You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Pretty sure Red Bull have paid for treatment and rehab for top motorbike riders like Toby Price and Matthias Walkner in the past. Admittedly not as big injuries.
But maybe more relevant is Brook MacDonald (spinal injury at MSA 2019). Here's what he said in an interview this year:
"
Brook: I signed way back in 2011. The best part…well, Red Bull offers so much. Most people don’t know the endless support you get from them. Whether you are rehabbing an injury, they have two athlete performance centres, one in the US and one in Austria, which give you access to the best people from S&C to physio to nutritionists to doctors and what you need from start to finish, but also a place for you to go training and fine-tune things that you may lack. Along with that, you have everything to create your wildest dreams.
They are the best and have supported me through a career of ups and downs but given me everything to get to where I am today."
Who’s said Redbull haven’t sorted insurance or medical stuff?
From the PB article: “Red Bull is in direct contact and supporting Adolf and his family. This is a private matter." Brook MacDonald was sponsored by Red Bull. Other Red Bull sponsored riders (e.g. Matt Jones) have commented on Red Bull’s support after injury. A more interesting case for comparison might be Paul Basagoitia, who suffered a spinal cord injury in Rampage 2015.
Redbull looked after Dan Atherton when he broke his neck as well (although he’s another RB athlete) and that was just on his local dirt jumps out of comp.
Having said that, it would be pocket change to Red Bull anyway I guess.Do you have any idea how much lifetime care for someone would be?
It’s certainly not pocket change, even for a relatively well known brand like Red Bull.
Likely to be in the 10s of millions.
Given that redbull uk posted a pre tax profit of £55m just from uk operations. That came from a turnover of £668m so 8%. Worldwide profits are not available but if you assume an average of 5% off earnings of 11.8 billion usd that’s 580million usd profit. They can easily afford to look after Adolf all his life. In fairness monster, part of the Coke Cola group, could also contribute a substantial chunk of it as he is sponsored by them
My point is it’s not a lack of money that prevents these companies looking after their athletes
Meh.
That's about all I can muster.
Never been interested in the Rampage thing and that style of riding is so far removed from what I or anyone I know does that it simply doesn't interest me.
Surely it's over for Rampage
Are we banning every sport where there's a danger of injury now? Kneejerk nonsense.
I’m sure the media will be on full flow praising and publishing too many articles on the next pr stunt
We have to be careful what we wish for here.
I’m not going to watch Rampage as I’m not comfortable with it. There are ethical considerations and a rich company that benefit from the risks the athletes take
However that doesn’t mean I’d ban it. It doesn’t mean I’d make all event organisers liable for the medical bils and live long care of every person hurt in an event. That would be a disaster for anyone organisering an event with significant risks. It’s hard enough already to organise events
just an opinion piece
I very much read it as that.
Are we banning every sport where there's a danger of injury now? Kneejerk nonsense.
Clearly not and I don't think that's been suggested. BUT Rampage is in a very small group of sports where the risks appear to be super high.
There are other sports that occasionally cause serious injuries and death, there are others that have a high frequency of lower severity injuries but not so many with both.
It's right it's questioned from time to time and I don't think anyone is suggesting a ban rather that they're uncomfortable with the potential impact on the competitors when it goes wrong and what can be done.
It terms of giving the event an ethical health check...
It's a 'competition' which was conceived, marketed & promoted, rules generated, broadcast, and rewarded by a single company. And not a non profit organisation conceived with the main aim of making the event a viable proposition, but an organisation with the aim of producing an event that generates as much promotional material for their 'lifestyle' product.
I think it's fair to say that any review of the event would be the very definition of marking your own homework.
Redbull, sponsoring people and giving them visibility for doing dumb stuff since... .. The role of media and sponsors in the injury and death of extreme athletes was raised in France decades back, notably Jean-Marc Boivin filmed for national TV base-jump to paraglide to death.
Then you have the emulators who never make headlines but suffer the same when attempting to copy. I drove carefully out of Silverstone after being the other driver to Russ Swift and saw speectators trying to do what they'd seen but with parked cars and pedestrians around. I felt guilty.
When I pick up litter as I walk around Red Bull cans are a frequent pick. Dodgy product, idiot buyers, no ethics - Macho idiocy symbolised by a can. Madame bans it on school trips.
