The Sun-Herald’s article Sex, drugs and public liability reported that in music’s good old days, smashing guitars, on-stage brawls and climbing trussing was the norm. Today, bands are considered wise to tone it down because “in an age of excessive insurance claims and increased security, how far can a band go before they are blacklisted by promoters?”

As always, there is a balance between risk and reward. Some bands may be willing to use precarious antics due to the entertainment value it offers fans.

However, given the current economic downturn, such behavior may become increasingly unpopular with insurers.

The Insurance Cycle

The insurance market cycle (and claims) significantly contribute to the actions of insurance companies regarding price, conditions of cover offered and the level of due diligence they apply when writing business.

A hard market is defined as one in which there is high demand for insurance but reduced supply of insurers and insurance products on the market. This typically occurs after a major catastrophe (such as the September 11 attacks) or financial downturns; both of which tend to contribute to insurers disappearing from the marketplace.

This lessening of competition for insurance companies means that those that continue to operate can increase premiums and adopt more restrictive conditions into their policies.

What does the Hard Market Mean for You?

Some insurance experts believe that due to the current global uncertainty in the financial sector, insurance markets are likely to harden in the near future. A hardening market means that insurance premiums will increase and this may coincide with increased scrutiny by insurers of prospective clients requiring them to demonstrate well documented risk management strategies. Given the capacity of a performer’s on-stage behavior to influence crowd behavior, the risk exists for expensive public claims.  It is no surprise then that some promoters are not prepared to carry acts that have ‘form’ in this area.

In the aftermath of the celebrations however, Slater came across a fan’s comment posted online suggesting that there had been a miscalculation of the competition scores. Checking the maths himself, Slater discovered that a mistake had indeed been made. He notified the ASP who was forced to retract the title awarded.

The same competition resumed and Slater competed in a fourth round, scoring highly enough to legitimately win his 11^th World Title after the second heat.

Despite the fact that Slater did ultimately win the championship, the ASP’s error demonstrated the reputational risks that come with the awarding of awards in high profile events.

Another well reported incident occurred during the announcement of the 2010 winner of Australia’s Next Top Model. Host Sarah Murdoch named the wrong contestant as the winner on live national broadcast. She apologetically admitted to the mistake during the award ceremony attributing it to a communication error.  The incorrectly named winner was reportedly compensated for the embarrassment.  The incident dominated news networks for a number of days and was another important case study in poor brand and reputational risk management.

Three Pakistani cricketers were given sentences ranging from six months to two-and-a-half years, while 15 members of the 2006 Italian football scandal were found guilty of criminal association aimed at committing sports fraud. The former Juventus Director Luciano Moggi was given a five year, four month jail sentence.     

Risks Related to Sports Betting

As #*IT Happens noted last year, the internet as a gambling tool and the increased availability of live sport on television and the web  – has made gambling on sports much more accessible in the past few years.

The increased financial stakes involved in today’s sports has the effect of increasing the temptation of corruption for players and officials. This is often the case with young and impressionable athletes: as Judge Jeremy Cooke said in sentencing 19-year-old cricketer, Mohammed Aamir, “’You were only 18 at the time and readily leant on by others… I am clear that you bear less responsibility than your captain who influenced you…”

Effects of Match-fixing Incidents

These types of illegal gambling activities pose a significant risk to the credibility and reputation of an entire sport, as well as all those involved in it. As Judge Cooke said: “The image and integrity of what was once a game but is now a business, is damaged in the eyes of all.”

The Romanian Football Federation also fined FC Petrolul Ploiesti for their poor handling of the match against FC Steaua Bucharest on November 1.

The Incidents

A spectator, Dragos Petrut Enache, ran onto the field and, according to prosecutors, hit a Bucharest defender – George Galamaz – in the head with a hard object, breaking his cheekbone and sidelining him for about six weeks. Following the attack, a number of Bucharest players ran after the attacker, and started to beat him.

The referee temporarily stopped the match, however Petrolul Ploiesti fans then began throwing flares onto the field, one of which struck another player, Ciprian Tatarusanu, who suffered severe burns. The match was then abandoned.

