Club Chat
The Zugspitz Tragedy
On 13th July 2008 the Zugspitz Race (in the Bavarian Alps) started in fair weather, but with a very ominous weather forecast. The race, designated "extrem-berglauf" or extreme mountain race, starts at 1020m and finishes at 2942m, with 2200m of ascent over 16.1km. All competitors were reminded of both the deteriorating weather with snowfall imminent, and their responsibility to follow the race organiser’s safety requirements. The weather developed into a bad snowstorm with runners spread out over very exposed alpine terrain. Some of the runners succumbed to exposure and hypothermia on the upper part of the course. Many were arriving at the finish in vest and shorts. Eleven required emergency medical attention. Two died shortly after.
The public prosecutor in Garmisch-Partenkirchen brought an action against the race organiser for “unlawful killing and negligent injury”. Evidence at the hearings included alleged failure to comply with the race organiser’s safety kit requirements (with the argument that the organiser had been negligent in not ensuring that all competitors were carrying it). There was also post-mortem evidence that doping substances had been found in the two deceased.
The prosecution case was thrown out. The judge observed that the deceased and injured had endangered themselves through their own negligence and that some had not carried the required safety kit. He said that they had recklessly continued the race out of “sporting enthusiasm in the face of deteriorating weather”. He observed that the race organiser had done everything reasonable to ensure that runners complied with the rules. The runners had been warned of the hazards and told that they must carry protection. The judge said it was not reasonable to expect the organiser to police 750 runners at the start, especially when there even appeared to be a habit amongst some runners of discarding their equipment after they had started a race. The public prosecutor had argued that the greater the danger, the greater was the responsibility on the organiser. The judge reprimanded the prosecutor for portraying the injured as victims of the organiser’s negligence.
The court case arose because the race organiser had refused to admit liability and an out-of-court and settlement by a fine of 13,500 Euro. Observers at the hearings said that the not-guilty outcome was a victory for the sport. The prosecutor has still to decide on whether to appeal against the verdict.
Has all this anything to do with hill racing in the UK and the races DFR are associated with? I think it has a lot to do with our own, personal behaviour. Will this judgement be known to, or influence, the British courts? Does it leaves us free to indulge in a free-for-all on safety kit, because the organiser will not be blamed, even if we break his rules as competitors? You will not be surprised to know that I think this would be extremely reckless. No organiser can afford to take the risk of organising a race without liability insurance. The Zugspitz organiser’s insurer faced a substantial commercial risk with this court action (which can still be challenged at appeal). If the FRA and our race insurers observe that an increasing number of competitors ignore the requirements of the organiser’s insurance, they will either raise the insurance premium, or refuse to insure. Such an outcome would result in fewer and fewer organisers being prepared to take on the responsibility of organising a race. Organised hill racing, as we now know it, will stop. The classic races may well continue as a commercially-organised activity, with entry fees of £50. Do we want this?
We all know of competitors who treat race organisers’ safety requirements with contempt and we know how very difficult it is for race organisers and clubs to take any action against the defaulters. Why should it be necessary to keep going on about the blindingly obvious importance of safety kit and the necessity of enforcing the rules? Perhaps it’s because we have a growing proportion of hill runners who don’t understand how vulnerable they are to hypothermia, if they get injured during a race. There are an increasing number of competitors who have no experience of fell racing and need to be told about suitable clothing and footwear. Just as bad, there are those who seem prepared to cheat, by taking a weight advantage, although modern gear is feather-weight. There are an increasing number of races in what used to be "the closed season".
There has not been a fell racing tragedy in the UK for a long time - maybe 20 years. I am in no doubt that this is the result of the introduction and application of the FRA Safety Requirements. Can our weather conditions lead to a Zugspitz-type tragedy? What should we do? How do you react to the suggestions below?
- Clubs and race organisers should name, shame and disqualify those who don’t follow race safety requirements, possibly with a time-limited ban.
- The FRA should monitor for compliance with their safety guidelines and the insurance requirements, possibly by monitoring a proportion of races, unannounced, and take action against defaulters.
- Competitors who ignore a race organiser’s safety rules should be treated as cheats in serious need of rehabilitation.
I wonder how many competitors ask themselves if they would like to be responsible for inflicting the ordeal of the Zugspitz Race organiser - or the organiser of any UK race? What I am suggesting is that we all give this subject intelligent thought and keep it in mind on all public racing occasions.
AM
March 1st, 2010