I might say my opinion is (or was, might be up for review) somewhere between what Jedi and Colournoise have said. I don't actually ever watch the event, so perhaps I'm the worst type of spectator who only watches the highlights via Instagram clips, Which mainly are provided by Pinkbike and a handful of riders I follow who happen to ride there.
Re some of the comments made, I decided to see for myself and check RedBullBike's Instagram account. Very disappointed to find no mention of Adolf Silva whatsoever. I guess many of you will say told you so. No mention either of Emil Johansson who nearly didn't stop falling like a ragdoll down the side of the cliff. Incidentally, didn't see his clip until he posted it on his Instagram saying how it was literally a real life version of the nightmares he'd been having. He doesn't indicate how we might interpret that information however.
The only crash footage RedBullBike have shown is celebrating the resilience of Tom Isted.
Not a good look really.
according to the link posted by susepic some riders have pro insurance, that has paid out
From what I can tell, that's some kind of domestic US insurance thing. It's likely something that's part of the ACA that provides a mandated level of cover for those that are eligible. Most likely American athletes. Foreign athletes competing in the US or abroad won't be able to use that coverage
Just out of interest, how many of these guys get killed compared to, say, F1 drivers or even elite road cyclists?
Just out of interest, how many of these guys get killed compared to, say, F1 drivers or even elite road cyclists?
Simple answer is.... pretty much none...
Trying not to be a dick here, feel free to tell me to Foxtrot Oscar, but hypothetically if one of your lads sponsors asked him to go do it in the future, would you be happy about the arrangements/want him to give it a go?
If not, what would put your mind at rest?
Just out of interest, how many of these guys get killed compared to, say, F1 drivers or even elite road cyclists?
Simple answer is.... pretty much none...
Trying not to be a dick here, feel free to tell me to Foxtrot Oscar, but hypothetically if one of your lads sponsors asked him to go do it in the future, would you be happy about the arrangements/want him to give it a go?
If not, what would put your mind at rest?
Well that wasn't exactly the point... But i'll play along.
In the world we live, he'd be far more likely to get Hardline than Rampage and he'd be far more likely to ride Hardline than Rampage as that's within his skillsets. But assuming we're talking hypothetically here, then it would all depend upon things like his desire/want and what we could put in place first, e,g Insurance or promises from RB/whoever. But I struggle with hypothetical in this context as i simply can't see him doing it, it's not his thing, he's an against the clock racers rather than a freerider and there's a whole different mindset needed for it. I don't think they see the risk in the same way other humans do.
I don't believe for a second personally that Silva or any of the other riders have gone into Rampage without any contingency, they're not bloody stupid, they know the risks and will have factored in some sort of compensation/renumeration plans before going, it's madness to think otherwise.
You do have to remember though, WE see this as utterly bonkers/insane/dangerous, but these guys really don't.... They see a risk, of course, but their minds work differently that they don't see it in the same way as normal people.
I don't believe for a second personally that Silva or any of the other riders have gone into Rampage without any contingency, they're not bloody stupid, they know the risks and will have factored in some sort of compensation/renumeration plans before going, it's madness to think otherwise.
Ah, so when he's in a position to do it, I'd imagine he'll be cancelling the Go Fund Me on the go for him? Because he's got it all in hand and it would be utter madness to think part of his contingency was to be an ad hoc charity case. Or something.....
You do have to remember though, WE see this as utterly bonkers/insane/dangerous, but these guys really don't.... They see a risk, of course, but their minds work differently that they don't see it in the same way as normal people.
I don't believe for a second personally that Silva or any of the other riders have gone into Rampage without any contingency, they're not bloody stupid, they know the risks and will have factored in some sort of compensation/renumeration plans before going, it's madness to think otherwise.
Ah, so when he's in a position to do it, I'd imagine he'll be cancelling the Go Fund Me on the go for him? Because he's got it all in hand and it would be utter madness to think part of his contingency was to be an ad hoc charity case. Or something.....
I'd think the funding is more for things that the insurance doesn't cover, like maybe home modifications, inital feels for XYZ in hospital, i don't honestly think it'll be for EVERYTHING. But insurance can't in these cases cover every eventuality, so i'd have thought the funding is to cover things that the insurance doesn't.
