for 'Default quoting of previous message in replies'
Christopher Anton
"ben" <jbro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1138140980....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
. What I read is, you know, they don't have much control, they want
> the buoyancy in all boats built after x year and they can make
> recommendations but they ultimately have no way of policing the
> multitude of clubs and can only offer reasonable advice for safety. Is
> that a one sentence summary?
>
your boathouse has a rubber ball fixed (probably not very securely) to its
bows, heel restraints (probably too long) on every shoe, andif you're on the
Tideway a 6 digit alphanumeric in letters at least 100mm high - they're
there because the ARA has decreed that they should be there. It's done via
the rules of racing because you can bet that if you had to have a boat
certified as having x N of underseat bouyancy in order to compete in
regattas in would get done pretty sharpish.
This is what I don't understand about the entire sorry saga. It could be
done if there was the will.
Carl Douglas
Sorry you feel the need to launch a dyspeptic personal attack but, if it
makes you feel good, go ahead - my shoulders are broad.
Jeremy knows more than you will ever know (or want to know) about what
happened in Amposta & the coverup which the ARA & OU have been
conducting ever since. While his language may seem a touch intemperate,
I assure you that it is well informed. Would _you_ smile sweetly while
being publicly shafted? I doubt it.
This debate has not been about personal insults. All that we have done
on this side has been to tell the truth. That truth is most
unpalatable, I'll agree. But it is no insult to call either a spade a
spade or a liar a liar, so please don't get all prissy.
Some of your remarks above are grossly insensitive, especially over
attitudes to the death of others, & remind me somewhat of Harry Lime, up
there on the Big Wheel, discussing the deaths of those ant-like people
so far below. Just for once the friends & family of one unnecessary
victim are not prepared, for the "sake of appearances", not upsetting
others & or any other kind of pious nonsense, to let a delinquent NGB
off the hook.
Now I'll ask you some simple questions:
1. Does an NGB - a governing body in receipt of members' & public funds
- not have a duty to govern effectively & accountably?
2. Does that NGB, which is placed by Act of Parliament under a duty to
administer a safety system, not have a duty to make that system effective?
3. Is it right for that NGB to blame the victims of fatal accidents
when, as we learn from the inquests (if not long before), there were no
grounds for such accusations?
4. Is it right for that NGB to lie to the Press, the Minister & the
membership regarding the circumstances of a fatal accident?
5. Is it right for that NGB to utter threats against the parents of a
victim - to whom & against whom they have lied?
6. Is it right for that NGB to libel the author of a crucial accident
report, falsely stating that his report had denied it relevant information?
7. Is it right for the NGB to collude & conspire with a member club to
publish a deliberately false account regarding a fatal accident?
8. Is it right for that NGB to obstruct measures which, without
impairing the performance or cost of equipment, would greatly reduce the
risk of a class of accident which has killed a member, kills rowers
around the world & when it doesn't kill it can involve emergency
services & thus damage the standing of the sport?
Two Coroners have asked the ARA to take entirely sensible actions. The
ARA has wasted the last 6 months in constructing elaborate fictions to
explain why it won't play ball. A lawyer will tell you (I've asked a
few) that in legal terms this is an act of sheer folly.
BTW - What was so fine about that double swamping of Canadian squad
crews while training for Athens? A totally unnecessary & very dangerous
event, for had those boats been built with full buoyancy there would
never have been a problem.
This is, in the end, an argument about rational safety measures - that
boats should float & that kids should not die of hypothermia in front of
their coach if they capsize while sculling. I presume you would agree
with both of those propositions? If so, what do you think of an NGB
with a statutory safety function which pretends that rowers' deaths are
someone else's problem?
Of course, you may prefer not to discuss the above, but I hope you will.
Nick Suess
"Christopher Anton" <c.a...@NOSPAM.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pAzBf.181787
> But they can control and police things in the same way that every boat in
> your boathouse has a rubber ball fixed (probably not very securely) to its
> bows, heel restraints (probably too long) on every shoe, andif you're on
the
> Tideway a 6 digit alphanumeric in letters at least 100mm high - they're
> there because the ARA has decreed that they should be there. It's done via
> the rules of racing because you can bet that if you had to have a boat
> certified as having x N of underseat bouyancy in order to compete in
> regattas in would get done pretty sharpish.
>
> This is what I don't understand about the entire sorry saga. It could be
> done if there was the will.
Abso-fxxxxn-lootly!
And if an NGB such as the ARA lays down clear and unambiguous rules on
safety, with celarly defined standards, every club would know that in
today's litigious world they fail to comply at their own peril.
ben
I'm just saying what it looks like from the outside. There is a lot of
anger and it doesn't seem productive. Not that this is wrong or even
not justified, but you just seem really angry. I mean, really really
angry. And sure, I agree, who wouldn't be, but my point is that _to
someone who does not really know the facts_ (ie me and everybody else
just watching it unfold), that the ARA message does not seem
unreasonable. I'm not saying they aren't unreasonable, it's just
that's the way it _seems_ given what they have presented.
You are exactly right about the ants from a ferris wheel thing, but
that's what we all are until we get personally involved and clearly not
everyone is going to get sunk in like this because we all have our own
causes. And its sad, but probably true that the kind of changes you
want to make have to be done through some kind of political means and
in order to get this message (and the facts) there has to be some kind
of different approach because whatever is going on is not working. The
people you have to convince ARE the people watching from the Ferris
wheel. They're a little more than that but this is essentially it. I
agree, this is brutal and insensitive but is there not an element of
truth to that?
It's not that your cause isn't just, it's just that it looks like you
are losing and you need a new strategy. (But do avoid letter bombs!)
Nick Suess
"Jonny" <jonny.c...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> As for the ARA, Gary Harris may or may not be a 5 star knob - I don't
> know or really care
Everything I knew about him had, prior to yesterday, been second hand. All
hearsay evidence, shall we say?
OK, I have spent a lot of time with Carl, and respect his opinions because I
know first hand how meticulously well researched they are. But in the
intemperate and mendacious ravings I read with ever increasing astonishment
yesterday Harris revealed himself to be the kind of creature I have been
unfortunate to come across on a few occasions in my professional life, and
who is what I would call a "bruiser". Someone who employs the technique of
using a vast volume of words delivered with the utmost vehemence to wear
down the listener's resistance and ultimately lead them to believe he must
surely be telling the truth and they have no option but to concur. My
experience has always been that such folk have in reality a very scant
regard for thruth, and rely solely on whatever version of events is most
expedient for their particular interests and the agenda they are driving.
No, I have never met Harris. But I have met Jeremy and the Blockleys, and of
course Carl, and I know whom I would trust any day of the week, and whom I
could bank on as loyal and unswerving friends in a time of crisis. And I
know that Jeremy will carry to his grave the thought "If only I had done
something different on the 29th of December 2000", and as he has just
written, starting the outing an hour earlier would have made all the
difference. Jeremy will never in his lifetime walk away from that, but
Harris has delivered his several thousand words and now appears ready to
turn on his heel and walk away, just as he was after the first inquest.
Those who think we are now being unfair to Harris would probably also be
likely to contend that Pontius Pilate has by and large received rather an
unsympathetic press.
anto...@aol.com
You see this too eh? Ben?
Not losing I say, on the ropes and being counted out.
Stubborn is a word that comes to mind.
But you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Jonny
harder for me to 'fit in' as it were. I didn't realise what happened at
your end with different news readers and Google doesn't offer a more
advanced way of posting a note in context.
David Biddulph
Please, Jonny, read again what Ewoud said in the message to which you
are again replying without quoting the context.
He pointed out that with Google Groups there *is* a facility to quote
in context (and I am using it now, although I don't normally use Google
Groups). If, instead of hitting the "Reply" link below the message,
you use the "show options link" at the top of the message, you can use
"Reply" from there, and it will allow you to quote the previous message
(snipping where necessary).
Many people have commented to Google that this should be the default,
but as yet they have not taken notice. You will find that if you
persist in replying without quoting the context, your messages will
often be ignored.
David Biddulph
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Phil
published, we (as a club) will be reviewing our safety policy in their
light. Not to do so would be putting our members at risk.
Phil.
Jonny
> Please, Jonny, read again what Ewoud said in the message to which you
> are again replying without quoting the context.
>
David, I didn't feel there was a need to repeat everything that has
been said. I though by putting it in the right thread and starting off
with "Ewoud.." that it would be clear enough. Some postings are way too
long because of the quoting.
I now know more about how to drive this Google thing to keep people
happier.
J Flory
Jonny wrote:
Some postings are way too
> long because of the quoting.
