Recently, I was peripherally involved in an article that helped open my eyes in a number of ways. It was an article that raised questions about safety at BattleFrog Series, a relative newcomer to the world of OCR with grand ambitions, who wants to position itself as one of the big players in the market space.
While the article was well-written, it lacked balance and perspective. Although it brought up some legitimate concerns, it failed to mention that all of the OCR companies have had safety issues at different times and venues. It didn't mention that Tough Mudder had an accidental drowning at one of its events and is currently involved in a major negligence lawsuit based on this incident. It failed to bring up multiple issues at Spartan Races that have included obstacles being removed due to unreasonably high injury rates or a recent death at one of their races that appears to be the result of an underlying heart condition.
Along with this lack of balance, the article also was very untimely, rehashing issues from races that took place months ago, many of which had already been addressed. Every growing business will make mistakes; successful companies own their mistakes, learn from them, and take measures to ensure they don't happen again. Given the release date of the article was only a few days before BattleFrog's first event of 2016, and their first event ever on the west coast, the article came across as an assassination piece, designed to cause damage.
And it has. The OCR community is still very small, and an article like this can make athletes and casual weekend warriors re-think their registration options, opting instead to stay with more established and better-known companies. It can also create bigger problems behind the scenes, making venue owners second-guess their willingness to host the race.
In other words, what we, as writers and bloggers put out there has a real cost.
Thanks to friends personally involved in this, I got to hear some of the actual backlash from this one; the added stress put on real people who were already under huge pressure to put on a high-quality event in a new market and set the stage for a successful year. The human cost of having to change plans at the last minute to put out fires that had been caused by the simple act of publishing a minor article with limited readership. It left a really bad taste in my mouth.
For the record, I spoke the day before their California debut with Ryan Atkins on the topic. As well as being an extraordinary racer, Ryan was recently hired by BattleFrog as a course designer and is the race director for the San Diego BattleFrog. Ryan assured me that the specific incidents mentioned; the collapse of a cargo net A-frame and a dangerous river crossing, had been addressed by BattleFrog staff some time ago, and that new SOP's had been created as a result. The cargo net structure at the San Diego venue was a hugely over-engineered steel frame structure. A short but cold water crossing at the San Diego race had three lifeguards on hand; two in wetsuits in the water and a third standing by on land. While certain hazards such as the possibility of landing badly after a wall or falling off monkey bars are part and parcel of the sport, safety is a huge concern for all the major race companies, and BattleFrog is no different in this regard.
“We are always striving for continuous improvement across the board with a zero defect mentality in every aspect of safety down to the customer experience in a porta potty”. Christopher Acord (aka Beard™), the Assistant Director of Race Operations at BattleFrog
I also took the time to speak with the lead of the contracted emergency staff and found that the number of medics assigned is dependent on the distance involved and the number of expected attendees. Smaller events will normally have around ten medics on hand, while larger ones might have 18-20, and will also have more vehicles to access remote areas of the course. The precise numbers and equipment brought are determined by the emergency services group themselves, not by the race companies.
As aspiring journalists, we walk a fine line. It is our duty to bring serious issues to light, and we can't and shouldn't sugar coat every race review, or they become meaningless. At the same time, we need to ensure that we're fair to the people whose livelihoods are on the line and that we present things in context and in a responsible manner. To do otherwise, we risk creating self-fulfilling prophecies of doom in an industry that we love.
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and official policies of Mud Run Guide LLC, or their staff. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters.
There was nothing wrong with the original article. The race had what, 700 participants max? Other races have waves that are almost that big. Without the original article, do you think there would have been 3 water techs at the water crossing? Most likely not.
Yes Bob, they added the lifeguards due to the ORM article. They also scrambled to build, in a matter of days, new metal structures for obstacles in order to address the concerns raised by the article. They also obviously knew about the article weeks in advance, because they had very sturdy new metal structures in place at the Orlando race. They are wily foxes those Battlefrog people.
Also, the very low turnout is definitely related to the safety issue. I’m not sure why, but it must be, since you brought it up, right?
(If your sarcasm-o-meter isn’t going off the scales right now, it’s defective)
Bob, that is a valid thought process for sure, and totally understandable that you would think that way, however, those techs were assigned long before the article came out, and the safety issues that come up are immediately addressed and troubleshot before they occur – and in unforeseeable situations, directly after they occur.
The issues were not taken seriously because of a small-reach article, but instead because there were people’s livelihoods to consider.
The race was a smaller one, with around 1200 participants, but whether it has 500 or 5000, every customer is equally as important and is given the same amount of careful consideration in regards to their experience and safety.
Clearly there is some back peddling here by Battlefrog trying to hide their safety issues and point blame elsewhere. I wouldn’t risk my life in their hands if they can’t even own up to their problems and do it without blaming other OCR events of doing worse.
Mike, I am in no way affiliated with BattleFrog, though I did buy one of their T-shirts at the San Diego race. I also did a review of that race, and can assure you that all of their obstacles were ridiculously sturdy, comparable to or exceeding the best in the industry. I have a bunch of pictures of many of the obstacles that I’d be happy to share with you if you want to make up your own mind. My point was that clearly they HAVE owned their previous mistakes, and definitely paid close attention to all details safety related.
Of course, you’re free to choose whatever races you want to frequent, but you’ll definitely be missing out on a great experience if you buy into the underlying narrative of the original article.
Mike,
Thank you for the irony.
Seeing as this article is focusing on responsible online reporting – you know, with actual facts and evidence and due diligence rather than baseless op-eds or rants – it would behoove you to back up your statements with, well, anything. (wow! used “behoove” in a sentence. check that one off the bucket list)
“Clearly there is some back peddling (sic) here by Battlefrog trying to hide their safety issues and point blame elsewhere.”
Please point us to the clear examples of back pedaling by BF. I imagine you read it somewhere or saw an interview or something. Right?
Also, please cite specific instances of BF trying to hide their safety issues.
Also also, do the same for BF pointing the blame elsewhere.
Failing to do all of that makes your comment at best spurious gossip, at worst libelous.
“… if they can’t even own up to their problems and do it without blaming other OCR events of doing worse.”
I guess you felt a need to rehash your first sentence with your second one. Same thing applies: cite sources or concrete evidence please.
Thank you
BF thank you for coming to the West coast this event was my first BF and only 3rd OCR event. I am a individual who pays close attention to detail and structure of any and all obstacles as our safety comes first.
Stellar job on the construction of all obstacles I found them all to be very stable and safe.
Thank you for all your hard work and the coarse layout was awesome and the most challenging.
Well written piece Chris! You really hit every point right on the head that concerned me with that article. What concerns me most though, about this sort of sensationalist writing, is the (hopefully) unintended damage to the industry. I’ve personally written (and been shouted down) about the need for the industry to develop better, more consistent safety standards as the sport grows. Not only to ensure the safety of the racers but also to protect the promoters and the sport from these sort of issues. But to have the flames fanned on what I believe we can all agree, are a relatively small number of incidents at the major races just feeds into the general public’s view that OCR is indeed too dangerous. Bad for the sport…bad for the people who are missing out on an exceptional experience…and, incidentally, bad for the people who write about it as well! Thank you for saying what many people felt….
I agree with Mike almost seems like there was a push here from BF after the article to make you change your original. Stick to your guns man. That race was un safe and you did OCR a solid by pointing it out.
Only one problem, Alan. I didn’t write the original article. My role was that I shared the original post across a couple of major groups, in spite of my initial misgivings about the article. So there was no pressure from BattleFrog. This was something unsolicited that I felt I had to write.