I don't believe for a second personally that Silva or any of the other riders have gone into Rampage without any contingency, they're not bloody stupid, they know the risks and will have factored in some sort of compensation/renumeration plans before going, it's madness to think otherwise.
Ah, so when he's in a position to do it, I'd imagine he'll be cancelling the Go Fund Me on the go for him? Because he's got it all in hand and it would be utter madness to think part of his contingency was to be an ad hoc charity case. Or something.....
I'd think the funding is more for things that the insurance doesn't cover, like maybe home modifications, inital feels for XYZ in hospital, i don't honestly think it'll be for EVERYTHING. But insurance can't in these cases cover every eventuality, so i'd have thought the funding is to cover things that the insurance doesn't.
But apparently they are not bloody stupid. Home modification is not a nice to have. It's an absolute essential.....so surely already part of their carefully thought out 'contingency'. Because they are not bloody stupid.
I don't believe it for a minute of course - I'm just being facetious. I don't believe the 'plan' was a lot deeper than 'Send it!!!!' and 'healing vibes'.
I'm not sure you actually want a discussion here or a possibility something that could change your mind on anything, so i'm not exactly sure what to say here.
I'm not sure you actually want a discussion
Yeah, sorry, you are right - I don't really.
I guess I just get frustrated when the posts drift away from both the main thrust of Benji's article and (imo) the bigger picture. In the big scheme of things it doesn't really matter what insurance is in place and who is paying for it and if it's insurable at all bla bla bla. That's all just flim flam. Insurance and bucket loads of cash don't get parallelised people walking again - it just makes people slightly more comfortable in their new life. He could be taken to RB HQ in Austria and stroked with ostrich feathers by podium girls 24/7 (not that he'd benefit from that a lot at the moment mind) and it still wouldn't bring him back the life he had before he was razzed up and launched himself in front of millions. A 'don't worry - it's all insured' attitude is not much better than more 'healing vibes'.
No, the real issue here is ethical debate about exploiting (or not - YMMV) athletes for what is in all reasonable ways, a marketing campaign. Generated and conceived not in any altruistic way to give these athletes an outlet, but because (when you have complete ownership of the entire event and everything around it) it generates you marketing gold. Let's remember this is not a company that has been reporting these life changing accidents in their output - they are not reporting at all - just generating yet more positive promotional content, even as this has been going on. And then - the further nuance - is it exploitative even if the young people in question don't think/appreciate they are being exploited.
The real problem I have with rampage is the fact that in other sports when folks get seriously injured or die they take steps to mitigate the chances of it happening again.
I might be wrong but I've not seen or heard of any steps Redbull have taken at Rampage with regards to this?
Did anything change after Paulbas? Will anything change now? I very much doubt it.
I for one have no desire to watch folks getting hurt on a live feed.
The closest parallel I can think of to Rampage, is something like the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races, which are, in objective terms, an order of seriousness more dangerous than any racing on purpose-built race tracks, think triple figure speeds and red mist on small country roads lined with dry-stone walls. Many of the same arguments apply.
Almost by definition, competitors in these events don't really, in their gut, believe that the worst will happen to them, even if they rationally acknowledge the theoretical possibility - it's like riding motorcycles generally, you know it's dangerous, but you don't think it can every really happen to you, until it does. 'Informed consent' in that light is of limited value.
Which leaves you in the uncomfortable situation where you either believe that events like these should be banned both for the competitors' own protection and, more generally, to reduce publicity for dangerous risk taking, or you take the view that it's up to the individual whether they choose to accept those risks, free will and all that.
It's also not dissimilar to the predicament of brand-sponsored climbers and mountaineers, who are under a sort of unspoken pressure to do harder and harder, more noteworthy climbs in order to maximise their value to their sponsors. Brands aren't strictly speaking, forcing them to do hard, dangerous routes, but in a way, it goes with the territory.
Personally I've never been interested in Rampage. It seems massively contrived and the idea of people risking their health so a huge corporation can flog vast quantities of some sickly, ultra-processed, stimulant-stuffed 'energy' drink to gullible teenagers is just wrong. I'm not sure much has changed with it beyond details though, if I were the author, I'd be asking some questions about why suddenly 'you're not entertained' when things are pretty much as they always have been with Rampage bar relatively minor details.
