25 Apr 2008 13:44:11
Stephen and Jane
New ARA website

The new ARA website appears at first glance to be a bit of an improvement on
the old one. However, safety being our specific interest we looked to find
any reference to it from the home page - but failed.

So, we assume, it is one link removed: tried 'About rowing' - not there,
tried 'Coaching and Training - not there, tried 'Student and Junior' - not
there.

Eventually we looked at the site map, and found it is listed under
'Policies' - which we then found in the 'About us and Membership' section.
The word 'safety' barely gets a mention outside of the Water Safety section.
This hardly represents a change in culture to make safety high profile and
integral to every aspect of the sport, as recommended by the Review.

The front page of the safety section is bitterly disappointing - same old
stuff. The introductory words are lifted straight from the Water Safety
Code. In fact the paragraph was in the old (pre 2003) Water Safety Code,
except the sentence "contending with difficult weather conditions is part of
the attraction of the sport" has been amended to read "contending with
difficult weather conditions is part of the sport".

Another click on 'Guidance documents' takes you to a pick list which
includes the code and other documents. There is a note to say that the
'Rowsafe' documents will replace the WSC sometime this year.

But, do you know what really bugs me? The 'Capsize and Immersion Drill'
document still contains a gross medical inaccuracy, in spite of the umpteen
times I have pointed it out to them, and in spite of it being a universally
accepted medical fact which is widely referenced. The incorrect 'ferry
glide' reference has been removed, but not the reference to the risk of a
'surge' of blood pressure when a victim who has been immersed in cold water
for some time is rescued. 'Surge' should read 'drop'. So the ARA state the
exact opposite of what really happens.

OK, you may think it is a minor point, but its main significance is how it
typifies the ARA's inability in the safety field to do accurate research, to
take advice from experts, to make any real, useful, effective changes to
their policy, or to be of any practical help to their membership.

From what I have seen of the Rowsafe documents, they do NOT address the MANY
deficiencies highlighted by the RoSPA review - in fact they are largely a
cut and paste job on the current Water Safety Code. But it has managed to
make the advice even less accessible. Whether you are a rower, a coach or a
club official, you have to read every single one of the many documents to
find all the bits relevant to you. This is a prime example of how to make a
bad situation even worse.

Speaking of which: the front page of the 'About us and Membership' section
is a review of the year by Di Ellis CBE. You might think that an
independent review into the ARA's handling of rowing safety, commissioned by
HM Government and Sport England, might warrant a mention? Apparently Mrs
Ellis thinks not.

Jane




25 Apr 2008 10:01:11
Re: New ARA website

On Apr 25, 1:44=A0pm, "Stephen and Jane"
<stephenDOTblock...@ukgateway.net > wrote:
> The new ARA website appears at first glance to be a bit of an improvement =
on
> the old one. =A0However, safety being our specific interest we looked to f=
ind
> any reference to it from the home page - but failed.
>
> So, we assume, it is one link removed: tried 'About rowing' - not there,
> tried 'Coaching and Training - not there, tried 'Student and Junior' - not=

> there.
>
> Eventually we looked at the site map, and found it is listed under
> 'Policies' - which we then found in the 'About us and Membership' section.=

> The word 'safety' barely gets a mention outside of the Water Safety sectio=
n.
> This hardly represents a change in culture to make safety high profile and=

> integral to every aspect of the sport, as recommended by the Review.
>
> The front page of the safety section is bitterly disappointing - same old
> stuff. =A0The introductory words are lifted straight from the Water Safety=

> Code. =A0In fact the paragraph was in the old (pre 2003) Water Safety Code=
,
> except the sentence "contending with difficult weather conditions is part =
of
> the attraction of the sport" has been amended to read "contending with
> difficult weather conditions is part of the sport".
>
> Another click on 'Guidance documents' takes you to a pick list which
> includes the code and other documents. =A0There is a note to say that the
> 'Rowsafe' documents will replace the WSC sometime this year.
>
> But, do you know what really bugs me? =A0The 'Capsize and Immersion Drill'=