>
Agreed!! But Google also allows you to edit the text you are quoting,
as I am doing here, and also to comment within the quoted text.
midsussex
David Biddulph wrote:
>
> Many people have commented to Google that this should be the default,
> but as yet they have not taken notice. You will find that if you
> persist in replying without quoting the context, your messages will
> often be ignored.
>
> David Biddulph
> http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
The new managing director of Google UK used to be the 7 man of the UL
first VIII back in the early eighties. Perhaps he could change it just
for this group
Mostyn
Paul
I do not believe that any one individual or organisation can be blamed
for what happened in Amposta in the sense that action should be taken
against someone (my view of the Reading incident is somewhat different)
and I do not believe in applying the (safety) standards of today to
events in the past. However, OULRC as an organisation must accept a
good deal of the responsibility given what I have read. Jeremy does not
seem to dispute the fact that the Head Coach had never read the water
safety code (making what ever the ARA put into it somewhat irrelevant),
had never been on a coaching course, nor that the club was unaware
either of the local circulation plan in bad weather, nor the fact that
safety cover was provided by the local fire brigade, nor whether or not
the safety launch was properly equipped. (I am happy to be corrected if
wrong). This does suggest a rather lax attitude to safety, to say, no
one had told us is not really sufficient. HOWEVER, attitude to safety
was different at all clubs then and Jeremy as an individual was acting
within the less than professional structure of OULRC. I therefore fail
to see how blame can be apportioned to him as an individual. If such as
set of circumstances arose today I would however expect someone to end
up in court.
As for the ARA, they could be forgiven for thinking that everything was
ok. There had not been a fatality in the UK in ?? years and they had
the most comprehensive safety advice of any rowing body in the world.
Though it seems that concerns had been forwarded about boat buoyancy
their attitude could well have been, there is no problem, no one has
died. Complacent? yes, more complacent that OU/OULRC? I am rather
puzzled as to their attitude since Amposta however. Its 'no skin off
their noses' to insist on full buoyancy. Are they getting pressure
back from the clubs who do not want to spend scarce resources on
something that they may think pointless on their small sheltered
stretch of river? Or from the boat builders who would rather be
building new boats than messing about with old ones? Yes the ARA can
insist on standards for equipment in races, though it is the clubs that
must maintain those standards between races, but risk assessment and
adherence to local water safety cannot be policed by the ARA, unless we
want safety inspectors in our clubs regularly checking incident logs,
risk assessments, clothing of people on the water etc. (do we?). More
specifically, insisting on capsize drills before people are allowed on
the water IS impractical for town clubs who get new members in ones and
twos and who may not have ready access to a pool. It is hard enough to
retain new people without insisting they wait six months to go on the
water. Likewise with clothing. I was out in a double on Sunday, it was
cold, one or two degrees and we were doing a hard outing so by the end
dressed only in all in ones and a t-shirt. Are people really saying
that this is a safety breach, that we were not dressed appropriately,
are the ARA going to police that too?
Jeremy Fagan
> Jeremy Fagan wrote:
> I don't know if you will find this useful, but as an outside observer
> with no personal involvement in this series of events, I have to say
> that the ARA responses and actions don't actually seem all that
> unreasonable.
That's exactly what made me the most angry about their response. That
they had presented a tissue of lies and deceit as the truth in a way
that is bound to fool more than just a few of their readers.
Yes, there were personal attacks on me and some others. But telling
deliberate untruths about what happened in Spain, in direct
contradiction to the facts that were discovered at the inquest, in a way
that is weaselling out of accepting any need for change in the way that
the ARA administers safety - that's what got me really angry.
Harris' version of events is _simply not true_. There is no other way to
put it. He has been economical with the truth, he has stretched reality,
he is lying.
It scares me that it can seem reasonable, and of course I agree with
your point about people who don't know what happened as well as I did.
It's obviously the case that anyone listening to a story, and then
recounting may get details wrong. If that was all that it was, I could
probably accept it. The coroner in his summing up made one or two minor
mistakes. Harris has gone way beyond the realm of the accidental in the
number of errors - as someone said elsewhere in this thread, it's
beginning to look like enemy action.
I knew that when I made my first response, there was exactly the danger
that you said, that an overly emotional response could seem
'unreasonable' and put people off what I have to say. And yet I still
stand by what I said. Use 'Bastards' as code word for 'deliberately
cruel, unfeeling, uncaring, vindictive people', and you'll get closer to
what I mean. I don't take it back. Use the longer phrase if it offends
less, but the meaning is the same.
Jeremy
anto...@aol.com
So Jeremy
I am sure you are right about harris twisting the truth or lying
But tell me
Why do you think he feels he is safe to do so and so able to respond so
aggressively back at the courts?
why does he clearly NOT feel under pressure to do anthing.
Jeremy Fagan
> Carl (and Jeremy)
>
> I do not believe that any one individual or organisation can be blamed
> for what happened in Amposta in the sense that action should be taken
> against someone (my view of the Reading incident is somewhat different)
> and I do not believe in applying the (safety) standards of today to
> events in the past. However, OULRC as an organisation must accept a
> good deal of the responsibility given what I have read.
You don't want to blame, but you want to assign responsibility? I'm not
sure of the distinction.
Jeremy does not
> seem to dispute the fact that the Head Coach had never read the water
> safety code (making what ever the ARA put into it somewhat irrelevant),
> had never been on a coaching course,
True, she hadn't. Of the other 3 coaches, one had his IA, one had the IA
and Bronze, and one had overseas coaching qualifications, and had been
Police Marine Search and Rescue Advisor in New Zealand. Another lie that
Harris tells.
nor that the club was unaware
> either of the local circulation plan in bad weather,
An unworkable, unusable, irrelevant, and downright dangerous plan. That
wasn't told to us at the time.
nor the fact that
> safety cover was provided by the local fire brigade,
This is crap - Harris has invented this as part of his fantasy. It's not
in Muller's notes to Harris, was never communicated to us at the time or
since. This letter is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned it.
It is simply not true.
nor whether or not
> the safety launch was properly equipped.
We know that the launch was missing a knife, five years later, we don't
know what else it was missing. I'm not sure whether Richard Hartley
(investigating officer for the University who presented the police
report for the coroner) checked the contents of the safety bag. However,
I should add that the launches were never present as 'safety' launches,
but coaching launches. The weather when we boated was a bit breezy but
fundamentally fine to row. We let a pair go out onto the water on their
own without a launch because we felt happy about the conditions.
(I am happy to be corrected if
> wrong). This does suggest a rather lax attitude to safety, to say, no
> one had told us is not really sufficient.
What is the value in criticising our attitude to safety at the time?
It's more than just their attitude to buoyancy, but a much wider
attitude to safety that's the problem. It's exemplified in their
responses to the coroners - it's just too much hassle to organise proper
safety checks.
Having regular patterns of capsize drills, once or twice a year, so that
novices know when they are going to happen. Having the policy that Chris
Anton has already outlined - lifejackets for beginners in certain types
of boat.
Providing what John Pollard asked for - mandatory training for all
rowers, coxes and coaches before they go on the water, covering basic
and essential safety instruction.
Giving a system of skill checks for crews, especially single scullers,
so that clubs can easily assess when a sculler is able to go out without
a lifejacket. Perhaps someone who knows more about the canoeing and/or
windsurfing systems could comment.
Providing people with the information about cold weather clothing, and
cold water immersion, and how to properly assess risk.
Being pro-active about safety. It's not that hard. It's achievable.
Their response seems to be 'the clubs should legislate, not us', and
'there's no point legislating, because people would just ignore it'.
It's bizarre and illogical.
Jeremy
Jeremy Fagan
> So Jeremy
>
> I am sure you are right about harris twisting the truth or lying
>
> But tell me
>
> Why do you think he feels he is safe to do so and so able to respond so
> aggressively back at the courts?
>
> why does he clearly NOT feel under pressure to do anthing.
>
Because of the cabalistic, nepotistic nature of the ARA. And the fact
that most of the membership of the rowing world aren't aware of safety
as an issue - everything's OK, we've got the world's greatest safety
code. Nothing ever goes wrong, no-one can ever get hurt.
Oh, sorry, no I've got it wrong. It's my fault again. I should be
campaigning properly.
Whoops. Forgot. Keep doing it.
It's my fault. It's my fault. It's my fault.
Perhaps if I repeat it often enough, I'll remember.
Jeremy
Jay L
> Carl (and Jeremy)
>
<snip>
> Yes the ARA can
> insist on standards for equipment in races, though it is the clubs that
> must maintain those standards between races, but risk assessment and
> adherence to local water safety cannot be policed by the ARA, unless we
> want safety inspectors in our clubs regularly checking incident logs,
> risk assessments, clothing of people on the water etc. (do we?). More
> specifically, insisting on capsize drills before people are allowed on
> the water IS impractical for town clubs who get new members in ones and
> twos and who may not have ready access to a pool.