Fwiw, I stopped going to the TT when the fundamentally depressing number of people being hurt and killed - racers and spectators - overshadowed any enjoyment I got from watching what's otherwise a fantastic event/spectacle in a unique setting.
I think the other thing to look at are the stats - the amount of athletes who have competed at Rampage is tiny, compared to even DH WC, of those atheletes we can see percentage wise the risks are very very high.
Red Bull like any huge corporation will only help when dragged kicking & screaming when public opinion looks to hit them in the financials.
That said Red Bull founded Wings for Life & cover all administrative costs so all donations go to spinal cord research. As ever it's not entirely black & white.
i guess, a question to be asked...
If this wasn't a broadcast event, would these guys still be doing these runs and tricks?
I think the answer would be no for a complete run, individual tricks? possibly? Silva's crash feature? i don't know, i don't know.. i mean he obviously thought he would pull it off, I assume he has double back flipped stuff before...
A lot of us ride to a point where it is challenging, however i would say the risks are much less generally. How does something like this feel to a rider who is going to attempt it? is it a similar perceived risk as a small drop to an average rider?
regardless. probably no for people doing 60? foot double back flips in the desert just for kicks...that should probably be the benchmark, if you wouldnt do it willingly in private, don't make it viable in the event.. somehow...
I’d say encouraged rather than coerced.
Enabled might be better?
Personally I wouldn't leap to cancelling the whole thing immediately.
I was really impressed with the skill and risk management shown by the riders as a whole, but I think there are questions around what liability RB might have for creating an event where an over-enthusiastic participant is able to push it too far?
Should they have stepped in and said "no" to Silva's double flip, as apparently he was blocked from trying a similar stunt some years before?
Not victim blaming and I certainly think they should be funding his treatment if required, but if it's gong to continue maybe it needs more procedural guardrails? (not physical ones as I think I saw someone suggest on PB)
Feel like they get lucky each year but the consequences get closer each time. The riders are happy to send it but where is the line drawn between them being enabled and then being reckless? Is the pressure of one event a year too much and riders push more than they should? As above maybe the line would be amazing anyway without the double backflip which was always a coin toss as to land or crash.
But then sports like motorbike racing still exist. Racers die. Organisers make it as safe as they can bit they do have stewards etc that keep it within some limits.
Luckily rampage type stuff is so niche that it doesnt really apply to most riders.
But then sports like motorbike racing still exist. Racers die. Organisers make it as safe as they can bit they do have stewards etc that keep it within some limits.
I guess the comparison could be F1 - which was arguably more dangerous back in the day than Rampage with drivers having equal levels of bravery to modern Rampage riders.
But it would be an F1 where the event was invented by Red bull, the broadcasting and image rigts monopolised by Redbull, a good chunk of the drivers sponsored by Redbull. Redbull supplying the prizes and Redbull 'influencing' who won to rules designed by Redbull. No FIA. No F1 drivers association. Would you imagine the safety improvements that happened (at glacial speeds) happening at all in a Redbull monopoly F1 world?
I guess the issue is that safety measures in F1 didn't really impact the visual spectacle. Rampage is in reality a curated series of displays of skill and death defying (maybe a phrase a bit too close to the knuckle) feats dressed up as a competition.
F1 does have a location etc they try and make as safe as possible, the 'racing" is the main spectacle. I do not watch the Rampage in detail so forgive me if I am wrong, but the riders have a mountain to use in away they see fit and create more risk and dig and fettle to provide this
So yes F1 etc etc s dangerous in a slightly different way.in my view. A bit more controlled risk maybe with the safety equipment etc.
Sport in general seems to be trying to get more risk to promote viewers and entertainment. Look at XC, (who saw that terrible face plant by Lecante i tjhink it was) .
Road riders racing to a downhill finish etc etc.
A whole new topic really for lots of sports.
F1 does have a location etc they try and make as safe as possible, the 'racing" is the main spectacle. I do not watch the Rampage so forgive me if I am wrong, but the riders have a mountain to use in away they see fit and create more risk and dig and fettle to provide this
So yes F1 etc etc s dangerous in a slightly different way.in my view. A bit more controlled risk maybe with the safety equipment etc.
Sport in general seems to be trying to get more risk to promote viewers and entertainment. Look at XC, (who saw that terrible face plant by Lecante i tjhink it was) .
Road riders racing to a downhill finish etc etc.
A whole new topic really for lots of sports.