> document still contains a gross medical inaccuracy, in spite of the umptee=
n
> times I have pointed it out to them, and in spite of it being a universall=
y
> accepted medical fact which is widely referenced. =A0The incorrect 'ferry
> glide' reference has been removed, but not the reference to the risk of a
> 'surge' of blood pressure when a victim who has been immersed in cold wate=
r
> for some time is rescued. =A0'Surge' should read 'drop'. =A0So the ARA sta=
te the
> exact opposite of what really happens.
>
> OK, you may think it is a minor point, but its main significance is how it=

> typifies the ARA's inability in the safety field to do accurate research, =
to
> take advice from experts, to make any real, useful, effective changes to
> their policy, or to be of any practical help to their membership.
>
> From what I have seen of the Rowsafe documents, they do NOT address the MA=
NY
> deficiencies highlighted by the RoSPA review - in fact they are largely a
> cut and paste job on the current Water Safety Code. =A0But it has managed =
to
> make the advice even less accessible. =A0Whether you are a rower, a coach =
or a
> club official, you have to read every single one of the many documents to
> find all the bits relevant to you. =A0This is a prime example of how to ma=
ke a
> bad situation even worse.
>
> Speaking of which: =A0the front page of the 'About us and Membership' sect=
ion
> is a review of the year by Di Ellis CBE. =A0You might think that an
> independent review into the ARA's handling of rowing safety, commissioned =
by
> HM Government and Sport England, might warrant a mention? =A0Apparently Mr=
s
> Ellis thinks not.
>
> Jane

She does say: " A new water safety guidance document is being produced
for 2008" Perhaps that is what she's talking about?


25 Apr 2008 18:14:37
Alistair Potts
Re: New ARA website

"In visiting the ARA website you expressly acknowledge that the ARA is not
and cannot be held responsible for the ownership, decency, reliability and
integrity of the content of this website ... "

Heh.



25 Apr 2008 20:05:40
Stephen and Jane
Re: New ARA website

mpwmpw1@googlemail.com wrote:

>> Speaking of which: the front page of the 'About us and Membership'
>> section is a review of the year by Di Ellis CBE. You might think
>> that an independent review into the ARA's handling of rowing safety,
>> commissioned by HM Government and Sport England, might warrant a
>> mention? Apparently Mrs Ellis thinks not.
>>
>> Jane
>
> She does say: " A new water safety guidance document is being produced
> for 2008" Perhaps that is what she's talking about?

I took that as a reference to the 'Rowsafe' documents, which are not related
to the Safety Review.

J




25 Apr 2008 20:11:39
Carl Douglas
Re: New ARA website

Alistair Potts wrote:
> "In visiting the ARA website you expressly acknowledge that the ARA is
> not and cannot be held responsible for the ownership, decency,
> reliability and integrity of the content of this website ... "
>
> Heh.

Alistair, that far too close to the truth to be funny.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)


26 Apr 2008 10:06:09
Alistair Potts
Re: New ARA website

... (it goes on to say:) "You may not rely on any information or advice
published on this website and no data hereon is provided for any specific
purpose."

Heh again.

So to paraphrase: "We have a shiny new website, but we're not responsible
for anything that might be written on it. Look, it might be completely
wrong, but that's not our fault, it's your fault for reading it and
believing it. (And it might be indecent, but let's not go there.) In fact,
you may _think_ it's all about rowing, but that's you're call; and if you
rely on anything we've written you're an idiot."

I suggest they move this from the obscure "Disclaimer" page to the home
page.



26 Apr 2008 17:03:18
Carl Douglas
Re: New ARA website

Alistair Potts wrote:
> ... (it goes on to say:) "You may not rely on any information or advice
> published on this website and no data hereon is provided for any
> specific purpose."
>
> Heh again.
>
> So to paraphrase: "We have a shiny new website, but we're not
> responsible for anything that might be written on it. Look, it might be
> completely wrong, but that's not our fault, it's your fault for reading
> it and believing it. (And it might be indecent, but let's not go there.)
> In fact, you may _think_ it's all about rowing, but that's you're call;
> and if you rely on anything we've written you're an idiot."
>
> I suggest they move this from the obscure "Disclaimer" page to the home
> page.