<snip>
The whole point that Carl (and Carl please correct me if I'm wrong) is
trying to make is exactly that, "risk assessment and adherence to local
water safety cannot be policed by the ARA". This requires the NGB to
protect their members as much as possible in area's where they can't
police adherence etc.
In any accident, there are a chain of events which must occur for the
accident to take place. If ANY one of the links in the chain is broken
the accident won't happen. Simple as that. BECAUSE "risk assessment and
adherence to local water safety cannot be policed by the ARA" it is
imperative that *ALL* NGB's (not only the ARA) do as much as possible to
ensure the safety of it members and breaks as many links as possible. It
must be done in such a way that irrespective of how the event occurs,
THE CHAIN MUST BE BROKEN!!! A buoyant boat is one way of breaking the
chain, another is understanding what happens to your body when it is
submerged in cold water, another is assessing the conditions before the
outing... If any one of these steps (which require education (such as
how to asses weather conditions) and enforcement (regatta checks of
buoyancy)) occur the chances of reducing an accident which leads to a
fatality is greatly enhanced.
Regards
Jay
Paul
I happily stand corrected regarding the points you have highlighted
above. Though I do find your attitude to the local safety procedures
(with reference to the circulation pattern) rather surprising. If you
turn up to an unfamiliar club I would have thought that it best to
accept their safety procedures (its their stretch of water, they know
its hazards) rather than to dismiss them as "unworkable, unusable,
irrelevant, and downright dangerous". I repeat my opinion that the fact
that OULRC had not acquired and/or distributed to coxes and coaches the
local safety procedures as evidence of a lack of safety awareness,
understandable though that may be in the safety climate around rowing
at that time and in no way a reflection on you. You were doing what had
always been done
I agree with you that there needs to be a change to the safety
instructions given to beginners, we await to see what the ARA comes up
with. But the clubs are the ones who have to implement safety
information. In the Reading case it seems from what Harris wrote in his
reply to the coroner (which may or may not be truthful) that RRC were
implementing the full safety procedures for Oarsome juniors, but not
other juniors. A serious and probably fatal lapse. Perhaps it is time
that the ARA began safety auditing clubs on an annual basis, with
penalties which mean something e.g. a ban from competition for a
period, for serious or repeated safety lapses.
Carl Douglas
Paul - you are still far too judgemental. I do not mean you only, of
course, so please don't take it too personally.
You are dealing unfeelingly with people (e.g. Jeremy) who, because of
Amposta, bear scars that will remain for the rest of their lives. Today
those people are suffering also under an intolerable written assault
from a fundamentally dishonest & seemingly conscience-free thug - Gary
Harris - and from the organisation which seems presently to be in thrall
to him. Yet they have the courage & dignity to respond to unnecessarily
misinformed comments from other rowers.
The degree of deliberate misrepresentation, buck passing, weasel words &
downright deceit of Harris's 12-page presentation has shocked even me,
despite ample past experience of the depths that that man is prepared to
plumb.
For another witness's commentary on Harris's facile dishonesty, you
should perhaps see:
http://www.twrc.rowing.org.uk/slug/leoresponse.doc
That said, almost all the necessary information is already out there and
easily accessible. A Google search will bring up reams of information.
I would encourage readers to do their own research. And, tangential
to that research, they might care to study the history of "The Big Lie"
- the essence of which is that for a lie to stick it should be a really
big one, so that everyone will say "That's so brazen that it can't
possibly be a lie".
What Harris has done is too grave an offence against truth, decency &
the memory of Leo (whom he thrice traduces in typical ARA style) for any
simple & swift response. I am quietly working through the ARA's
presentation, gathering my thoughts & will be discussing these with
others. However, you must be able to judge the magnitude of the problem
from the recent RSR postings of well-informed people (not least Jane &
Stephen). And you can have as little grounds to doubt their words on
this matter as you have to believe those of the ARA.
Jeremy Fagan
> Jeremy
>
> I happily stand corrected regarding the points you have highlighted
> above. Though I do find your attitude to the local safety procedures
> (with reference to the circulation pattern) rather surprising. If you
> turn up to an unfamiliar club I would have thought that it best to
> accept their safety procedures (its their stretch of water, they know
> its hazards) rather than to dismiss them as "unworkable, unusable,
> irrelevant, and downright dangerous".
I turned up at Amposta the year before not knowing the place. I did a
training camp, then came back the following year and renewed my
acquaintance with the stretch of water far too intimately. I was there
that morning, saw the conditions, and have a much better idea of what
would have worked, and what wouldn't than Gary Harris.
It's very hard to describe the situation we were in in words - I don't
have a decent map of the river there. However, these safety plans have
been touted by Gary Harris and Axel Muller as the panacea that would
cure all ills - and prevented either crew from sinking. This is quite
simply false. Not true.
The plans assume that it was safe to row near the bank on the opposite
side of the river to the boathouse, and while there, one wouldn't sink.
This is untrue. They assume that it is safe to sit in a boat and allow
oneself to be blown across the river. (Being blown across rather than
rowing across is a well-known anti-sinking procedure, of course). Untrue.
Unworkable because eights aren't buoyant and sink when swamped.
Unusable in those conditions because there was no shelter anywhere on
that river, and in particular, on the stretch outside the boathouse.
Irrelevant, because we were going to sink before reaching the point when
we could use their safety plans.
Downright dangerous because they assume a complacency towards swamping
in high winds that could allow a similar accident to happen again.
Again, I repeat that although I can't be sure what was said by Axel
Muller at the safety briefing with the coaches and possibly coxes,
Richard Hartley did discuss the contents of that briefing with Muller in
the days after the accident in depth, and never mentioned this so-called
safety plan. We followed local advice in going downstream in any breeze,
because of the slight shelter provided by the river bank (purely for
providing better rowing conditions, not safety). As far as I know, we
followed all local advice given to us at the time, rather than some
fictional advice invented 2-5 years after the fact by people who weren't
there at the time of the accident.
I repeat my opinion that the fact
> that OULRC had not acquired and/or distributed to coxes and coaches the
> local safety procedures as evidence of a lack of safety awareness,
We had acquired and distributed to the coxes and coaches everything that
we had been told by the locals at the time.
> understandable though that may be in the safety climate around rowing
> at that time and in no way a reflection on you. You were doing what had
> always been done
>
> I agree with you that there needs to be a change to the safety
> instructions given to beginners, we await to see what the ARA comes up
> with. But the clubs are the ones who have to implement safety
> information. In the Reading case it seems from what Harris wrote in his
> reply to the coroner (which may or may not be truthful) that RRC were
> implementing the full safety procedures for Oarsome juniors, but not
> other juniors.
If the ARA can legislate for Project Oarsome juniors, why not for the
rest? I know that it controls funding for Oarsome, but it could quite
easily make it mandatory to follow as Child Protection procedures are
also mandatory.
A serious and probably fatal lapse. Perhaps it is time
> that the ARA began safety auditing clubs on an annual basis, with
> penalties which mean something e.g. a ban from competition for a
> period, for serious or repeated safety lapses.
>
If something is required in the ARA's rules, and a club then ignores the
rules, the ARA is covered. The problem at the moment is that the clubs
don't know what is recommended by the ARA because the ARA won't
legislate. So each club comes up with its own systems, some of which are
very good, and better than anything the ARA has ever done, and others of
which are very poor. In the context of OULRC, like many student clubs,
where the officers are changed over every year or two, mandatory
requirements that a club has to follow would make everything much easier
for the new officers to run.
Incidentally, someone asked why the Blockleys had never sued OULRC and
the university. They did. That's when I first told them about the
coaches going out the night before. Agreement was reached. It was after
that that they contacted the coroner with the new evidence that had been
prepared for that court case.
Jeremy
anto...@aol.com
Jeremy
Lets get some things clear.
I agree the ARA are completely out of order here and are acting and
have acted appaulingly. No question.
No one should have to campaign for anything in life. Sadly groups
usually have to.
Groups!! Because indiviudals usually fail unless they have a following
of size. No point Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream" in the
Mirror or down the pub with a few mates. or on Google Group
Discrimiation .rec. This campaign needs a following. It hasn't got one
because it has no exposure and this is why I believe the ARA feel in
such a strong position.
