Ironman Ireland – Further Damming Revalations

via: @F, @JohnK, thank you

There have been further revelations about the two recent deaths at Ironman Ireland (IM). A report by the state broadcaster, RTE, and other internal memos from Triathlon Ireland (TI) have filled gaps in our knowledge of events on the day.

I urge interested readers to read the article from RTE (here), which is excellent and perhaps one of the best summaries of information so far with additional information in its video. I’ll highlight some of the key points from that article and from TI memos and add my comments.

My takeout is “Who exactly was in charge of safety?”

Here are what appear to be the facts so far

1. TI sought to change the swim course so that athletes swam with the current
   • TI states that prior to the race, an experienced lifeguard had difficulty swimming through the waves and then was taken left by the current (presumably the wrong way)
   • TI claims it gave a direction to change the swim course and would not issue a race permit (sanction) unless  complied with
   • IM claims this was a suggestion. IM claims that it was not made aware that the race permit was conditional upon the swim course being changed

On the date of the Ironman Cork races, the TI Technical Officials arrived on site at 6am and made an assessment that the swim course chosen by Ironman was not safe. The TI Technical Officials met with the Ironman Head Referee, who shared the TI concerns, and directed the TI Technical Officials to the most senior Ironman representative at the event, the Ironman Event Director, to convey these concerns. At 6:20am, the TI Technical Official relayed to the Ironman Event Director his safety concerns in respect of the swim route. The TI Technical Official specifically referenced the imminent high tide and very strong current as the reasons for his direction to alter the swim route for the safety of the participants.This would shorten the distance and ensure the participants swam with the current. The Ironman Event Director refused to change the swim route. The TI Technical Official then told the Ironman Event Director that he was not prepared to sign the Race Permits. [Triathlon Ireland]

2. TI did not sanction the event. There was no race permit signed by both parties

• • TI states that IM sought sanction in January 2023 when IM filed a ‘Race Request’
  • TI seems to claim that the Race Request formed a contract and that IM was then obliged to follow its rules, which include a signed permit.
  • TI-officiated events require a signed permit
  • TI claims that IM attempted to get the permit signed the day before the event started.
  • IM claim the lack of sanction was not communicated to them until the race (swim) had finished
  • IM claims that the race was implicitly sanctioned due to the presence of TI officials during the race
  • IM states that it is not required to have its races sanctioned
  • TI states that in every single IM event in Ireland since 2015 a signed race permit was obtained by IM

Triathlon Ireland’s role for our Irish events is to provide insurance to athletes based on an event sanctioning process and to officiate on-course whether athletes violate competition rules…Ironman has public liability cover for Ironman [the full-distance race] and Ironman 70.3 [the half-distance] of more than €6.5m and sanctioning by Triathlon Ireland does not impact that insurance cover…Ironman has the sole authority in deciding whether to start or continue an event. [Ironman]

3. What a Race Permit means in practical terms

• • TI says it requires Ironman to “agree to comply with Triathlon Ireland rules and regulations” and to “take safety and rules direction from the Triathlon Ireland Officials.”

4. Insurance

• • Both parties state their insurances remain valid

5. TI has appointed Grant Thornton to conduct an independent review

• • IM will cooperate with the review

6. TI Still officiated

• • TI claims “When it became apparent that the race was going ahead without being sanctioned, TI Technical Officials made the decision to stay on-site for safety reasons. In those circumstances, the safety of the participants became the remaining focus of TI volunteers.”

 

Take Out [Opinion]

My Position: I want you and I to be able to trust the safety of the events in which we compete.

It seems to me that someone is lying. Not surprisingly the lie, or a generous misunderstanding, is about the most crucial event. ie was the course change a direction or a suggestion?

It seems unbelievable to me that Ironman has a multi-year history of securing signed race permits and also requested one the day before the race. Yet on the race day itself, it suddenly decides it doesn’t need one. I would ask the question, “Which other Ironman race, ever, anywhere in the world went ahead without a permit where an established and accepted race-permitting scheme existed?”

I suppose that Ironman’s claim that the race was implicity sanctioned by the presence of TI officials might hold some legal weight. That’s one for the lawyers but it sounds a wholly ridiculous argument to me. That’s just my opinion. Had the TI officials refused to officiate I would assume that the race couldn’t practically have gone ahead – ie there would be no motorbike riders.

So then we come to the point where IM states that, “it is not required to have its races sanctioned”. So that means that IM is fully responsible for safety then, right? So Ironman is actually saying “Yes, we are fully responsible…but we were insured.” Where does MY safety and YOUR safety come into it?

 

Ironman Group in DEEP trouble as Triathlon Ireland denies sanctioning Ironman Ireland event where 2 died

 

 

Last Updated on 27 January 2026 by the5krunner