A lot of us ride to a point where it is challenging, however i would say the risks are much less generally. How does something like this feel to a rider who is going to attempt it? is it a similar perceived risk as a small drop to an average rider?
If you're going to go that way, the question is really, how does the context - ie: riding in a heavily-promoted commercial event with, presumably, a lucrative pay-out for being there - affect risk judgement. It's obviously going to depend on the individual, but it's easy to imagine that some, very driven individuals could make bad decisions under that pressure.
My experience with elite climbers is that far from being risk takers, what really marks them out is that they have a really accurate understanding of their own ability and where their limits are. I suspect the same is true of, say, elite downhill racers or road riders. They're not infallible, but they have the self-knowledge and specialist intelligence to operate very close to their limit, without going off a metaphorical edge. If the event itself impacts on that process, you could argue that it's inherently more dangerous than doing the same thing outside of it.
If this wasn't a broadcast event, would these guys still be doing these runs and tricks?
Josh Bender is one of the judges at Rampage, he was throwing himself off massive cliff drops years ago well before social media had become a thing and when bikes weren't anywhere near as capable as they are now. He always displayed a very lax attitude to personal safety and the scoring in Rampage these days does seem to reward risk taking over creative lines
It seems massively contrived and the idea of people risking their health so a huge corporation can flog vast quantities of some sickly, ultra-processed, stimulant-stuffed 'energy' drink to gullible teenagers is just wrong. I'm not sure much has changed with it beyond details though, if I were the author, I'd be asking some questions about why suddenly 'you're not entertained' when things are pretty much as they always have been with Rampage bar relatively minor details.
This sums it up well. It’s great until it’s not. Ive been shot down for many years making comments that it’s no more than a pr stunt for RB with the riders taking all the risk. Im my view Hardline is no different, although the level of risk for the riders is arguably lower.
I dont think the comparison with F1 is fair. F1 have consultant level doctors on site with an on-site medical centre and cars / driver protection mandated. Rampage has none of this
It seems massively contrived and the idea of people risking their health so a huge corporation can flog vast quantities of some sickly, ultra-processed, stimulant-stuffed 'energy' drink to gullible teenagers is just wrong. I'm not sure much has changed with it beyond details though, if I were the author, I'd be asking some questions about why suddenly 'you're not entertained' when things are pretty much as they always have been with Rampage bar relatively minor details.
This sums it up well. It’s great until it’s not. Ive been shot down for many years making comments that it’s no more than a pr stunt for RB with the riders taking all the risk. Im my view Hardline is no different, although the level of risk for the riders is arguably lower.
You're shot down not because of that, but because that's like saying Premier League football is a PR stunt for XYZ, well of course it is.... What else would it be ? All 'events' are little more than a glorified advertising hoarding for someone or another, whether it's Downhill, Motorbikes, NLF, NBA, that's what they're all there for, to make money for 'someone'
I don't see how you see it as different.
I'd be curious as to how you view say Crankworx ? That's the same as Hardline/Rampage basically then isn't it ?
I'm not sure much has changed with it beyond details though, if I were the author, I'd be asking some questions about why suddenly 'you're not entertained' when things are pretty much as they always have been with Rampage bar relatively minor details.
I think this is where I stand.
If you thought it was stupid/should be banned prior to last Sunday. Then yes, sadly Silva's crash has validated that opinion. It is dangerous and looking at it objectively the consequenses do seem to outweigh any potential benefits for the athletes.
However if you thought it was a jolly good jape for the last 25 years or whenever you first became aware of it, and now suddenly have a repulsion or knee jerk reaction and clamour for its end...
The risks and consequenses have always been very obviously apparent. Even without knowing about Paul Bas (10 years ago now!) the chance of career ending, life changing or even life ending accidents were evident to anyone that had watched any single run or clip.
And I know nobody asked, but here's how I'd improve it.
- one run each. the two run format encourages extra risk as there is a do-over option. if you knew there was only one chance to get it right you might be more conservative doing only stuff you had nailed in practise. plus riders then get pressured into trying to improve in run 2 having seen the run one scores.
- prize structure. appearance fee for everyone who shows up (i think already exists), completion prize for everyone completing a run (again encourages slightly more conservative riding from those who might realistically not have a chance of winning), then podium prizes.