On another point I am a bit bemused by some of this topic regarding
Spain. I have coached countless camps. And the implication of some
remarks is that the launch should have been by the boat but was fouled
up? Why should it have been by the boat anyhow. Is it necessary or a
rule that boats on camp are chaperoned all the time? Often I have sent
boats out on their own on a camp and concentrated on another. Or
watched 60 mins of 90 and gone for a cup of tea and down load a video,
whatever.
Could the launch have saved Leo. Maybe, but realistically there would
ordinarily be a good chance there would be no launch there anyhow.
My Father always said that when planes crash its never due to one
thing. Take the two Jumbos in the Canaries. Fog, no ground radar,
people speaking at the same time on the radio cancelling themselves
out, a pilot lost on the airfield and wrong place at wrong time.
As coaches we have all been in situations where 3 out of the five
circumstances existed. You guys just had all the planets lining up.
For instance, I have had crews sink very rapidly in freak storms.
I have known senior coaches who have had obvious drink problems and
were almost continually drunk and others including myself who certainly
have had a few beers the night before.
I have coached at places where the Motors on launches were particularly
unreliable
I have often left crews alone on a lake
I have coached crews in almost freezing water
I have coached crews who have been in rowings eqivalent to a
Submarine.ie Not buoyant.
Now line the planets up...............
And yet I consider myself to be a VERY safety conscious coach.
When I suggested OULBC need to take responsibility I did not imply
necessarily individuals. This is not necesarily blaming but looking at
the event line and seeing who could have changed different things. A
more experienced Chief Coach? a better choice of venue? These are not
ARA decisions, they are OULBC but they are Macro not Micro issues.
Paul
Two very small points. The fact that the safety procedure regarding
landing in strong winds would not have prevented the accident in
Amposta does not absolve OULRC from finding out about it. I do however,
take your point that there is some doubt as to whether OULRC were ever
told the information. What actually caused the boat to capsize? The
wind/waves or the crew exiting the swamped shell?
I think it is unfair to say that "the clubs don't know what is
recommended by the ARA" There is plenty of safety information. It is
true that it is not mandated, meaning application is patchy and perhaps
some of it should be (a minimum standard) and audited by the ARA.
However, clubs will always have to make extra provisions to meet local
circumstances.
PS you can get a pretty good map on mapquest.com
Jeremy Fagan
>
> Jeremy
>
> Lets get some things clear.
>
> I agree the ARA are completely out of order here and are acting and
> have acted appaulingly. No question.
Hurrah!
>
> No one should have to campaign for anything in life. Sadly groups
> usually have to.
>
> Groups!! Because indiviudals usually fail unless they have a following
> of size. No point Martin Luther King saying "I have a dream" in the
> Mirror or down the pub with a few mates. or on Google Group
> Discrimiation .rec. This campaign needs a following. It hasn't got one
> because it has no exposure and this is why I believe the ARA feel in
> such a strong position.
You understand that while the inquest was in the pipeline, it was
virtually impossible for those of us involved to do very much in the
public eye. Since then is another matter, and it remains to be seen what
will happen.
>
> On another point I am a bit bemused by some of this topic regarding
> Spain. I have coached countless camps. And the implication of some
> remarks is that the launch should have been by the boat but was fouled
> up? Why should it have been by the boat anyhow. Is it necessary or a
> rule that boats on camp are chaperoned all the time? Often I have sent
> boats out on their own on a camp and concentrated on another. Or
> watched 60 mins of 90 and gone for a cup of tea and down load a video,
> whatever.
It's a point that I've made elsewhere, that the launches (in our minds)
were there primarily as coaching launches (we did the downstream part of
the outing uncoached, and the launch caught up with us when we'd spun
round). We sent a pair out that morning uncoached.
>
> Could the launch have saved Leo. Maybe, but realistically there would
> ordinarily be a good chance there would be no launch there anyhow.
While they were there, they had a duty of care. Whether they could have
saved him is another matter.
> When I suggested OULBC need to take responsibility I did not imply
> necessarily individuals. This is not necesarily blaming but looking at
> the event line and seeing who could have changed different things. A
> more experienced Chief Coach? a better choice of venue? These are not
> ARA decisions, they are OULBC but they are Macro not Micro issues.
There's any number of things that could have stopped the accident. The
question is, what should we have known about _before_ the outing, and
changed? That's a much harder answer to give.
The ARA claims that Leo should have known the 'stay with the boat' rule,
and that we should have told it to him. Except that it wasn't in their
safety code at the time.
Jeremy
Jeremy Fagan
> Jeremy
>
> Two very small points. The fact that the safety procedure regarding
> landing in strong winds would not have prevented the accident in
> Amposta does not absolve OULRC from finding out about it. I do however,
> take your point that there is some doubt as to whether OULRC were ever
> told the information. What actually caused the boat to capsize? The
> wind/waves or the crew exiting the swamped shell?
The boat never capsized. It's just the word that gets used by non-rowers
who don't understand rowing. Who think that no-one would be stupid
enough to build a boat that could just go straight downwards without
capsizing. The boat swamped, and then sank beneath the surface of the
waves. Most of us leaving the boat, since it was at that point a
considerable distance under the surface of the water, didn't think 'Oh,
look, there's a useful life raft, only 2 feet down under the surface'.
We thought, 'Oh, shit'. Sitting on one's ample arse in an office in
Hammersmith writing that it is obvious that one ought to always stay
with the boat shows a complete disregard for the evidence, both written
and verbal, of those witnesses who were there in that situation.
When we sank the first time, I only stayed with the boat because I
didn't want to become the first president of the club to lose a boat - I
thought it would be rather embarrassing to get home and admit to losing
an eight. I had no expectation that it would float - until we got out of
it, it wasn't.
>
> I think it is unfair to say that "the clubs don't know what is
> recommended by the ARA" There is plenty of safety information. It is
> true that it is not mandated, meaning application is patchy and perhaps
> some of it should be (a minimum standard) and audited by the ARA.
> However, clubs will always have to make extra provisions to meet local
> circumstances.
There's nothing unfair about it. There is plenty of safety information -
not all of it useful or helpful, and some of it dangerous, as seen in
Reading last year. Because it's not mandatory, the clubs' application,
as you say, is patchy. If the ARA gave a minimum recognised standard
that clubs had to follow, the clubs would have to get up to speed pretty
quickly. If the ARA had some kind of safety mark that clubs could apply
for and attain, insurance companies and grant-making bodies would pretty
quickly expect that safety mark to be attained by the club before
getting insurance and/or funding.
Most funders want to see Child Protection policies in place, Health and
Safety, etc. The ARA, by setting up something like that, could ensure
compliance very quickly indeed.
>
> PS you can get a pretty good map on mapquest.com
>
Zoom twice on the red star in the middle - that's Amposta. Then click
once on east, and it will give you an idea of where we went that
morning. The red road across the river is the bridge that we had to come
back under, and the club is about halfway between that bridge and the
next one on the Southwest side of the river. We were on the north edge
of the river. The wind's were coming from the northwest that morning, so
as you can see, they were sweeping straight down the stretch by the
club. The bank on the north side consisted of very high reeds, meaning
that anyone in the water on that side couldn't have got out of the
river. We were luck when we sank for the first time in sinking next to a
small bay, where we could wade up to our chests in mud and water while
we bailed the boat out. Muller's plan was to row past the club on the
north bank, and then allow the wind and stream to carry you miraculously
back across the river to the clubhouse.
It couldn't work.
Jeremy
Mike Sullivan
"Jeremy Fagan" <fagan...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:5Yadncxy3-0vCkre...@pipex.net...
> It couldn't work.
I know this is very painful for many, but I find it infinitely instructive.
Thanks.
what were water temps in the river then?
>
> Jeremy
mpruscoe
>>> PS you can get a pretty good map on mapquest.com
>>
>
> http://snipurl.com/lx8j
>
> Zoom twice on the red star in the middle - that's Amposta. Then click
> once on east, and it will give you an idea of where we went that
> morning. The red road across the river is the bridge that we had to come
> back under, and the club is about halfway between that bridge and the
> next one on the Southwest side of the river. We were on the north edge
> of the river. The wind's were coming from the northwest that morning, so
> as you can see, they were sweeping straight down the stretch by the
> club. The bank on the north side consisted of very high reeds, meaning
> that anyone in the water on that side couldn't have got out of the
> river. We were luck when we sank for the first time in sinking next to a
> small bay, where we could wade up to our chests in mud and water while
> we bailed the boat out. Muller's plan was to row past the club on the
> north bank, and then allow the wind and stream to carry you miraculously
> back across the river to the clubhouse.
>
> It couldn't work.