Crowd Safety Profiling

This incident demonstrates the necessity of crowd safety profiling for an event or venue as part of the event’s overall risk assessment. Crowd safety profiling involves identifying the general type of spectator anticipated to be at your event and provides important context when anticipating the type of behavior and risks that might occur. Factors to be considered might include:

• The teams involved and their history
• The likely crowd demographic, its size and their propensity for anti-social behaviour
• Suitability of the venue to monitor, segregate or remove troublesome spectators
• The likely weather conditions of the day
• Historical data on alcohol consumption

By analysing the factors likely to affect crowd behaviour, the appropriate type and levels of controls could be implemented. In a football match, additional control measures might include:

• Higher levels of visible crowd security
• High vigilance for prohibited or restricted items and conducting of bag checks
• Intelligence monitoring of communication by local police of social media conversations
• Segregation of rival spectators within stands through ticket seating allocation
• Erecting various physical barriers around the of play perimeter to prevent access to players
• Limiting alcohol purchases and consumption
• In-venue CCTV crowd monitoring and public address

These strategies offer just some of the many strategies that are available to event and venue manages to handle crowd safety-related risk.

The incident occurred when two other cars touched tyres, causing a 15-car accident. Wheldon’s car was in the middle of a pack and the contact of one car into his caused Wheldon’s vehicle to fly over another and into the crash barrier. He was airlifted to hospital but subsequently died of his injuries.

How Safe is IndyCar Racing?

Just one day before the fatal race, Australian racer Will Power – who was involved in the accident – mentioned to his father that someone was going to die on “the extreme-speed oval track.”  

A number of drivers from the motor racing world have since hit out at the highly unsafe nature of the race, in which 34 cars raced around a 2.4km oval track at speeds of up to 350km/h. The most famous IndyCar race, the Indianapolis 500, has a much bigger track than the one used in this Las Vegas event, yet the number of cars in each race was the same.

Power said, “Racing on this sort of track is too fast and too close…It takes one little mistake from someone and the result is never good.”

Defending stock car champion Jimmie Johnson said that on oval tracks “when something happens you just can’t keep those cars on the ground.” Oval tracks also lack a run-off area – a large open space located to the side of the main track to minimise impact to out-of-control vehicles.

IndyCars, being open-wheeled cars, are light-weight, aerodynamic and have powerful engines; they are considered to be among the fastest racing vehicles out there.

Tony Johns, a motorsports industry writer summed it up best:

No serious debate has ever arisen over the way current-spec IndyCars race in clusters, unable to separate themselves because of aerodynamic similarities and practically begging every lap for the type of horrifying accident that finally happened in Las Vegas… The catastrophic results of wheel-to-wheel contact at those speeds…make close-quarters pack racing a tragedy waiting to happen.

A fatal accident brought on by IndyCar pack racing was inevitable… and it will happen again if immediate steps are not taken to address the situation. There is no uncertainty about it. Someone else will die or be brutally injured because of this kind of racing… it is only a matter of time. (Original article here)

Implications of the Crash

In the days following the incident, a number of drivers due to race in the Gold Coast 600 V8 Supercars races the following weekend withdrew from the event. Bob Power – father of driver Will – said that Will’s decision to pull out of the race “might have been from the trauma from Dan Wheldon being killed” although Power suffered minor back and neck injuries in the incident.

Brazilian driver and teammate of Wheldone, Tony Kanaan, also pulled out of the race after being shaken by the incident.

The Gold Coast 600 event involves only V8 Supercars (the last Gold Coast Indy 300 race was held in 2008). Given that V8 Supercars are based on production road cars, they are considered safer than IndyCars. As a result, the Las Vegas incident did not create a need for major safety changes for the Gold Coast event.

Christopher Brewer, 27, hit the water at speeds of between 100 and 130km/h, and was only saved by his wingsuit – a suit which adds surface area to his body to add lift, thereby slowing the fall down.

The jump took place as part of the annual Bridge Day festival in West Virginia, USA. Bridge Day is the only day on which BASE jumping is allowed off the New River Gorge Bridge. In fact, it is one exception to the general ban of BASE jumping throughout national parks in the USA.

BASE Jumping Dangers

BASE (which stands for Building, Antenna, Span [i.e. bridge], Earth [i.e. cliff]) jumping is one of the most dangerous sports in the world. Tom Buchanan, a US-based skydiving instructor and BASE jumper has said that some jumpers “accept the risks and treat BASE jumping as a wild game of Russian roulette.”

Despite BASE jumping being legal on Bridge Day, three jumpers have died during the 34-year history of the event.

A 2008 article in the British Journal of Sports Medicine estimated that in 2002, there was one fatality per 60 jumpers.

The following fatalities have been recorded by Australian BASE jumpers:

• Lucas Oliver’s parachute failed to open during a jump from a phone tower in Dandaragan, Western Australia
• Kylie Tanti’s parachute became tangled during a jump from the Alor Setar Tower in Malaysia on September 27 2010
• Daryl Norris died after jumping from Wallaman Falls in Queensland on May 23 2010

According to an ‘Australian Story’ report made by Australian news broadcaster the ABC, BASE jumping is effectively illegal in Australia because permission is needed to jump off buildings or other structures, or cliffs in national parks – this permission is normally refused by authorities.