- judging. especially if doing the one run format, keep the scores secret from riders yet to drop. They've spent a week building and practising what they think they can do - then giving someone 5 minutes to decide they need to add in a new trick to get a few points improvement. I'm not sure quite how to do this while still having the scores available to the tv feed.
What else would it be ? All 'events' are little more than a glorified advertising hoarding for someone or another, whether it's Downhill, Motorbikes, NLF, NBA, that's what they're all there for, to make money for 'someone'
I'm sure there are some, but I'm struggling to think of an event where a single commercial organisation is in charge of every aspect. No sport governing body, no sponsors to answer to, no athletes agent, no athletes union, no broadcaster. You are all those things.
I don't usually watch Rampage, but I watched the women this year and last because I'd seen a few articles about the positive atmosphere. There were no massive crashes (although some competitors pulled out due to crashes in practice) and this year there were more tricks than last year. It felt that noone was riding too close to the edge, just close enough. And I am a fan of the desert in Utah, I do like the idea of riding bikes over the crazy geology, it's mind blowing and I don't really need to see double back flips to enjoy it. Anyway, I was keener to watch the men this year because the women had had such good runs - maybe illogically because I really find the crashes just too much to bear watching. I saw two big crashes (including Silva's) and I feel sick just thinking about them.
Why am I writing this? Because maybe there's a commercial case that RB needs to look at - turning people off watching because the whole event has gone too far isn't that sensible. That there should be full athlete insurance in place (backed up by athlete sponsors and the event sponsor i.e. Red Bull) goes without saying. I truly hope that Adolf Silva recovers.
F1 have consultant level doctors on site with an on-site medical centre and cars / driver protection mandated.
It also has a whole Wikipedia page specifically dedicated to listing the many deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_fatalities
It looks like his Road 2 Recovery site has a target of $500,000 - let's be honest for a company like Red Bull that is chump change.
This could really affect Redbull's future with public opion just switching off as its such a terrible outcome.
Nah. I've seen nothing on this outside of this site, it's had no penetration of mainstream media and so it'll have almost zero impact on Redbull. Any tiny negative will be forgotten when a repeat the Stalen Ros is on Dave, or the F1 team wins again. Don't forget what a niche sport MTB is, and the Rampage type stuff is even nicher, just because it's on your algorithm it doesn't mean it's on everyone else's.
I'd be curious as to how you view say Crankworx ? That's the same as Hardline/Rampage basically then isn't it ?
Yes I do see them as broadly the same. Sure there are different levels of risk. The reason I see them as the same is because the ability to enter is controlled by invitation, not by ability. With the World Cup series there is a route from being good on a bike, through national series onto continental series and then the WC series. Im sure it’s hard and there are many obstacles in the way but the path is there. With the RB events and Crankworx the way in is to be invited by the event organisers and thats it.
Nah. I've seen nothing on this outside of this site, it's had no penetration of mainstream media and so it'll have almost zero impact on Redbull. Any tiny negative will be forgotten when a repeat the Stalen Ros is on Dave, or the F1 team wins again. Don't forget what a niche sport MTB is, and the Rampage type stuff is even nicher, just because it's on your algorithm it doesn't mean it's on everyone else's.
Sadly this is the reality of the situation.
Nah. I've seen nothing on this outside of this site, it's had no penetration of mainstream media and so it'll have almost zero impact on Redbull. Any tiny negative will be forgotten when a repeat the Stalen Ros is on Dave, or the F1 team wins again. Don't forget what a niche sport MTB is, and the Rampage type stuff is even nicher, just because it's on your algorithm it doesn't mean it's on everyone else's.
I was kind of curious as to how Red Bull's revenue streams break down. If you believe Google, profits come overwhelmingly from drink sales driven by a colossal marketing spend going into sports - F1, 'extreme sports', football, e-sports and Tom Pidcock's helmet mostly. They do, apparently, make some money from sports, but it's primarily about marketing.
Again according to google, their customer base is 18-34 year-olds, skewed towards men and thrill-seeking, urban, ambitious, energetic etc. I suspect the macro take on Rampage would be a 'extreme sports are dangerous and this proves it' rather than any concern over their favourite drink brand's moral ethical duty of care towards competitors, but obviously that's very much a guess.
I don't know what Red Bull would have to do to alienate their consumer base tbh, but I think it would have to be something a lot more heinous that organising Rampage.