>
> Jeremy
From a quick search on Google Images I turned up these two images
which, I guess from your description, are the stretch of river in question:
http://members.fortunecity.es/superspain/amp103.html
http://members.fortunecity.es/superspain/amp101.html
Jeremy Fagan
This is looking downstream towards the bridge where Leo's boat sank. The
club is out of sight on the right between the camera and the bridge.
> http://members.fortunecity.es/superspain/amp101.html
This is from approximately the same place, looking upstream, and showing
the conditions that we'd gone there to find - and that prevailed 3 days
later.
Jeremy
>
>
>
Christopher Anton
"Jay L" <just_j...@tuks.co.za.THIS> wrote in message
news:11381917...@inet2.up.ac.za...
>
> In any accident, there are a chain of events which must occur for the
> accident to take place. If ANY one of the links in the chain is broken the
> accident won't happen.
Jay talks a lot of sense here. Any accident can be analysed whether it's a
plane crash or a surgeon amputating the wrong leg or an anaesthetist
picking up a vial of lidocaine rather than adrenaline (epinephrine) by
mistake with fatal results. There are two forms of analysis: the person
approach, i.e. find someone who did something wrong and scapegoat them. The
airline industry soon learnt that this got them nowhere and the medical
profession is fatch catching up. If you have a blame culture people cover up
and don't reveal accidents/near misses so that others can learn from them.
The alternative approach is to consider the systems. All systems have
faults: the ARA produces a water safety code but no-one reads it, RRC didn't
follow the correct procedures, a coach takes charge of an outing when under
the influence (and she won't have been the only one - I refer you to the
Slug's accounts of Bewdley/Stourport/Peterborough regattas of yore), the
launch kit doesn't have a knife, someone swims away from a boat or gets
carried away by a wave etc. All paly their part but if one doesn't occur the
accident doesn't happen (it's the so-called Swiss cheese model). The systems
approach encourages people to be open, report their mistakes even if it
makes them look stupid and hopes to learn from others' experience so that
one of the holes can be closed off.
For a good overview of the theory of accident analysis see the British
Medical Journal of 18th March 2000 and in particular this article by
Professor James Reason who is very eminent in the field.
Jay L
> Letters and responses now posted at
> http://www.ara-rowing.org/news/060122_rule43.php
>
> Rob.
>
Sorry can't find the specific posts on the previous replies.
What I find hard to believe is that there are suggestions that OULRC
must take responsibility for the accident at Amposta. Yes to a certain
degree they must (and I'm sure they have), but I want to point out that
the people in charge or rowing at OU (or any other university) at the
moment are in all likelihood not the same people that were around in
those days. Is it fair to lay the blame on the one club that was
unfortunate enough for the chain of events not to be broken and a
fatality occurring? Please bear in mind that just about everything that
gets posted on this newsgroup is stored and can be searched at anytime.
We are making accusations at a club and in the process making them sound
like they don't want to take the responsibility for what happened. A lot
of time has passed since the accident and I think to tarnish the image
of a club in such a way is unfair.
Instead what I would like to see is a representative from OULRC (or OU)
telling us what steps have been taken since to remedy the situation. I
remember something about OU naming a (fully buoyant) boat "Leo Blockley"
in honour of a fallen oarsmen. But that it was sold soon after and "Leo
Blockley II" was also purchased. In as much as I remember is wasn't
fully buoyant. What other steps have OULRC taken to ensure the safety of
it's members? I'd be rather surprised to find that their safety
procedures have not been created with lessons learnt from the Amposta
incident taken into account.
What it boils down to is that I'm sure the OU has taken the time to look
at what has happened and have changed the way that they operate since.
So unless someone with inside knowledge can refute such a claim, could
we please stop insinuating that OULRC is still operating in exactly the
same was as it was in 2000.
Regards
Jay
Liz
Carl Douglas
In which respect I would address readers' attention to the first
subsection of that link at:
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~oulrc/files/oulrc-code-of-conduct.pdf
Then please scroll down to Item 1.7
The person named there as Senior Fellow held the same post at the time
of Leo's death, when on behalf of OULRC it was decided that it was
expedient to cover up so very much of what had actually happened.
Behind Jane & Stephen's back & despite assurances he gave to them in
their grief, he promoted the false official line that Leo deliberately
swam away from his boat & thereby killed himself. That is the self same
lie which the ARA has peddled so hard ever since &, as you see from
Harris's appalling 12 page letter, it still feels free to promote -
despite the inquest's finding that this was unsupported by the evidence.
He was Senior Fellow when arrogant & thoughtless club officers swiftly
flogged-off the still new, fully-buoyant & competitively successful "Leo
Blockley", bought in Leo's memory with funds raised by the Blockleys.
They sold that boat without prior reference to Jane & Stephen & replaced
it with a non-buoyant boat. They then had the rank temerity to name
"Leo Blockley II" - such a charming poke in the eye. And although
reluctant promises were later extracted that this new boat would
belatedly be converted to full buoyancy, those promises were never
fulfilled AFAIK.
He was the Senior Fellow who, in spring 2003, wrote to me to insist,
after I questioned these OULRC shennanegins in correspondence, that
making eights fully buoyant & able to carry their seated crews clear of
the water would not save lives & would not permit the boats to be rowed
to safety if swamped. Please note that he was writing just 9 months
_after_ the impressive swamping demonstrations organised _in Oxford_ by
Caroline & other friends of Leo, which had shown that swamped eights &
fours could indeed be rowed & steered.
So, I'm less than impressed.
Sarah
>>Leo 'had previously swum successfully for the shore following a boat
> swamping whilst he was a student at Cambridge '
> Edd
I noticed this in the letters and wondered what sort of 'swamping' had
occured in Cambridge.
The Cam is narrow, it is shallow, it is sheltered, there is very little
stream, it has warning boards so that crews are not allowed to go
afloat in potentially dangerous water conditions (although we all know
that they can blow up from nowhere!)
so does anyone here, know the details of this incident? I suspect that
if Leo had found himself in the water in the Cam, he could have swum
ashore in a few strokes or possibly walked the distance as the water
isn't very deep.
was this a swamping? or a capsize?
Edd
> Edd wrote:
> >>Leo 'had previously swum successfully for the shore following a boat
> > swamping whilst he was a student at Cambridge '
> > Edd
> I noticed this in the letters and wondered what sort of 'swamping' had
> occured in Cambridge.
> The Cam is narrow, it is shallow, it is sheltered, there is very little
> stream, it has warning boards so that crews are not allowed to go
> afloat in potentially dangerous water conditions (although we all know
> that they can blow up from nowhere!)
There's nothing there that states it was the Cam. It merely says it
occurred whilst he was a student at Cambridge. In the same way the
events of Amposta occurred whilst he was a student at Oxford.
--
Edd
Liz
Jay asked what the practises were NOW, for reassurance that safety
procedures had updated and progressed and not for the usual rehash
about people who've upset you.
I believe that the reasons for not retaining the LB I were posted years
back - it may even have been Jeremy that did so - but I'm not wasting
time looking it up. (If it wasn't Jeremy then apologies, but it was
someone from within OULRC)
As I've previously posted, behaviour within both OULRC and the college
clubs is miles away from that which prevailed 5 years ago as a result
of hard work driven mostly by the student members. Which is not to say
that things are perfect, but more folk are aware of rules, requirements
and responsibilities than there used to be (IMO).
anto...@aol.com
It does look a pretty comprehensive document setting out both risk and
responsibility.
Personally Carl I am very impressed.
Lets make a comparison with this pretty thorough document and anything
else that appears from a GB University Boat Club?
Stephen Blockley
The incident referred to happened at Ely, Dec 99. They were close to the
bank and just waded out. They then realised they had to wade back in and
haul the boat out. See details:
http://www.leoblockley.org.uk/acc_details.asp?id=85
So this wasn't really a comparable incident - no decision to swim or to
cling to the boat needed as they could just stand up and walk. This was
discussed in court as the OU legal team raised it when I was on the stand,
but was dismissed as irrelevant. Harris was there listening - but clearly
didn't hear what was said.
Jane
Carl Douglas
Which is precisely the opposite of the ARA's inept & unworkable accident
reporting so-called system:
1. Reports received by the ARA are neither acknowledged, nor published,
nor is the information therein made in any way accessible.
2. Clubs & rowers are thus unable to see them, learn from them & thereby
to review & improve their own safety procedures.
3. Life-threatening accidents (e.g. Hambledon) are simply covered up &
buried - "for the good of the sport" I have been told (oh yes!).
4. Victims are immediately accused of causing their own deaths. And when
it suits the ARA executive, they even fabricate a misrepresentation of
the content of an accident report & publish this worldwide as fact, in
order to blame & to smear the reputation of someone whose serious advice
they very deliberately chose to ignore - that lack of buoyancy
contributed to Leo's death.