The ARA is an organisation with significant areas of dysfunction.
Certain vital functions "don't interest" those in overall control of
what does & doesn't get done, particularly because they have already
been found out & fingered for treating them (& thus the protection of
human life) as unimportant.

So it was that there has been no recording of rowing accidents, with
fatalities & severe injuries allowed to melt away remembered only by
those worst affected & otherwise ignored as if they'd never happened -
indeed regarded as never having happened - by the sport at large.

Nowadays, outside the ARA, such attitudes are becoming much less
prevalent. But we also see that many in office do still believe
themselves untouched & untouchable.

I have in the past mentioned similar attitudes prevailing among military
top brass, the US segment of which was rather well reviewed in the book
"Silent Knights. Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents and Their
Cover-Ups", by Alan Diehl. Pressures to provide those sent to fight
wars by politicians (who may never have faced anything more dangerous
than an irate housewife while canvassing), though resisted tooth & nail
by the bean-counters, have brought worthwhile changes in protection of
US military personnel. The UK remains many years behind the times.

Just how far behind we see in, e.g., inquests into UK military deaths.
Fortunately, some determined & dedicated Coroners have refused to be
browbeaten & suppressed by HMG & have uncovered worm-filled cans which
HMG would prefer had remained buried. One painful expose, among so
many, of institutional determination to hide from the predictable
consequences of finances-driven defects in fundamental safety policy is
seen in this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368807.stm
here we see that to press Top Brass to implement bleedin' obvious
protection can be career-threatening, & that those now further up the
ladder find it impolitic to recall their earlier remarks & concerns. Of
course, having a large plane explode & kill 10 highly-trained guys is
far more expensive than fitting the explosion-suppression the US has
routinely deployed since Vietnam, but those in UK military procurement,
who never face such dangers, thought it a gamble well worth taking.

Now consider the parallels in UK rowing:
Crew shells have swamped & sunk whenever it got rough ever since the
sport began. Old press & club reports are still found detailing
multiple swampings involving costly rescue & swampings leading to death.
The ARA was warned, expertly, in writing & in detail, early in the
'90s of the swamping & sinking risk in rowing shells, & of the
feasibility & desirability of removing this danger. This advice was
discarded, but all reference to the risk of swamping was promptly
deleted from the Water Safety Code (sic). Work that one out! I'm sure
Alistair has already done so ;)

At the end of the '90s I was pushing (as I'd been for many years) for
full buoyancy in crew shells. And I was campaigning thus, here on RSR &
elsewhere, at when Leo Blockley drowned in the double swampings in
Amposta at the end of 2000. Immediately I wrote to the ARA, expertly &
in detail, explaining the mechanism & suddenness of swamping, & the
effectiveness of underseat enclosures. The ARA ignored my letter, but
colluded with senior Oxford University officials in the covering-up of
the true circumstances of Leo's death. Their cover-up included
withholding relevant information from the Spanish & British police
forces, instructing others to do likewise & the propagation of
deliberate untruths.

That cover-up led to the inquest being denied directly relevant
information. Attempts to get the ARA to understand the merits & ease of
implementing full buoyancy brought their increasingly vitriolic attacks
on the concept of full buoyancy (including a published statement that
full buoyancy would encourage risk taking) & on anyone determined to
press the case &, in the end, to expose the lies. I was slanderously
accused of "Trying to get rowing stopped" & have a letter from Di Ellis
telling me the ARA would under no circumstances discuss shell buoyancy
or related matters with me.

