Having posted elsewhere my thoughts on the alleged safety issue
supposedly arising from the uses of a certain type of oarlock, I reckon
this topic merits a new thread.

First, read here: http://tinyurl.com/yaj4fv
for a summary of the alleged problem.

Next, here are yesterday's RSR comments of Adam Carter concerning the
same incident:
 >I would strongly advise against the use of Magik oarlocks,
 > especially for a newbie after what happened to the German
 > pair at the worl champs.
 > The boat turned over and the design of the oarloacks meant
 > that the blades were impossible to release, which left the
 > two oarsmen trapped in the boat under the blades and the
 > marshalls were unable to release them. They came quite close
 > to disaster, and that was at an event with ample safety
 > marshalls, etc. For a person on their own i the middle of
 > a lake that could easily be fatal. I've been told that these
 > oarlocks are fantastic, but I'm afraid that they represent
 > too much of a risk for me!

Finally my own views, condensed (a bit) from the same thread:
"I fail to see how the inability of people to remove oars from those
gates could have affected the rescuability from an inverted position of
2 guys who, it appears, had defective heel restraints.
"Nor have I heard any coherent explanation for how these gates might
have induced this supposed problem.
"Stop & think:  what is there to keep the oar-handle pressed against the
inverted rower?  Left to their own devices, there is nothing.  The only
thing which could pinion rowers into the boat would be for someone to
actively push the blades under the water.  If that's what they were
doing, then the rescuers, not the gates, were causing the problem - by
failing to rationally consider the task in hand.  In which case their
faffing around with the gates was a woeful waste of time."

Good safety must be founded on fact & reason.  So, with those 3
viewpoints in the open, let's debate this in a logical manner.  If a
valid case can be made against these oarlocks, let's hear it & act upon
it.  If not, & we are merely witnessing yet another of rowing's attempts
to lay blame on others, then that is immoral, irrational & dangerous
nonsense.

If we find that these oarlocks were entirely innocent of the crime of
which they stand accused, then it beggars belief that rowing, so
singularly foolish in its regular failures to deal promptly with real
safety issues, should get its collective knickers into such a public &
emotional twist over this event.

And, as a rider: why no discussion of how it was that more than one crew
raced at Dorney with non-functioning or absent foot release systems?
Why was this so easily checked shortcoming deliberately _not_ being
policed at a FISA World Championship?

Actually, the really sad thing to me is that it nolonger beggars my
belief that rowing should act thus.......

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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1784-456344  Fax: -466550
URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

we have had disussion of this and the answer is that it's not control
commission's job to check heel restraints at a FISA regatta (or even an
ARA one), but rather the crews. Control commission MAY check.

The issue is that word has not got round

a) what heel restraints are and how they work
b) how long they should be
c) what will happen if they are too long

My personal view is that if you have a rule you rigidly enforce it but
that fell foul of the lawyers apparently with the risk that a control
commission umpire could find himself up before a coroner if he'd failed
to check.

news:1163519307.168223.242190@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

You are absolutely right there.

I have written on this issue many times, and it seems rowers just don't care
too much about getting drowned. And let's face it, winning races is far more
important.

Our club has just purchased a secondhand VIII via the brokership of a
reputable boat manufacturer, for our beginners. Said boat recently
refurbished. On looking it over just yesterday (still on the trailer)
the first thing I noticed was frayed, broken and missing heel straps.
The boat still bears CULWBC markings (or a close variant thereof).

Imagine buying a s/h car from a dealer with faulty brakes?

Phil.

Many thanks, Christopher, & I do know that you share the view that these
things should be checked.

Thos arguments for inaction coincide with what I'd heard.  Is it not
extraordinary how rowing keeps deciding that implementing sane safety
measures might get someone into trouble?