You cannot administer an effective safety regime in such a manner.
>
> For a good overview of the theory of accident analysis see the British
> Medical Journal of 18th March 2000 and in particular this article by
> Professor James Reason who is very eminent in the field.
>
> http://snipurl.com/lrvp
>
>
Definitely something to be read by _every_ ARA Council member before 11
February.
Carl Douglas
> Carl
>
> Jay asked what the practises were NOW, for reassurance that safety
> procedures had updated and progressed and not for the usual rehash
> about people who've upset you.
You dare to suggest that my concern is because a certain surgeon "upset
me"? While you may well think along such petty & trivial lines, Liz, I
most certainly do not. One day you may cease to defend the indefensible
& to make snide insinuations against those who brought this whole sorry
mess out from the under the covers to which the Senior Fellow had sought
to consign it, but clearly not yet.
To retain in post a person who conducted themselves as I have just
described shows zero awareness of their past failures. (Ask Jane &
Stephen about the inquest evidence on that score.) I was shocked to
have learned that this was so, & shocked that you think it even remotely
OK. It stinks.
Had a surgeon treated patients similarly, do you think they should or
would escape censure & remain in post?
>
> I believe that the reasons for not retaining the LB I were posted years
> back - it may even have been Jeremy that did so - but I'm not wasting
> time looking it up. (If it wasn't Jeremy then apologies, but it was
> someone from within OULRC)
You should do so, Liz. It was a deeply unedifying, unprincipled &
political affair, you'll find. I exposed it. A certain Ross Crookes
who became quite vocal on RSR for a while. We could go there if you wish.
And you most certainly owe Jeremy a swift public apology.
>
> As I've previously posted, behaviour within both OULRC and the college
> clubs is miles away from that which prevailed 5 years ago as a result
> of hard work driven mostly by the student members. Which is not to say
> that things are perfect, but more folk are aware of rules, requirements
> and responsibilities than there used to be (IMO).
>
We will all say amen to that.
Stephen Blockley
> Liz wrote:
>> Carl
>>
>> Jay asked what the practises were NOW, for reassurance that safety
>> procedures had updated and progressed and not for the usual rehash
>> about people who've upset you.
We appreciate that OULRC has made good efforts to improve their safety
provision since Leo's death. However we still have some doubts - e.g. only
mention of buoyancy is "buoyancy compartments to be checked" in the Risk
Assessment document as a control measure for risk of swamping.
Carl was making the point that (according to the website) Martin McNally is
still in post as Senior Member. We find this fact very offensive. Because
of decisions made by this person we had to endure years of added distress,
knowing we had been duped, re-examining everything that had happened since
Leo's death - on top of trying to cope with the loss of our only son in such
awful circumstances. What kind of person is it who thinks it is OK to
withold the truth in such circumstances - not the kind to be trusted in such
a post, we think. If he had any sense of honour, or moral sense of right
and wrong, he would resign. If OULRC wished to show they were sweeping away
the old attitudes, they would have "made" him resign.
When he was on the witness stand our Counsel was trying to get him to admit
he had made an error of judgement about the "cover - up". Mr Pollard
intervened as McNally just didn't seem to be getting the point. He talked
him through a theoretical scenario: "If you arrived at the hospital one day
and found out that one of your patients had unexpectedly died, and then you
found out that one of your team of doctors in attendance at the time had
been drunk....wouldn't you feel it necessary to report this to the
authorities in some way?" McNally replied "No, not necessarily". The
entire court gasped in disbelief, but McNally stuck to his guns. As you
might expect, Mr Pollard chastened him somewhat, But McNally just didn't get
it. (McNally is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon). As a doctor myself I was
disgusted at his attitude - it is what gets the medical profession a bad
name - thinking we are above judgement, and don't have to comply with the
normal standards of probity.
We are not hung up on issues of blame, but we believe that he, above all,
has brought OULRC into disrepute. His was a decision made in a calm and
calculating manner - he had not just been through the fright of his life or
just lost his friend. No excuse.
>>
>> I believe that the reasons for not retaining the LB I were posted
>> years back - it may even have been Jeremy that did so - but I'm not
>> wasting time looking it up. (If it wasn't Jeremy then apologies, but
>> it was someone from within OULRC)
It was because the new coach liked Empachers, and they wanted to raise
money. We weren't informed until after the event. It hurt.
>> snip
Jane
Liz
from the OULRC Constitution -
The OULRC Senior Treasurer and the University Director of Rowing shall
be members of
the Management Committee, ex officio, as required by University
regulations, and shall not
be entitled to vote and shall not be subject to removal.
Carl Douglas
Which, interesting as it certainly is, not only fails to make it OK but
confirms the existence of an even deeper institutional problem -
untouchability. It was, I believe, a former Master of Balliol who
advanced the dictum, "Never apologise, never explain!", a justification
of intellectual thuggery which translates into the vernacular as, "Crap
on who you like, kick them & then walk away smiling".
Such smugness should have no part in the administration of our sport,
whether at Puddletown ARC, at Dreaming Spires BC or in NGB-UK. Your
extract from the OULRC consitution, the continued presence of Martin
McNally after he had lied & covered up so shamelessly & continuously
after the death of a student member of _his_ club, the brazen mendacity
of Gary Harris & the infamous collusion between the ARA & OULRC to
misrepresent the facts - all confirm that these are rowing institutions
in the direst need of thorough cleansing.
Paul
You see reds under every bed.
You will note that the presence of the Senior Treasurer and the
University Director of Rowing as memebers who may not be removed is a
requirement of the university regulations, I suspect to ensure that the
club is run correctly and does not get into the sort of trouble that it
has in the past, on and off the water.
Christopher Anton
>> Caroline couldn't swim.
>>
This emphasis on whether Caroline could or couldn't swim seems to me to be
missing the point. Firstly the WSC does not require you to be able to swim -
actually it's inconsistent on this point.
2.5.2.1 says
"All persons participating in rowing or sculling, including coxswains, must
be able to swim. A standard is referred to in para. 2.5.2.2."
But then defines the standard as
"An ability to swim 50 metres in light clothing and to demonstrate within
that test competence underwater, in treading water, and in swimming on front
and back, is considered a minimum requirement. If a person cannot meet the
requirements of the swimming test for physical or other reasons, an approved
lifejacket or buoyancy aid must be worn when in a boat."
Therefore if you know you cannot swim you must always wear a lifejacket, and
if you can swim with that then you will meet the WSC requirements.
Edd
> 2.5.2.1 says
My interpretation of this has always been that you must have a reason
why there is no possibility of you being able to meet the requirement
- not having learnt to swim is not good enough. You go away and come
back when you have learnt. If someone can't meet the requirement due
to some disability then they wear a lifejacket, and your risk
assessment recognises this and you have extra plans in place to
compensate for the fact the rower cannot be expected to swim. 'other
reasons' means reasons at least as valid as having some physical
reason you cannot swim.
I know other people disagree with my interpretation, but you won't
see me changing it. I'd like to see this point clarified in the WSC -
ideally in my direction.
This point is off the topic of the rule 43 letters however. I don't
think it has any bearing on that situation.
--
Edd
Carl Douglas
> Carl
>
> You see reds under every bed.
Paul - that's a cheap, contemptible remark.
Get this firmly under your skull: a very small number of named
individuals have done a very great deal of harm. To cling to office
they deny the truth, not caring whom they abuse or endanger on the way.
For the harm they have done, if only to Jane & Stephen, they ought in
decency to go. But they have also harmed the interests of rowers at large.
Does that not repel you? This is no time for smarty Devil's Advocacy,
unless you want lies to become the accepted currency.
Did Mr. McNally ensure that his club was run correctly & kept out of
trouble? No.
He lied, deceived & covered up when things went fatally wrong. What a
hero! Those lies have piled additional grief upon Jane & Stephen ever
since.
You've now heard what he said in the inquest: according to his words he
remains unreformed. And he told the squad in the days after Leo died
that Jane & Stephen had said they'd be greatly distressed if the tryth
got out. That was a blatant lie, & he used it to bind the squad into
his own deception.
Fit for office?
Caroline Smith
> think it has any bearing on that situation.
No, apart from possibly giving me some ammunition to use if I wanted to sue
them for libel
(which I don't, because I have neither the money nor inclination - lucky
that)
Oh, and I *can* swim. Just so you're all extra sure.
(It's good to be back - 2 years with an ISP who didn't give me newsgroup
access made me a bit cross)
anto...@aol.com
You refer to Feb 11th Carl.
What will happen then? Will this be the turning point?
