Slowtwitch Features

(PUBLISHER'S NOTE: This article is the second in a trilogy on the legal liability associated with our sport. The first is On Waivers, by Greg Hitchcock, who also writes most of our articles on running.)

-----

To bring this issue down to the level of where we live, how does USAT handle waivers? I asked Steve Locke, USAT’s chief executive.

“Is there standard waiver language you recommend or require? Does it vary from state to state?”

“Our legal committee has generated standard language, yes,” Locke answered. "And yes, we do require our sanctioned races to use it [with some leeway given]. Our waiver has been tested in 25 states. Our insurance carrier is pleased with the waiver.”

“When you say it’s been tested,” I asked, “Do you mean to say it’s been successfully tested? In other words, that the waiver has held up in these states?”

“Yes, that’s what I mean.”

“Are there states which have proved difficult for our federation, where the waiver’s utility has been of less value?”

“Texas,” he answered. “Texas and Virginia. These are not waiver-friendly states.”

“Okay, here’s one that might seem off the wall,” I pressed. “If states are different in terms of the risks they pose to the federation, is it appropriate to treat them that way when pricing out their insurance? Ought triathletes racing in Texas to pay more than those racing in California, if Texas represents a higher risk?”

“Good question. That would be very complicated, though. We haven’t figured out yet how we might do that, so we don’t do that. Plus, take for example a case just concluded. Our waiver was thrown out, and that case was in California. This [waiver problem in California] is very rare. We had to settle for a higher amount than we otherwise would’ve. So here you go, a waiver-friendly state, and the waiver gets tossed. That’s why it’s hard to price licenses according to state."

Locke takes insurance and risk management seriously. In years past, when you got Locke on the phone or saw him at an event the conversation would eventually turn toward that thing that was his annual theme. In various years it was USAT's attempts to get its elite athletes up to a world class level through national teams, resident teams, national coaches, and so forth (and USAT succeeded at that, at least as far as the women are concerned). Other years it was USAT's impending move from Colorado Springs to Clermont, Florida (a move that never took place, and perhaps Locke's biggest professional disappointment).

But this year it's been insurance, and safer races. Just about every conversation I've had with him has eventually pivoted toward that topic. He's like an Old Testament prophet, warning of impending doom—things we don't want to think about. In the case of our sport, it's the possibility of the irreplacable loss of an insurance carrier, or a rate hike so onerous as to make insurance entirely unaffordable.

As a result, Locke successfully lobbied for an increase in both annual and one-day license fees that participants must pay. The interesting thing about this is, we have an extremely healthy governing body from a financial perspective. It is highly likely that even without the fee increase, and even if the insurance premiums are hiked to the levels feared, our federation will still make a substantial profit (I use the term loosely, since our federation is a non-profit corporation).

There is a defensible position for the license fee hike, however, which I explore in more depth in the third article of this three-part series.