Eventually the body of evidence became so great that Leo's parents were
able to get the High Court to order a fresh inquest - a hard test & a
rare achievement. Meanwhile the ARA's lack of safety knowledge &
foresight, via its idiotic self-rescue advice, brought about the death
of 15-year-old Sikander Farooq. So there were now 2 inquests. And I
was horrified to learn, from several sources, that it had been decided
within the region "to keep it simple of the Coroner".

At the second Blockley inquest the true facts were brutally exposed. A
prime cause of Leo's death was found to be the swamping & sinking of his
eight. The lie that he brought about his own death was firmly quashed.
And the string of unpleasant facts which those most responsible for
Leo's safety, & thus most in breach of their duty of care, had sought
for their own protection to hide, became public.

The Coroners at the inquests into Leo's & Sikander's deaths then issued
2 Rule 43 letters detailing a string of recommendations for prompt ARA
action. That brought the extraordinary response from Gary Harris of the
ARA, supported by a Solicitor from ARA E Region who had been coopted
onto Council (for his expertise) despite having recently been barred
from practice for 6 months for repeated professional misconduct. Harris
told both Coroners they didn't know what they were talking about & that
the ARA would ignore much of their advice. I will note that one of the
Coroners had stated that it was "a bold institution which chose to
ignore" the contents of a Rule 43 letter. Making Rule 43 advice legally
binding is now in prospect.

Due to that ARA rejection, it was necessary to take matters to the next
logical step - a House of Commons adjournment debate. At the end of
that debate, the Minister for Sport's deputy accepted on behalf of his
department that something had to be done. That brought about the Rowing
Safety Review, the publication of which appears imminent.

Meanwhile the ARA, by behind-scenes manoeuvres, sought to have the
Scottish ARA drop its new rule requiring full shell buoyancy. And the
SAR executive did its best to set things up for an extraordinary general
meeting that would deliver this result. History shows they failed. One
of those most senior in SARA has since lost office.

Why people in office act thus is a mystery to most of us. Surely it is
easier, better & more rewarding to do the job right & in what really are
the members' best interests - which in safety means do everything
reasonable & rational to enhance safety without impairing the sport. As
surely, it should also mean avoiding the idiotic, unprincipled spectacle
of opposing simple, easy safety measures proven to save lives, of
running a smear campaign against victims & their parents, of exposing
your organisation to huge risk by publishing juvenile & irrational
rejections of Coroners' expert advice & of lying to the government
Minister who is also your paymaster.

History shows that power (even the petty power of being part of the ARA
executive, for heaven's sake!) corrupts. And once those in power get to
feel they don't have to answer for their actions, things turn nasty.
That is particularly true where, as with ARA exec, there seems no need
to explain yourselves or stand in any meaningful election - it is a
self-perpetuating oligarchy with a Council quite unwilling to challenge
the status quo (since that gets you marginalised in such systems!). For
much longer than the last 8 years there's been an entrenched attitude
within the ARA - that whatever we choose to do, or to not do, is none of
anyone else's business. It was thus when they decided to buy E. German
training boats with public (HMG) funds through their chief coach without
seeking competitive tenders, When HMG put a stop to that, in a touch of
pique they nolonger wanted the boats. It was thus when fiscal fiddles
led to certain persons being asked to leave, rather than prosecute & go
public (again that must have involved public funds gone astray).

What next? Well, let's see what the Review brings. But don't hold your
breath too long - these are people well versed in the negation by delay
game. As in the continuing Zimbabwe election scandal, I expect they'll
sit tight, beat up the winners & then demand a recount. In which case,
best keep a lookout for a Chinese ship bringing arms to a pier close to
6 Lower Mall. They may need them.

Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)


26 Apr 2008 10:03:02
Re: New ARA website

On Apr 26, 5:03=A0pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk > wrote:
> Alistair Potts wrote:
> > ... (it goes on to say:) "You may not rely on any information or advice
> > published on this website and no data hereon is provided for any
> > specific purpose."
>
> > Heh again.
>
> > So to paraphrase: "We have a shiny new website, but we're not
> > responsible for anything that might be written on it. Look, it might be
> > completely wrong, but that's not our fault, it's your fault for reading
> > it and believing it. (And it might be indecent, but let's not go there.)=

> > In fact, you may _think_ it's all about rowing, but that's you're call;
> > and if you rely on anything we've written you're an idiot."
>
> > I suggest they move this from the obscure "Disclaimer" page to the home
> > page.
>
> The ARA is an organisation with significant areas of dysfunction.
> Certain vital functions "don't interest" those in overall control of
> what does & doesn't get done, particularly because they have already
> been found out & fingered for treating them (& thus the protection of
> human life) as unimportant.
>
> So it was that there has been no recording of rowing accidents, with
> fatalities & severe injuries allowed to melt away remembered only by
> those worst affected & otherwise ignored as if they'd never happened -
> indeed regarded as never having happened - by the sport at large.
>
> Nowadays, outside the ARA, such attitudes are becoming much less
> prevalent. =A0But we also see that many in office do still believe
> themselves untouched & untouchable.
>
> I have in the past mentioned similar attitudes prevailing among military
> top brass, the US segment of which was rather well reviewed in the book
> "Silent Knights. Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents and Their
> Cover-Ups", by Alan Diehl. =A0Pressures to provide those sent to fight
> wars by politicians (who may never have faced anything more dangerous
> than an irate housewife while canvassing), though resisted tooth & nail
> by the bean-counters, have brought worthwhile changes in protection of
> US military personnel. =A0The UK remains many years behind the times.
>
> Just how far behind we see in, e.g., inquests into UK military deaths.
> Fortunately, some determined & dedicated Coroners have refused to be
> browbeaten & suppressed by HMG & have uncovered worm-filled cans which
> HMG would prefer had remained buried. =A0One painful expose, among so
> many, of institutional determination to hide from the predictable
> consequences of finances-driven defects in fundamental safety policy is
> seen in this report:
> =A0 =A0http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368807.stm
> here we see that to press Top Brass to implement bleedin' obvious
> protection can be career-threatening, & that those now further up the
> ladder find it impolitic to recall their earlier remarks & concerns. =A0Of=

> course, having a large plane explode & kill 10 highly-trained guys is
> far more expensive than fitting the explosion-suppression the US has
> routinely deployed since Vietnam, but those in UK military procurement,
> who never face such dangers, thought it a gamble well worth taking.
>
> Now consider the parallels in UK rowing:
> Crew shells have swamped & sunk whenever it got rough ever since the
> sport began. =A0Old press & club reports are still found detailing
> multiple swampings involving costly rescue & swampings leading to death.
> =A0 The ARA was warned, expertly, in writing & in detail, early in the
> '90s of the swamping & sinking risk in rowing shells, & of the
> feasibility & desirability of removing this danger. =A0This advice was
> discarded, but all reference to the risk of swamping was promptly
> deleted from the Water Safety Code (sic). =A0Work that one out! =A0I'm sur=
e
> Alistair has already done so ;)
>
> At the end of the '90s I was pushing (as I'd been for many years) for
> full buoyancy in crew shells. =A0And I was campaigning thus, here on RSR &=

> elsewhere, at when Leo Blockley drowned in the double swampings in
> Amposta at the end of 2000. =A0Immediately I wrote to the ARA, expertly &
> in detail, explaining the mechanism & suddenness of swamping, & the
> effectiveness of underseat enclosures. =A0The ARA ignored my letter, but
> colluded with senior Oxford University officials in the covering-up of
> the true circumstances of Leo's death. =A0Their cover-up included
> withholding relevant information from the Spanish & British police
> forces, instructing others to do likewise & the propagation of
> deliberate untruths.
>
> That cover-up led to the inquest being denied directly relevant
> information. =A0Attempts to get the ARA to understand the merits & ease of=