Are you planning an ambush which will have the ARA running for the
hills? I thought the 2nd Inquest was meant to do that? And clearly
didn't.
Rookie
Agreed it's a hell of a lot better than most safety policies I suspect.
One question - a number of the identified risks are addressed by the
presence of a safety/rowing launch. Does this mean that all OULRC
crews are now accompanied by a launch at all times? Admirable if so
but highly unusual in my experience.
Nick Suess
"Caroline Smith" <cs2t...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:a7qdnWi6tNd...@pipex.net...
> > This point is off the topic of the rule 43 letters however. I don't
> > think it has any bearing on that situation.
>
> No, apart from possibly giving me some ammunition to use if I wanted to
sue
> them for libel
> (which I don't, because I have neither the money nor inclination - lucky
> that)
>
> Oh, and I *can* swim. Just so you're all extra sure.
>
But surely it is one absolutely factual black or white issue with no grey
areas, no scope for speculation on reports from diverse witnesses, many
severely shocked and traumatised.
Could she swim or couldn't she?
True answer - YES.
Harris's very firm assertion - NO.
And thus it is indicative of the reliability of everything he has written.
No apparent desire to carefully check the information and ensure what he
writes is true. Why did he even bother writing it? Over this one issue he
reveals the fact that his words cannot be believed.
Carl Douglas
>
> You refer to Feb 11th Carl.
>
> What will happen then? Will this be the turning point?
>
> Are you planning an ambush which will have the ARA running for the
> hills? I thought the 2nd Inquest was meant to do that? And clearly
> didn't.
>
You know, I don't think we Brits are at all impressed by ambushes. In
the end they prefer reason.
People really want to believe that the admin of an outfit to which they
belong is fundamentally decent & devoid of private agendas. So they
really hate to hear that it contains those whose conduct is inadequate
or worse - because that conflicts with the image they wish to hold.
When told that the person you love is having an affair, any normal
person's first reaction must be disbelief, & woe betide the person who
insist you confront the unpleasant truth. Such reverses require far too
much refocus & adjustment of one's earlier perceptions.
Each of us needs time to accept that things are not as we once saw them,
& some are never able to do so. People cling hard to what they want to
believe, regardless of a growing weight of contrary evidence. When
Russia invaded Hungary, the Communist Party of GB shrank but did not
disappear, because so many card carrying members were too committed to
cope with the dreadful facts. Similarly, there was widespread denial of
the existence of the Soviet gulags, the Nazi gas chambers, the Stalinist
purges, & so on. Many thought Robert Maxwell a good guy, right to the
moment of his last swim, & some even afterwards. Hard evidence works
slowly & will never convince everyone.
Those who do nowt when muggers strike, or the IRA murder, or Vanunu is
clapped back into solitary yet again, have uncomfortable & irrational
mental accommodations to make - but they do it. Like Margaret Adams of
the ARA, who refused even to read the information pack which Jane &
Stephen sent her in February 2003, they are so committed to their
coterie that they can & will tolerate any excess, propagate any fiction.
We'll never convert them, nor a hard core of their support. But the
slow accumulation of evidence does erode the resistance of others. When
Leo died you could not get anyone to doubt that it was his own fault,
nor to believe that full shell buoyancy might have prevented it. 5
years later the general case for buoyancy is won. Only the blunt idiocy
of the likes of Harris sustains the ridiculous fiction that buoyancy is
worthless - but it is a real problem when such a thug has all the reins
of power.
However, if you read Harris's 12-pager on the ARA website - & many RSR
readers will already have learned or be learning the scale of that
document's fundamental dishonesty - you see that he can't even keep to
the party line which he himself set. First he writes that Leo's boat
"foundered". Then some pages later he writes that it "did not sink".
What is the guy trying to tell us, except that he's a dishonest twit?
He writes that you get shelter on the lee shore, but has the nerve
(quite falsely) to describe himself as an "expert witness". He has no
meaningful expertise on rowing equipment & his presence was required
(not volunteered) at those inquests so he could be grilled not on rowing
equipment (on which the ARA has, repeatedly, stated that it has _no_
expertise & therefore cannot & will not legislate!) but on ARA safety
management & ARA dealings behind the scenes, including those with a
foreign witness who refused to attend court (Harris falsely claimed that
Mueller had been excused attendance).
One hopes that ARA Council members will at last start reading what they
have so long neglected. They may not enjoy it. But it cannot go well
with them that this man tells only lies when he speaks of the death of
Leo Blockley. It can go no better to find him openly contradict &
insult the intelligence of one of England's best-regarded Coroners. And
they may start to perceive how mendacious was his letter of 24 December
2002 to the Minister for Sport.
In time it may occur, to not just the present few but to a significant &
growing proportion of these elected representatives, that this is not a
remotely acceptable way for their Association to conduct itself.
Lawyers say that only a foolish organisation spurns the contents of a
Coroner's Rule 43 letter. Harris is currently thumbing his nose at 2
such letters while continuing to misrepresent the verdict on Leo
Blockley. This should cause grave concern among Council & the
Executive, lest another rower meets a similarly sticky end, or the
Minister finally decides that he has had more than enough of such
irresponsibility. Either can happen, though heaven forbid it should be
the former.
So we do await the outcome on 11 February. But if it proves necessary
to take it further, then we will do just that.
Cheers -
Jeremy Fagan
>
> He was Senior Fellow when arrogant & thoughtless club officers swiftly
> flogged-off the still new, fully-buoyant & competitively successful "Leo
> Blockley", bought in Leo's memory with funds raised by the Blockleys.
Sorry Carl - it was bought with sponsorship money from (the now
bankrupt) Arthur D. Little
It was buoyant though, and I'm told a nice boat to row in (I screwed my
back up not long after we got back from Spain, so went through the rest
of that season on the bank. What a year.)
Jeremy
Jeremy Fagan
> Carl
>
> Jay asked what the practises were NOW, for reassurance that safety
> procedures had updated and progressed and not for the usual rehash
> about people who've upset you.
>
> I believe that the reasons for not retaining the LB I were posted years
> back - it may even have been Jeremy that did so - but I'm not wasting
> time looking it up. (If it wasn't Jeremy then apologies, but it was
> someone from within OULRC)
>
At the time we had arranged a 3-year £40,000 sponsorship deal with AD
Little. The first year, we were planning to buy a new training eight,
and race boat for the second eight. We bought a Stampfli, after the
accident in Spain, that was fully buoyant. Lovely boat. I seem to
remember explaining to Stephen and Jane that it was buoyant, and if we'd
been in Janouseks, the accident probably wouldn't have happend. Carl had
already posted about buoyancy on rsr before the accident in Spain, so I
was aware of the issue even then.
Our plan was to buy a new racing boat the following year with the next
instalment of the money. Probably an Empacher because that's what we had
at the time, and it was a lovely boat, fantastic build quality, although
not buoyant. It was used 3 months of the year, and not taken on training
camp.
Then I left, and really had no more influence or involvement. A new head
coach was appointed, who liked things done his way. Fair enough.
Then ADLittle went belly-up. The rest of the money never appeared. The
committee were faced with a desire to replace the race boat (they go off
after 3 years, as any fule kno). Sponsorship money was non-existent, the
stock market had just crashed so companies weren't interested in getting
involved, so they made the decision to sell the Stampfli and buy an
Empacher.
They handled the process very poorly - not thinking to contact the
Blockleys, and worst of all, not making sure that the new Empacher was
buoyant.
But in fairness to them, if we'd known in advance that ADLittle were
going to go bankrupt, and that we were only going to get 1/3 of the
money, we'd have bought a new race boat, and (because no-one ever got
fired for buying IBM) it probably would have been an Empacher. I hope
that we would have asked for it to be made buoyant, but 5 years later I
can't say for certain that we definitely would have. However, even if
bought unbuoyant, it should have been converted very quickly.
Having said that, OUWBC bought a Stampfli and an Empacher, sold the
Empacher and bought another Stampfli, as far as I remember.
As someone said on here a while ago, it's the dogs not the sled.
Jeremy
anto...@aol.com
YUP! Great. But I am still at a loss as to WHAT is happening on Feb
11th!
David Biddulph
news:1138323559.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> YUP! Great. But I am still at a loss as to WHAT is happening on Feb
> 11th!
I guess that the reference is to the next meeting of ARA Council?
http://www.ara-rowing.org/about/who_calendar.php
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Paul
It seems apparently clear from the constitution that even if OULRC
wanted to remove Dr McNally they could not. It would be up to him as an
individual to resign or for OU to remove him. You might have expected
one or the other of these to occur. Indeed I am rather surprised he is
still holding this possition. But to blame the current memeership of
OULRC does not seem correct.