Now let's examine the reverse situation, as so nearly happened at Dorney:
1. There is no check on what in the UK is a compulsory safety measure.
2. Then, during the regatta, 1 or 2 rowers die as direct result of an
unfortunate combination of a capsize, no heel restraints & (maybe) a
screwed up rescue.
3. Following which there is an inquest, at which the Coroner demands to
know why, since all competitors & officials were entirely subject to UK
law during the World Championships:
  a) the organising committee & the course owners knowingly permitted a
UK-wide rowing safety regulation (which is also a FISA safety
recommendation), the implementation of which would have prevented that
loss of life, to be deliberately flouted by participants.
  b) at the same time there were surplus regatta officials, who could (&
should) have been available to conduct such vital safety tests, running
around & harrassing competitors & coaches to remove or obscure truly
minuscule commercial logos from oarlocks, riggers & seats (but not, I
note, from coxes' head bands & shoes!).

The Coroner would, of course, have been advised beforehand of the other,
still unaddressed, safety skeletons in rowing's cupboard.  I think it
might well have led to further & particularly nasty repercussions, none
of which would have reflected the slightest credit either on rowing as a
sport, the ARA, the organisers or FISA.

I introduced restrained heels into this sport 30 years ago.  They have
saved many lives, which was their sole purpose.  That we remain in this
situation is an absolute disgrace.

Now, back to that oarlock

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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1784-456344  Fax: -466550
URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

On 14 Nov 2006 09:25:43 -0800, "Phil" <philip_barton....@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I checked an eight at Nat Schools a couple of years ago.  Brand new,
first outing, very shiny and smart, brand new shoes, excellent heel
restraints.  Shame not a single one of them was connected to the
stretcher though.  So black marks to that boat builder, the coach and
the crew.

I still feel we (umpires) miss a huge opportunity on Control
Commission.  We don't have to make umpires check boats.  What we can
(and should) very easily do is turn CC umpires into something more
like a quality control check.  Check that the athletes are checking
their boats properly before each outing.  Don't check the boat *for
them* because they won't learn anything, and it perpetuates the myth
that someone else (boatman, coach, umpire, Aunty Gertrude, whoever) is
responsible for the boat.  But do help teach them a) why it matters
and b) what's good and what isn't.  It ain't rocket science, and won't
take any longer than the current daft and ineffective way we do it
(when we bother).

I just wanted to check whether you're implying blame for the lack of
heel restraints to the 'dealer' or the previous boat owner? Because
your post isn't very clear.

(I'm not aware that CUWBC have recently sold any VIIIs (they certainly
hadn't uptil last May/June time) and 'CULWBC' doesn't exist - so I'm
not sure who your boat came from originally! The Cambridge Lightweight
Women race under the name of CUWBC, not as a separate club.)

Sarah

This easily becomes a circular argument resulting in everyone losing out.
The ARA lawyers evidently are missing the point, and so are those who accept
what they say.  Chris, your personal view is the right one.

If a rule is so important that failing to comply may be fatal, then those
who have a legal responsibility to enforce safety in the sport must take
that responsibility to 1) set the rules appropriately, 2) educate their
members effectively and 3) enforce the rule as far as is practical to do so.

The ARA lawyers seem to fail to recognise this responsibility and instead
(apparently) recommend an almighty cop-out, where effectively no-one takes
responsibility.... the NGB is too afraid, and the participant has not been
educated to do so. Sorry guys, but the safety buck does stop with the ARA as
stated in parliament by DCMS:

http://tinyurl.com/yk7bu3

Both morally and legally you are in a much better position to be able to say
in court "Yes we recognise and act upon our legal responsibility; we have a
clear effective rule, we make every effort to ensure the rule is understood
by all members, and we do our best to enforce the rule at official events -
however, in spite of our best efforts this one slipped through the net",
than to have to say "Sorry, but we deliberately keep our policy obscure, and
don't undertake to enforce the rule in order to cover our own backs."

Jane.

Did anyone else notice that "oarlock" was misspelled in the subject of
this thread?  (Typo, I'm sure)  I'm just surprised that I only just
noticed it.  Kinda like that email that keeps getting circulated around
that tells you that researchers have shown that if you jsut keep the
fisrt and lsat ltetres and mix up all the otehrs taht our brians can
sitll raed the wrods.

Presnolaly, I tihkn i'ts Blul Siht.
(but it might be how George Lucas came up with Jar-Jar's dialect)

-CK

Is there video footage of this event (the capsize and rescue?)