A question for anyone whom has now decided to stop watching it as a result of this years injuries... Would you still watch repeats of previous years events?
What sets Rampage (and any freeride) apart from things like F1 racing or three day eventing's cross-country (that horse thing), both of which had issues with a spate of deaths and/or life-changing injuries and then changed things radically, is that the course is designed by the organisers and the competitors try to complete the course as fast as possible. With Rampage the competitors design their own course and then try to go as big/tricksy as possible on it. This puts the risk management almost wholly in the hands of the competitors' own judgement.
Does the judging criteria need to have a fifth element which is risk management? But that's the opposite of some of the other elements such as amplitude and exposure. And what's risky for one rider might be much less risky for another because they're so much more precise in their riding style (like Semenuk). If it wasn't scored would that change behaviour much? I doubt it - no-one with a normal view of personal safety and risk management gets into freeride, they're wired differently.
Regarding insurance, someone over on pinkbike with decades of insurance experience on similarly big stuff said that an event like Rampage is uninsurable from the point of view of the competitors, no underwriter will take on the risk. (He said he'd have been asked to quote on it at some point in the last 20 years if it was possible). I don't know if that's true but it makes a lot of sense.
It's very sad.
How much do these riders earn that makes it worth their while to take these risks?
I was kind of curious as to how Red Bull's revenue streams break down.
25/30 years ago i imagine the majority of Red Bull’s revenue stream came from pubs/clubs as folk necked their vodka/red bulls by the shitload…
I know I contributed my fair share to their bank balance when under the influence of drugs
Recently watched an insta clip of a bmxer getting up at silly-o-clock in the morning to go training, starting with a swig of redbull 🤢 🤢 🤢 He's one of the older BMXers and shredded AF so really find it difficult to believe he actually drinks that shit.
Recently watched an insta clip of a bmxer getting up at silly-o-clock in the morning to go training, starting with a swig of redbull 🤢 🤢 🤢 He's one of the older BMXers and shredded AF so really find it difficult to believe he actually drinks that shit.
Redbull/monster etc provide cans filled with water for use by athletes as product placement to fulfill their contract requirements
Having said that, it would be pocket change to Red Bull anyway I guess.Do you have any idea how much lifetime care for someone would be?
It’s certainly not pocket change, even for a relatively well known brand like Red Bull.
Likely to be in the 10s of millions.
pretty sure 10s of millions is pocket change to redbull.
Nah. I've seen nothing on this outside of this site, it's had no penetration of mainstream media
Well it is wrongly described as being a race and the date on the article is on the Friday before the men's event took place but this does mention the two major crashes so was obviously written or updated afterwards.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cycling/red-bull-rampage-utah-freeride-racing-b2850920.html
Having said that, it would be pocket change to Red Bull anyway I guess.Do you have any idea how much lifetime care for someone would be?
It’s certainly not pocket change, even for a relatively well known brand like Red Bull.
Likely to be in the 10s of millions.
pretty sure 10s of millions is pocket change to redbull.
They pay Max Verstsappen $55m a year
Again according to google, their customer base is 18-34 year-olds, skewed towards men and thrill-seeking, urban, ambitious, energetic etc.
.. plus people working long hours or 2 jobs trying to make ends meet and other less glamorous or marketer-appealing demographics that could well make up the majority of sales. It’s like all the betel nut chewing that goes on in Asia.
I've struggled to read the aftermath of this and understand where responsibility lies and what is fair when the blame game starts going.
Accepting all the points in this thread that the actual behind the scenes support being provided is extremely murky, and also the free will acceptance of risk by individuals, it doesn't seem to fully add up.
The bit that strikes me is that most/all of the riders at Rampage seem to have been treated like zero hours contract workers - like Extreme Deliveroo. They have their own insurance as pro athletes, or they don't. No barrier to participation, their choice. No insurance available, no sponsor guarantees, no problem.
As a very casual spectator my unease is that I don't think I was really aware of that until the spotlight on this one young guy who really seems to taken maximum risk with minimum backup plan.
What do people want?
You want it to simply stop and go away as it's not to your taste?
You want something similar with a better rider support plan for the inevitable injuries?
Other options are available. The option 1 isn't really an option as it will simply come back with another name, and god help us/you/them may well reincarnate as an even more wild west option. Personal taste isn't a reason to ban this either..