Carl Douglas
> Carl
>
> It seems apparently clear from the constitution that even if OULRC
> wanted to remove Dr McNally they could not. It would be up to him as an
> individual to resign or for OU to remove him. You might have expected
> one or the other of these to occur. Indeed I am rather surprised he is
> still holding this possition.
Constitutions are not made of concrete & when flaws are exposed they
should be amended. To sail on as if nothing went wrong & nothing wrong
or shameful was done is unacceptable & insolent on the part of the
institution & the officer.
But to blame the current memeership of
> OULRC does not seem correct.
>
But I do not & did not hold the current membership - a transient thing
at best in a student club - responsible.
karl.he...@gmail.com
there and did not attend the inquests. Suffice to say that the
defensive ARA position reflects the unfortunate trend towards
litigation within today society.
Further to comments on safety being mandated, we all have bow balls and
heel restraints, so why not buoyancy bags? I've only been in the sport
a few years but I'm told that there was a time when there was no
requirement for coxes to wear life jackets! I'm speculating, but might
all of these safety requirements have come about because someone was
badly injured or killed in the past?
If any club had an accident involving someone drowning or being
seriously injured through the lack of bow ball or adequate heel
restraint, I think it would be fair to say one could build a case for
legal action on that basis. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that such
things are now regarded as de facto safety items within our sport and
not having them would constitute negligence. Any lawyers out there care
to comment?
Harris mentions that it would be "prohibitively expensive" to mandate
for buoyancy; whilst it is true for every boat out there to go through
a buoyancy test is indeed impractical, it's safe to say that we could
quite reasonably say that a particular boat type needs to have a
certain volume of air bags under everry seat. I don't know the position
wrt older wooden boats and the relative density compared to modern
carbon ones, but if some tests could be established and some rules
defined based on these results, we will _greatly reduce_ (not
eliminate) the number of swampings that result in rowers having to
leave the boat.
The next step is mandatory capsize drills and lifejackets for rowers
training in small boats. I speak only knowing west London but there are
a number of pools in the Hammersmith and Putney areas - perhaps the
clubs on the Putney embankment might care to donate an old single, talk
to a local pool to arrange some brackets on a wall to store it, and
arrange some evenings to book out the pool to do drills. Yes it is an
additional cost; but I reckon at about £10-15 per athlete per year it
is probably worth it. If the ARA mandated that you couldn't race until
you'd done a capsize test, you'd soon see the position change, and
clubs would make a capsize drill session part of their novice training.
I remember seeing a "lifejacket for scullers" in the quarter-page ads
in Regatta last summer/autumn; i've seen nothing of it since but would
love to try one out. It may be inconvenient but it's considerably
better than being dead, IMHO. I won't even go out at high tide in my
single, not because it's choppier but if I do go in there is NOWHERE on
long stretches of the tideway to get out and get safe.
Carl Douglas
Thanks, Jeremy. I've done some checking up & I understand that the
facts are these:
1. OULRC already had the (ADL) money for the new boat at the time of
Amposta (29 December 2000), but hadn't actually ordered it.
2. Within days of Leo's death they had substantial monies in the Leo
Blockley fund.
3. However, they spent not one penny of this fund until after Dec 2003.
4. But even by that date they had not fulfilled their frequent promises
to establish the Trust Fund, but instead kept the money in a University
bank account.
Hmmmm....... Did someone decide to treat the Leo Blockley fund as too
embarassing to handle &, if so, who & why?
Carl Douglas
> I'm not going to comment on anything to do with the case as I wasn't
> there and did not attend the inquests. Suffice to say that the
> defensive ARA position reflects the unfortunate trend towards
> litigation within today society.
You make a number of thoughtful comments which are most welcome.
However, at no time was the ARA threatened with litigation over the
death of Leo Blockley nor, AFAIK, the subsequent death of Sikander Farooq.
>
> Further to comments on safety being mandated, we all have bow balls and
> heel restraints, so why not buoyancy bags? I've only been in the sport
> a few years but I'm told that there was a time when there was no
> requirement for coxes to wear life jackets! I'm speculating, but might
> all of these safety requirements have come about because someone was
> badly injured or killed in the past?
Unfortunately, rowing is a sport with a history of almost zero response
to accident data. The prime reason for this is that, historically,
rowing did not record or study its own accidents, preferring instead to
describe each as an unfortunate but unpreventable mishap, or to blame
the victim, or to say "accidents happen", or to make any of a number of
other implausible excuses for carrying on just as before. This is the
culture that we are in teh process of changing.
Thus Gary Harris, from his published letter, is evidently unaware of the
death by drowning, following the sinking of his coxed four, of
Manchester, UK, student Robin Sherratt in 1957. Of course it was never
recorded, but it happened. All Robin got was a boat named after him -
rather as happened with Leo Blockley.
>
> If any club had an accident involving someone drowning or being
> seriously injured through the lack of bow ball or adequate heel
> restraint, I think it would be fair to say one could build a case for
> legal action on that basis. I'm not a lawyer but I would say that such
> things are now regarded as de facto safety items within our sport and
> not having them would constitute negligence. Any lawyers out there care
> to comment?
Lawyers comment for free? Not too often, but it has been known to happen ;)
There is or was impending litigation in Washington DC over the death of
a young coach whose outboard motor was allegedly been deprived of a
certain safety feature. He died in from of a crew of 14-yr-old girls.
His club, which had hitherto argued (& may still argue) that it was OK
for their eights to be non-buoyant & thus to sink from time to time in
the middle of the Potomac River & have to be rescued by the Fire
service, made a retrospective requirement that PFDs be not only carried
in the coaching launch but now had to be actually worn by the occupant.
A gent whose rowing partner died becasue he got his feet trapped in an
unrestrained shoe when their shell capsized (~4 years after I'd
introduced the rowing world tothe concept of the restrained heel, please
note) has since been active in covering up the circumstances of another
fatal rowing accident.
>
> Harris mentions that it would be "prohibitively expensive" to mandate
> for buoyancy; whilst it is true for every boat out there to go through
> a buoyancy test is indeed impractical, it's safe to say that we could
> quite reasonably say that a particular boat type needs to have a
> certain volume of air bags under everry seat. I don't know the position
> wrt older wooden boats and the relative density compared to modern
> carbon ones, but if some tests could be established and some rules
> defined based on these results, we will _greatly reduce_ (not
> eliminate) the number of swampings that result in rowers having to
> leave the boat.
Those seeking to defend the indefensible often resort to the fatuous
"too expensive" claim. Harris has not costed, nor sought costings, on
the work of converting shells to full buoyancy. He hasn't a clue what
he is talking about.
It is not expensive to do. As an adequate DIY job the materials need
cost no more than ~GBP100 for most eights of monocoque construction -
which includes 8-off hatches. Had the ARA shown any conscience or
leadership, rather than waste the last 5 years in prevarication it would
have sought expert cooperation, established a standard, test procedure &
timescale for buoyancy conversions, & very boat in every club would by
now be fully buoyant.
Nor is is impracticable to conduct buoyancy tests. Indeed, why should
it be so? There is not usually any shortage of water when we go rowing,
& altogether too much of the stuff on those not so rare days when 11
eights go down in one head race in uncontrolled circumstances. All you
need is a warm day, a bunch of rowers & a few buckets, or a water pump.
Dinghy sailors have to have their boats sink tested, so why not rowers?
>
> The next step is mandatory capsize drills and lifejackets for rowers
> training in small boats. I speak only knowing west London but there are
> a number of pools in the Hammersmith and Putney areas - perhaps the
> clubs on the Putney embankment might care to donate an old single, talk
> to a local pool to arrange some brackets on a wall to store it, and
> arrange some evenings to book out the pool to do drills. Yes it is an
> additional cost; but I reckon at about Ł10-15 per athlete per year it
> is probably worth it. If the ARA mandated that you couldn't race until
> you'd done a capsize test, you'd soon see the position change, and
> clubs would make a capsize drill session part of their novice training.
Absolutely correct!
>
> I remember seeing a "lifejacket for scullers" in the quarter-page ads
> in Regatta last summer/autumn; i've seen nothing of it since but would
> love to try one out. It may be inconvenient but it's considerably
> better than being dead, IMHO. I won't even go out at high tide in my
> single, not because it's choppier but if I do go in there is NOWHERE on
> long stretches of the tideway to get out and get safe.
>
That is certainly a valid risk assessment. Scullers can, of course,
make their own decisions, based on their own set of values, but rowers
have to work under a collective risk assessment which, if you don't even
know how the boat will handle a choppy patch 2 miles away, simply cannot
be valid.
Cheers -