> implementing full buoyancy brought their increasingly vitriolic attacks
> on the concept of full buoyancy (including a published statement that
> full buoyancy would encourage risk taking) & on anyone determined to
> press the case &, in the end, to expose the lies. =A0I was slanderously
> accused of "Trying to get rowing stopped" & have a letter from Di Ellis
> telling me the ARA would under no circumstances discuss shell buoyancy
> or related matters with me.
>
> Eventually the body of evidence became so great that Leo's parents were
> able to get the High Court to order a fresh inquest - a hard test & a
> rare achievement. =A0Meanwhile the ARA's lack of safety knowledge &
> foresight, via its idiotic self-rescue advice, brought about the death
> of 15-year-old Sikander Farooq. =A0So there were now 2 inquests. =A0And I
> was horrified to learn, from several sources, that it had been decided
> within the region "to keep it simple of the Coroner".
>
> At the second Blockley inquest the true facts were brutally exposed. =A0A
> prime cause of Leo's death was found to be the swamping & sinking of his
> eight. =A0The lie that he brought about his own death was firmly quashed.
> =A0 And the string of unpleasant facts which those most responsible for
> Leo's safety, & thus most in breach of their duty of care, had sought
> for their own protection to hide, became public.
>
> The Coroners at the inquests into Leo's & Sikander's deaths then issued
> 2 Rule 43 letters detailing a string of recommendations for prompt ARA
> action. =A0That brought the extraordinary response from Gary Harris of the=

> ARA, supported by a Solicitor from ARA E Region who had been coopted
> onto Council (for his expertise) despite having recently been barred
> from practice for 6 months for repeated professional misconduct. =A0Harris=

> told both Coroners they didn't know what they were talking about & that
> the ARA would ignore much of their advice. =A0I will note that one of the
> Coroners had stated that it was "a bold institution which chose to
> ignore" the contents of a Rule 43 letter. =A0Making Rule 43 advice legally=

> binding is now in prospect.
>
> Due to that ARA rejection, it was necessary to take matters to the next
> logical step - a House of Commons adjournment debate. =A0At the end of
> that debate, the Minister for Sport's deputy accepted on behalf of his
> department that something had to be done. =A0That brought about the Rowing=

> Safety Review, the publication of which appears imminent.
>
> Meanwhile the ARA, by behind-scenes manoeuvres, sought to have the
> Scottish ARA drop its new rule requiring full shell buoyancy. =A0And the
> SAR executive did its best to set things up for an extraordinary general
> meeting that would deliver this result. =A0History shows they failed. =A0O=
ne
> of those most senior in SARA has since lost office.
>
> Why people in office act thus is a mystery to most of us. =A0Surely it is
> easier, better & more rewarding to do the job right & in what really are
> the members' best interests - which in safety means do everything
> reasonable & rational to enhance safety without impairing the sport. =A0As=

> surely, it should also mean avoiding the idiotic, unprincipled spectacle
> of opposing simple, easy safety measures proven to save lives, of
> running a smear campaign against victims & their parents, of exposing
> your organisation to huge risk by publishing juvenile & irrational
> rejections of Coroners' expert advice & of lying to the government
> Minister who is also your paymaster.
>
> History shows that power (even the petty power of being part of the ARA
> executive, for heaven's sake!) corrupts. =A0And once those in power get to=

> feel they don't have to answer for their actions, things turn nasty.
> That is particularly true where, as with ARA exec, there seems no need
> to explain yourselves or stand in any meaningful election - it is a
> self-perpetuating oligarchy with a Council quite unwilling to challenge
> the status quo (since that gets you marginalised in such systems!). =A0For=

> much longer than the last 8 years there's been an entrenched attitude
> within the ARA - that whatever we choose to do, or to not do, is none of
> anyone else's business. =A0It was thus when they decided to buy E. German
> training boats with public (HMG) funds through their chief coach without
> seeking competitive tenders, =A0When HMG put a stop to that, in a touch of=