I asked before, but don't know, what happens if someone has a big , life changing stack at Hardline, or one of the urban downhill races, or any downhill race in particular?
25/30 years ago i imagine the majority of Red Bull’s revenue stream came from pubs/clubs as folk necked their vodka/red bulls by the shitload…
I know I contributed my fair share to their bank balance when under the influence of drugs
I was never brave enough to combine it with other stimulants, but I wonder how popular Jagerbombs are these days?
Regarding insurance, someone over on pinkbike with decades of insurance experience on similarly big stuff said that an event like Rampage is uninsurable from the point of view of the competitors, no underwriter will take on the risk. (He said he'd have been asked to quote on it at some point in the last 20 years if it was possible). I don't know if that's true but it makes a lot of sense.
Likely the same contributor that made exactly the same point on page 1 of this thread.
I asked before, but don't know, what happens if someone has a big , life changing stack at Hardline, or one of the urban downhill races, or any downhill race in particular?
I don’t know, but those events are likely more insurable as there is a set course that has been tested prior to the event (eg that massive canyon gap the wasn’t used for hardline a couple of years ago), rather than having riders turn up and let their imaginations run wild. Plus, no requirement for doing big tricks to win.
Josh Bender is one of the judges at Rampage, he was throwing himself off massive cliff drops years ago well before social media had become a thing and when bikes weren't anywhere near as capable as they are now. He always displayed a very lax attitude to personal safety and the scoring in Rampage these days does seem to reward risk taking over creative lines
It's a cultural issue in certain adrenalin sports where a small % of the elite have arguably a dysfunctional attitude to personal safety, but this is allowed to set the terms of events they participate in and run. Which coerces other athletes who are further towards the 'normal' end of the 'attitude to risk' spectrum to push beyond their limits.
It would be a bit like a solo rock climbing competition where you have Alex Honnold as a judge, and competitors rewarded for attempting harder and harder routes. Obviously Alex would never sign up for that, as he understands that these judgements and decisions are entirely personal and should be made entirely free of sponsor or peer pressure.
Compared to Rampage, F1 is very safe (IMHO).
Almost everything in the F1 space has been tested to comply with rules that the FIA produce and are geared towards driver and spectator safety. The crash needs to be huge, or the driver needs to be spectacularly unlucky (or both) for there to be a death (again, IMHO). The circuit is, for all intents and purposes a controlled area with known risks that can be assessed and mitigated. You win by being a good driver, having a good pit strategy and crew an, potentially, by not being overly aggressive and crashing.
Another example: I skydive. It's an extreme sport. People in it die or get life changing injuries far too often (three this season that I knew well).
I continue to skydive because I consider the risks associated with it manageable _IF_ I stick to the plan I make before each jump, if I don't do stupid things and if i land in a sensible manner. I plan around reasonable worst case (both in freefall and under canopy) and have safety equipment that I can trigger both manually or which will activate automatically if I am not able to. I invest a lot of time training for what I do in the off season so that the first jumps of the year are not alien to me and I jump equipment that, for my jump numbers, is not crazy. That is how I manage risk, but there is never a huge amount of money hanging on my performace, never the expectation to perform unless I am competing and, even then, safety comes first and my assosciation's rules reinforce the safety aspect.
Contrasting with Rampage. There is limited safety equipment, no ruleset governing safety (as I understand it) and the lack of a defined route means that the rider needs to assess the route they are making themselves. Small things can change between practice and their competition runs that are outside their knowledge until they arrive at the feature. All this is framed in a background of "need to go big or I don't get paid/win" which, to me, shifts the risk far too much the other way. Rampage is dangerous and it's being run to make RedBull money (IMHO), not as a sport.
Having said that, it would be pocket change to Red Bull anyway I guess.Do you have any idea how much lifetime care for someone would be?
It’s certainly not pocket change, even for a relatively well known brand like Red Bull.
Likely to be in the 10s of millions.
pretty sure 10s of millions is pocket change to redbull.
They pay Max Verstsappen $55m a year
Red Bull Technology (the F1 team) is run as a completely separate business concern from the mothership.
Mateschitz Jnr is a person with significant control though. Technicalities aside, I’d bet all the money comes from, and contributes to, the same pot.