I was waiting for that shoe to drop!  I even began to think that
everyone was being kind.  It's like they say in the Welsh valleys: you
just get over-familiar with one sheep........

;)
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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1784-456344  Fax: -466550
URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

All of which is absolutely on the ball.  Many thanks, Jane.

My missus put it very simply to me last night:
If you have discussed a risk, particularly one affecting others towards
whom, as organiser, you owe a duty of care, but then reach a private or
internal agreement to ignore it, then you are culpable.  Because you
knew of the risk, you had the means to mitigate it, so you had a duty to
act intelligently to do so.  If it can be shown subsequently that you
failed to do so as part of a premeditated if misguided attempt to evade
your legal responsibility & thus to protect your own hide, that must
increase your culpability.

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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1784-456344  Fax: -466550
URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

I disagree with Jane on this one. As soon as we assign 'responsibility'
other than with the user, we assign 'liability' in such a way as to
encourage the user to believe its somebody elses job - and that they
can sue the other party for a fat sum if something goes wrong.

The analogy with responsibility for ensuring safety rules are complied
with falling on umpires is like saying the Police are liable if a car
kills someone due to having bald tyres. No! The driver is responsible.
Not the vehicle owner, not the tyre manufacturer, not the MOT station
who last saw it 10 months ago, and not the Police.

Its up to the user of whatever equipment to take responsibility for
ensuring it is in a safe condition throughout each period of use.

We all have a moral duty to draw any aparent dangerous defect or
situation to the attention of someone who might be affected in any walk
of life. If I see you getting into your car and the steel bracing is
hanging out of the nearside rear tyre, I'll try to alert you - but I'm
not 'responsible' or 'liable' if I can't run fast enough to get to you
before you drive off, or if you chose to ignore my warning.

If umpires were to be responsible and legally liable for ensuring heel
restraints were serviceable before crews were allowed to go afloat,
we'd need powers of arrest! How else could we stop a crew from boating?!

But we are not asking umpires or scrutineers to take respnsibility for
others breaching regulations.  We need them to enforce, as far as
feasible in a regatta, a simple set of safety rules.  If someone dies,
as Jane points out, you are already in trouble.  That trouble will be so
much greater if you have failed to take reasonable measures.

The case for inaction is largely undermined by:
1. the fact that we do enforce a number of rational safety measures,
including circulation patterns, & can exclude non-compliant competitors
from events.
2. safety equipment becomes a central concern if a crew with a defective
bow ball skewers someone.
3. we enforce crew & boat weight regulations, & rules on kit uniformity,
etc., some of which have zero or vanishingly small effect on regatta
fairness
4. at the WCs, as I pointed out, officials were preoccupied with
coveering up tiny commercial logos on boats

Now consider the position of an employer:  he has a duty of care towards
his employees, even where those employees wilfully breach the employer's
& the state's safety regulations.  That is so because it prevents the
employer from fixing it after the event by coercing/bribing an injured
employee into saying it was "all my own fault, gov".  And it puts the
onus firmly on the employer's shoulders to run a safe shop.  Do you
really think the judiciary will see the conduct of organised sport so
very differently - especially if a rescuer dies trying to save some damn
fool who thought it clever to go out without heel restraints?

Looking at a problem, detecting a hazard & deciding to ignore it has
never been a valid defence in law, AFAIK.  If in rowing we actually
enforce those very few safety rules, then we will continue to be able to
present ourselves as a responsibly-run sport & thus keep the lawyers off
our patch.  Screw up & that picture may change markedly.

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: c...@carldouglas.co.uk  Tel: +44(0)1784-456344  Fax: -466550
URLs:  www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)

That paragraph appears to put a compelling case for lawyer-driven anarchy to now rule the waves.

No. The whole point is all about having safety rules in place and then acting in such a way as to maximise compliance. Jane wrote:
  "If a rule is so important that failing to comply may be fatal, then those
  who have a legal responsibility to enforce safety in the sport must take
  that responsibility to 1) set the rules appropriately, 2) educate their
  members effectively and 3) enforce the rule as far as is practical to do so."
The ARA has used Terry's sort of argument to try and duck out of responsibility over buoyancy. In a statement that reflects hope rather confidence I say that if (rather than when) another UK rower drowns following the swamping of an underbuoyant boat, the ARA's position of declining to regulate out of fear of litigation will be torn to shreds by the legal system, and I fully expect that Thompson, Harris and Ward will spend a substantial period of time as guests of Her Majesty.