A Two-minute Refresher

To jog your memory, Abraham Maslow’s theory suggests that humans have many different needs which often compete. These needs fall in different categories which form a hierarchy.

The idea is that when needs compete, humans will attempt to satisfy the lower, more basic needs on the pyramid. When needs from one category are satisfied, humans will attempt to satisfy needs from the higher categories. The categories of needs, from lowest to highest are:

• Physiological: breathing, excretion, food, water, sex
• Safety: bodily safety, security, health
• Social / Belonging: family, friendship, intimacy
• Esteem: confidence, achievement, respect
• Self Actualisation: realising one’s full potential

The Hierarchy and Your Event

Now try to think back to your worst personal experience as a spectator at an event – one that really sticks out as a memorably bad day out. It’s more than likely that one or more of the following was a factor:

• Food or drink was hard or impossible to come by
• Bathrooms were few and far between, dirty or overcrowded
• Shelter from the elements was lacking
• A serious safety incident may have occurred and you may have been hurt or felt threatened
• Standing in a crowded queue for long periods

So, while the theory suggests that individuals use their free will to determine how they will act in any given moment, it can also be thought of in the following way:

Spectators will take for granted that event organisers will provide an environment in which their lower needs are easily met.

The fact that they’re coming to the event in the first place means they are attempting to satisfy higher needs, such as social ones. This means there is an assumption that lower needs will be taken care of. Yet if these minimum standards are not met then it is likely that any higher order objectives, or a desire to draw spectators’ attention to more engaging, exciting aspects of the event will be compromised.

It should probably be noted that although sexual needs are listed as one of the most basic, we do not necessarily recommend attempting to satisfy those needs of your spectators! This is not a precise model!

Meeting the Basic Values

Basic values of an event refer to the values that the event organiser must address to minimise risk of failing to meet stakeholder expectations. Yet do you alway dedicate resources to consider basic needs as part of event planning such as amenities, comfort and safety?  All too often we see a heavy focus on the ‘sexy side’ of event planning with a reluctant focus on the boring bits. The satisfaction of these basic needs is a consideration that must be built into the event at the planning and development stages.

And in case you think we’re making a big deal about nothing, consider the following:

• Glastonbury’s 2012 festival has been cancelled due to the shortage of toilets caused by the 2012 London Olympics!

From a risk management perspective, health, safety and basic amenities are critical for achieving anything else in the event.  However the risk program should not stop there. Risk management should minimise any threats to fulfilling goals such as profit or enhancement of image and reputation.

The driver died after he lost control of his bike, causing a collision with other riders which knocked his helmet off. According to the MotoGP medical director, Michele Macchiagodena, Simoncelli died from “very serious trauma to the head, neck and the chest.”

Event Cancellation

The incident occurred just four minutes after the race began and led to the event being cancelled completely. This tragedy highlights the risks that unexpected incidents can cause to your event. While all precautions may be taken to mitigate various risks, things may still invariably go wrong. While event cancellation may be considered a drastic measure, it will sometimes be the only control available to mitigate extreme and unacceptable risks.

In the event of fatality happening at an event, it is quite possible for investigating authorities to close the event until all investigations are complete. In some cases, the continuation of the event following a fatality may be inappropriate and cause public outrage and damage to the brand of the event.

Events may be cancelled for a range of other reasons however; bad weather, major incident or industrial action.

Other Cancelled Events

Other examples of recent high-profile events to be cancelled include:

• The 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix was postponed and then cancelled due to local civil unrest
• The 2008 Dakar Rally was cancelled the day before the race was to begin due to fears of terrorist attacks against competitors
• The 2004-2005 National Hockey League season (1,230 games) was cancelled due to a player labour dispute
• The annual German Love Parade event was permanently cancelled after the 2010 event, in which 21 people were killed during a crowd crush

Event Cancellation Insurance

Event cancellation insurance is a risk transfer method intended to shift some of the risk to a third party – the insurer.

This type of policy protects the insured against loss of revenue or additional expenses caused by uncontrollable circumstances which lead to event postponement, cancellation, rescheduling or relocation of an event. These circumstances can include:

• Bad weather
• Natural disaster
• The withdrawal of a main attraction
• Terrorist threat
• Public transport failure
• Power failure
• Industrial action

Given the unpredictability and the varying nature of the conditions listed above, it is advisable that event cancellation insurance is considered for any event in which a significant financial investment is at stake. This type of policy is however relatively expensive and so a clear business case should be built to justify the decision to purchase or to self-insure.