> pique they nolonger wanted the boats. =A0It was thus when fiscal fiddles
> led to certain persons being asked to leave, rather than prosecute & go
> public (again that must have involved public funds gone astray).
>
> What next? =A0Well, let's see what the Review brings. =A0But don't hold yo=
ur
> breath too long - these are people well versed in the negation by delay
> game. =A0As in the continuing Zimbabwe election scandal, I expect they'll
> sit tight, beat up the winners & then demand a recount. =A0In which case,
> best keep a lookout for a Chinese ship bringing arms to a pier close to
> 6 Lower Mall. =A0They may need them.
>
> Carl
> --
> Carl Douglas Racing Shells =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0-
> =A0 =A0 =A0Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories=

> Write: =A0 Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
> Find: =A0 =A0http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
> Email: c...@carldouglas.co.uk =A0Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 =A0Fax: -563682
> URLs: =A0www.carldouglas.co.uk(boats) &www.aerowing.co.uk(riggers)- Hide q=
uoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Let's focus on the REAL issue. Until the whole sport, rather than the
ARA and it's executive, develops a Safer Rowing culture, there will be
more avoidable accidents.

The TRRC has taken up the challenge with the Dove Pier report, now all
the other regions must get the ARA to be pro-active.

There is an ARA Council meeting in June and the right people to speak
up are the council members. Those who are concerned about the safety
of our sport need to get their Div Reps to speak up; I will certainly
brief mine.


27 Apr 2008 00:08:24
Stephen and Jane
Re: New ARA website

Stephen and Jane wrote:
> The new ARA website appears at first glance to be a bit of an
> improvement on the old one. However, safety being our specific
> interest we looked to find any reference to it from the home page -
> but failed.
> So, we assume, it is one link removed: tried 'About rowing' - not
> there, tried 'Coaching and Training - not there, tried 'Student and
> Junior' - not there.
>
> Eventually we looked at the site map, and found it is listed under
> 'Policies' - which we then found in the 'About us and Membership'
> section. The word 'safety' barely gets a mention outside of the Water
> Safety section. This hardly represents a change in culture to make
> safety high profile and integral to every aspect of the sport, as
> recommended by the Review.

Apologies for replying to our own post...

Just been looking for something else on the new website, and notice there
are more links to the Water Safety section! There is now a link in the
picklist on the 'About Rowing' page, and again on the 'Coaching and
Training' page and again on the 'Competition' page. Am pretty darn certain
these links were not there before - so it is work in progress.

The ARA website manager is one Alistair Groves who has posted on rsr in the
past - has he been lurking lately? If so, thanks Alistair.

Jane




27 Apr 2008 14:11:34
Caroline Smith
Re: New ARA website

> The ARA website manager is one Alistair Groves who has posted on rsr in
> the past - has he been lurking lately? If so, thanks Alistair.

Possibly, from training camp in Seville - but I'll pass the message on!
(He's a good friend of mine. It rankles slightly that I have a friend who
works for the ARA, given how I feel about them in general, but never mind.
He's a good guy and on our side...)

Caroline




27 Apr 2008 18:11:10
Christopher Anton
Re: New ARA website


"Caroline Smith" <csS2PtAhMecox@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:P96dnYCKsOMV5onVRVnyjwA@pipex.net...
>> The ARA website manager is one Alistair Groves who has posted on rsr in
>> the past - has he been lurking lately? If so, thanks Alistair.
>
> Possibly, from training camp in Seville - but I'll pass the message on!
> (He's a good friend of mine. It rankles slightly that I have a friend who
> works for the ARA, given how I feel about them in general, but never mind.
> He's a good guy and on our side...)
>
> Caroline
>I'd second what Caroline says about Alistair- he's very friendly and
>helpful.