Using Terry's example, in most if not all developed countries it is a government body which legislates on what is the minimum tread depth on a car tyre. Unlike the ARA, they provide a clearly defined and measurable specification, and a tyre either complies or it doesn't. As learners, drivers receive some form of education on the danger of bald tyres, and then enforcement takes place at a great many levels. Your MOT in the UK is just one of them, but there will also be the awareness that this is likely to be done any occasion the cops might pull you over, and above all, if you are in a crash and your tyres are defective, you will be held liable, and in all likelihood you will find yourself uninsured. Those are serious sanctions.

But they can only do so if there is some clear definition of what is safe. What is the safe maximum heel lift? Carl mentioned 50mm, which I would consider an absolute maximum, and 30mm would to me be a better and far safer figure. Carl says the ARA somewhere vaguely refers to 100mm, which is utterly ridiculous, and the system won't work.

And what are the sanctions for non-compliance? None, it would appear. As Carl has pointed out, an oversize logo or a few grams underweight will draw all the ire of the blazerati, but it seems that a lethally unsafe boat can slip so easily under their radar. And then when there is a capsize, and the rowers are trapped under a boat they should have automatically come clear of the instant they hit the water had the heel restraints been correctly in place, the officials try to blame the gates because they are a new idea, and therefore an easy target in a change -averse sport.

Yes, that's true, but those who do warn others tend to get instantly categorised by Sully's definition of "boathouse bitch". That's a cultural thing about rowing, and we have seen a lot of it on this forum in recent weeks.

I can't believe I'm reading this. It's easy. Disqualify them on the spot. Umpires have that power.

I can disqualify them. What I asked was how to I prevent them going
afloat, which appears to be the responsibility and liability you want
me to discharge. I can stop them racing, but that does not stop them
capsizing if they (for example) go out for a training outing, complying
with the circulation pattern, during a regatta. Do I wrestele them to
the ground to stop them going out?

Both Carl and Nick seem to be trying to address a different issue to
me. I'm not saying that 'safety is none of my business'. I happen to
work in the North Sea oil industry, and safety here is very much
everybody's business - an approach I carry into my rowing life also.
But that does not mnean that, if I fail to physically overpower someone
(at work or in rowing) to prevent them doing something stupid which
kills themselves or someone else, I am accountable - morally or at law
- for my 'failure'.

So why give a lawyer the oportunity to twist the situation as a basis
for a claim that his client's injury in consequence of failure to
adhere to screeds of policy and best practice should actually result in
a 7-figure law suit against me as an umpire for failing to physically
retsrain the fool from going afloat.

As an umpire, as a club member, as a plain Joe Public, I will do what I
can to help people to enjoy their sport safely.

But in the final analysis, there is an adage of which I heartily
approve. "If you want to see the person who is responsible for your
safety, look in a mirror."

In article <1163603648.500601.13...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
terry.mcne...@sparrowsoffshore.com says...

Terry,

what about our duty of care for young people involved in rowing?

Douglas

They're usually smaller, and easier to wrestle to the ground.  ;-)

(sorry)

-Kieran

As ever, we all have an equal duty of care as human beings, but thats
nt the same as legal liability - the issue I want to separate out.

LIABILITY lies first with their parents, then with the club or coaches
to whom they have entrusted care during the rowing activity. When it
comes to who is responsible for ensuring the boat is serviceable, in
Nick/Carl's examples, (compliant with regulation/safety code), IMHO one
should certainly never have to look higher up the chain than that.

A complete theory of civilization could probably be constructed around
that question of whether umpires should be checking tie-downs or not!
I've just got a simple story for you.

When I started rowing a single, I kept my heel tie-downs at the normal
sort of length of 50mm or so.  Maybe they came that way.  I got wet
many times while training and never had any trouble ducking under the
boat to release my heels.