John Mangan died during the September 17 incident at a regional West Virginia airport during an acrobatic display involving a restored post-World War 2 aircraft. 

The manoeuvre which the aircraft was performing at the time of the crash was known as an ‘opposing pass’. This involved two opposing planes travelling at around 450km/h, laterally passing one another and pulling up in front of the crowd. Dave Heatwole, a spectator at the event gave the following account:

“The two planes formed an ‘X’ and appeared to be very close to each other, which startled me. And then the plane flying to the right crashed. I heard the boom, and looked over to see an exploding fireball. The plane was blown into many small pieces.”

In the aftermath of the incident, event organisers made counselling services available to spectators and promptly cancelled all other air activities organised for the weekend.

Similar Incident Just One Day Prior

Shockingly, just a day prior to the West Virginia incident, a fighter plane also crashed near stands during an air race in Nevada also in the US. In this incident the pilot and 10 spectators were killed, and dozens more spectators were injured.

These tragic fatalities have again raised concerns about safety of air shows and air races.

Is the Risk Worth it?

Following the West Virginia crash, spectator Dave Heatwole was quoted saying: “I wonder if the risk is really worth it. I’d just seen someone get killed, all for the sake of entertainment, and no other good reason.”

While airshows often provide an opportunity for manufacturers to showcase new aircraft, they are most commonly used to attract attention to a cause or for profit; with entertainment value underpinning the public’s experience at the event.  For many patrons, the closer to the action they are, the better.

Approval Requirements and Compliance

Reno air race organiser Mark Houghton explained that, while planes had crashed in previous races, this was the first time spectators were hurt. As part of approval requirements for the event, pilots are briefed on emergency manoeuvres to be used to avoid contact with spectators and pilots.

In addition, aircrafts are thoroughly checked for compliance with agreed safety standards. While this event had obtained approvals from relevant authorities to go ahead, concerns for spectator safety caused the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to deny approval of a similar race which was to be held in Camarillo, California in August this year.

The Red Bull Air Race is another example of a high risk, high entertainment event, in which the event is held around the world in locations that provide excellent viewing for spectators, such as the Swan River in Perth.  It is, however, noted that the organisers have cancelled the event for 2011 worldwide to restructure the format and improve safety. The current public messaging from Red Bull does not indicate whether the race will return next year.

The Factor of Safety

Given the limited margin for error in air shows and races, it is arguable that a high factor of safety is required in the design of these events. This means that in order to ensure pilot and spectator safety, greater distances between the flight paths of aircraft and spectator seating should be maintained, flight speeds modified and precarious manoeuvres limited.

Much of the appeal of these spectacles, however, is in the perception of danger created by risk-taking itself. Whether the spectacle is worth the risk is a question which event organisers need to seriously consider on a case-by-case basis.

Recent incidents affecting Wollongong’s WIN Stadium and Canberra’s Exhibition Park demonstrate the need for preparedness as circumstances beyond the control of venue and event teams can strike at any time.

Bad Weather Wreaking Havoc at WIN

Extreme weather is an obvious example. Last month, strong winds caused two connection points in the support truss from the roof of WIN Stadium’s new western grandstand to fail, causing part of the roof to become unstable and a full venue evacuation to be undertaken at the adjacent WIN Entertainment Centre and Steelers Club, and an exclusion zone being maintained for 12 days.

Construction on the new $31 million grandstand of the stadium was nearing completion when the incident occurred. No one was injured and no additional damage was caused, and it was fortunate that the incident occurred before the venue was open for public use and while the builder was still on site to undertake stabilisation activities.  Investigations are underway to establish what went wrong and how the roof can be re-engineered and completed. 

Canberra Fire Causes Exhibition Park Evacuation

Exhibition Park in Canberra was also affected on September 16 due to concern over a toxic smoke plume from a factory fire in nearby Mitchell, North Canberra. The incident occurred late at night but the venue was still hosting a horse show and on-site camping.  

The fire generated a series of explosions and fireballs and a smoke plume was observed extending for many kilometres toward the east over the venue. The police established a 10-km exclusion zone around the fire.

The entire venue was evacuated and no injuries were reported.

These cases demonstrate that for venues and events, risks may not always come from within your area of control. Risk and emergency planning should aim to expect the unexpected, but to prepare to respond in a decisive way. In both cases the incidents occurred outside of peak event times and so risk planning must take these off-peak times into account.