28 Apr 2008 12:57:15
Carl Douglas
Re: New ARA website

pdblaseby@btinternet.com wrote:
> On Apr 26, 5:03 pm, Carl Douglas <c...@carldouglas.co.uk> wrote:
<snipped >
>
>
> Let's focus on the REAL issue. Until the whole sport, rather than the
> ARA and it's executive, develops a Safer Rowing culture, there will be
> more avoidable accidents.
>
> The TRRC has taken up the challenge with the Dove Pier report, now all
> the other regions must get the ARA to be pro-active.
>
> There is an ARA Council meeting in June and the right people to speak
> up are the council members. Those who are concerned about the safety
> of our sport need to get their Div Reps to speak up; I will certainly
> brief mine.
>

The point of what I wrote is that everything we see shows that the ARA
exec still doesn’t see that past attitudes to rowing safety are nolonger
viable. With such leadership, & the attitude that “we are not
answerable to anyone”, how can safety management be on a sound footing?

Progress on changing the sport’s attitude to safety is mixed & insecure.
The Dove Pier incident report is a fine response to a major incident,
but an absolute first in UK rowing. For the many lesser but still
dangerous mishaps, reports & analysis will also be required (but much
more succinct). However, the Dove Pier investigation was a TRRC
initiative. Meanwhile a host of serious incidents went entirely
unreported or, where reported, were filed & ignored by an ARA which
refuses to accept that accidents matter & wants the debate to die.

Since current leadership shows no wish to implement an adequate safety
regime, how do we progress? I caution against putting trust in Council;
it has been toothless & clueless on safety hitherto, backing the exec’s
safety finaglings while ignoring compelling evidence. Members who do
care have, with but 1 honourable exception, been frightened to speak
out. Council even gave Gary Harris a vote of thanks after he’d told the
2 Coroners to go jump (& had thus dropped the ARA into legal jeopardy).
that vote proposed by the same flawed lawyer to whom I referred earlier.
This is a desperately sycophantic & unhealthy situation.

How to progress when the show is run by adherents of Ned Lud whom, the
new website shows, still won't grasp the safety nettle?

Were Council to apply pressure then I'd share your hope. Not by nature
pessimistic, I want to be proved wrong but, with Council still thinking
its duty is to rubber-stamp the exec's will, it’s hard to be optimistic.
Talking to your Div Rep is, as you say, a necessary part of it, but
how many even know who their Div Reps are? And of those, how many are
sufficiently well informed on the safety issues to make a case?

TRRC can't do it alone. The ARA, rowing's national governing body,
can't be allowed to pick & choose which of its inalienable duties it
will properly perform. Last year I watched the USRA trying to duck its
safety brief during pre-trial proceedings following the death of a young
coach. It argued that, despite applying sanctions in competitive &
other matters, it could not be expected to act similarly on safety -
despite having safety policies, committee & literature. Its lawyers'
increasingly undignified wrigglings merely dug an ever deeper hole.
It’d be the same in the UK.

Rower reactions to the Dove Pier report (few have heard of it, fewer
have read it) have been "mixed". A significant backwoods section sees
it as “more interference” – ignorant that, had lives been lost, rowing
would now face a real nightmare. Yet had the ARA made a strong
supporting statement, underlining that accident reporting is here for
keeps, that reports will be analysed & that this will advance safety &
enjoyment in rowing, then there'd be a more positive reaction.

Few motorists demanded compulsory safety belts. Only the pioneering
work of Volvo, plus hard work by RoSPA & others who knew the accident
stats, made the solid case for UK legislators to legislate. There was
no popular support, just grumbling acceptance of phased (thus seemingly
cost-free) introduction of belts & their subsequent enforcement. But
traffic accident data has always been collected & analysed, whereas
rowing has been so much in denial, so determined to ignore accident
data, that most accident data remains lost. Even so, for those who have
researched & do understand, the case for shell buoyancy & for accident
reporting & analysis is unbreakable.

Unlike seat belts, shell buoyancy is a wholly passive measure requiring
minimal maintenance. And it works even when you ignore it. But how do
we implement it effectively when those still heading the ARA have so
recently told FISA that buoyancy is unimportant?

Carl


--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing Low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: Harris Boatyard, Laleham Reach, Chertsey KT16 8RP, UK
Find: http://tinyurl.com/2tqujf
Email: carl@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1932-570946 Fax: -563682
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)