A couple of years into my singles career I hit a large finish-line buoy
at the end of a very hotly contested 1000m race, and flipped over
quickly.  Aaaargh!  My feet were stuck in the shoes and there was no
way I had enough lung capacity to get under the boat to free them!

I floundered around for a time in a growing panic (it was probably
fifteen or twenty seconds, I dunno, felt like much longer).  Arms-only
horizontal treading water with feet shackled is very very difficult at
maximum lactate levels!  (And I'm an excellent swimmer.)  Eventually I
struck on the idea of reaching one arm over the hull and grabbing the
opposite gunwhale.

I did this, and hung out for a moment until I had recovered
sufficiently to go under the boat and release my heels.  I wonder how
someone in this predicament might have fared if he/she was less of a
swimmer, or didn't have the monkey arms like me.

Since this time I have always kept my tie-downs very short, so that my
feet come out with zero effort.  Kind of like ski bindings but much
easier of course.  I also do *not* tie my feet down with straps over
the insteps.  If you have shoes that fit pretty well (and in your own
single why wouldn't you!) I don't really think it matters too much.
And I wouldn't say my rowing is particularly marked by excellent slide
control, although I guess it must be all right judging on results.
(FYI I am very much on the balls of my feet at the catch.)  The first
stroke or two of a start might be where some would want that secure
footing, but I still don't think you want to be yanking the boat up
under you so violently that the velcro is necessary.  I'm a little out
of my league here, being Mr. Slow Twitch, but I do have a good,
un-velcroed start.

But my start was only fair until I started using the magikrowing
oarlocks!  Good segue, that, but I must say that the main complaint
I've heard about these oarlocks is that they come open *too easily*
while rowing--if you hit a buoy, say.  I can see where this might
happen if you neglect to slide the "keeper" clip in (as you might do on
your first row with the oarlocks, or a friend might do who borrows your
boat).  The US distributor said they've tested the oarlocks and the
pressure required to open them is so high that your oar would break
first.

news:1163603648.500601.13450@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

Not at all. You can't prevent suicide, but you can ensure that they don't
take part as bona fide competitors in a race when in a suicidal condition.
And if they then choose to disobey an umpire and boat anyway, I would think
even the ARA might take action by cancelling their registration. It seems to
me that you prefer to do nothing.

It's all about having an appropriate sanction for those who fail to comply
with safety regulations.

Similarly the police can't physically ensure a seat belt is worn by every
car occupant, but there are penalties for those who don't wear them, and
they bear the liability for injuries they sustain as a result.

And on the duty of care issue, parents who don't ensure their children belt
up in cars are culpable. Coaches who don't ensure the boats used by minors
comply with safety directives are similarly so.

Why's this all so difficult?

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough.  This is not a matter of transferring
responsibility or liability wholesale from the rower to the ARA.  It is a
matter of shared responsibility between both parties.  If one side doesn't
play the game then the safety system doesn't function.

The ARA has the responsibility to achieve points 1) to 3) above.  If the ARA
has fulfilled this responsibility to a member and that member then knowingly
fails to follow the rule, that member is responsible for any consequences.

Nick has answered this point very well.

The ARA has the legal responsibility for ensuring a robust system is in
place to achieve points 1) to 3) above, which includes training coaches,
safety officers and umpires to be agents of that system.  The 'agents' just
have to be fit for purpose and do their best within the ARA system - this,
we understand, is the legal test.  So if an umpire turns up, is up for the
job, and stands up for the rules as best he/she can be reasonably expected
to, he/she will not be legally liable if things go wrong in spite of their
reasonable best efforts.

If it was considered acceptable for a body to set rules but not to promote
or enforce them, then they could fulfil their remit by following the Vogon
example of only posting the rules on a notice board on the nearest star,
claiming it is not their fault if no-one sees them.

Jane.

Nice one. All do it like Richard writes.

"Stephen and Jane" <stephenDOTblock...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message

So is it now time to tell the ARA that "Resistance is Useless"?

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:34:57 +0100, Henning Lippke

Thanks Henning!  I have suggested this approach at various UK umpires'
seminars.  Whilst some make encouraging noises, unfortunately it
appears that if change is happening it's happening at a glacial rate.