IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IOC Orders Blogger To Take Down Video

Posted by kdawson on Monday February 22, 2010 @12:37PM from the cone-of-ownership-descends dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The International Olympic Committee has ordered a blogger to remove a video from his website showing the death of Georgian luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. The IOC asserts that it owns all the rights to all images taken at the games, and only licensed broadcasters can use them. However, the blogger, Stephen Pate, points to a Canadian law that allows copyrighted images to be used in newsworthy cases."

48 of 389 comments (clear)

Nothing new by digitalunity · 2010-02-22 12:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.
The Olympics are big money.

--
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
1. Re:Nothing new by LostCluster · 2010-02-22 12:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws that give their trademarks such as the five-ring-design even stronger protection than a typical trademark. Basically, they're claiming they need NBCU/CBC/FoxTel/your-local-Olympic-broadcaster's money to put on the games, and therefore they need super-copyright. They have it now, it'll take an act of Congress to get rid of it.
2. Re:Nothing new by interkin3tic · 2010-02-22 12:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The IOC has taken an extreme protectionist stance on all its content for many years. It doesn't matter if it's fair use or not, the IOC will object on principle.
  The Olympics are big money.
  I think this actually IS a new low for the IOC. They're going to profit from the images taken at the games, that's normal.
  Ordering a blogger to take down video would be pretty low and stupid as is: as if someone is going to watch someone's blog instead of the games on NBC or whatever. That's absurd. A blogger is no competition.
  What takes this to a whole new level is that it's the death of a competitor.... so... THE IOC IS HOPING TO PROFIT FROM THE VIDEO OF THIS ATHELETE DYING?!?
  Jesus.
  Were it not the IOC I would assume this was done in the name of taste. People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this. But it being the IOC, and seeing as they just claimed Lindsey Vonn's name (or exclusive rights to use it in advertising... whatever...), I have to think that this is -at best- an attempt to set a precedent that absolutely all video from the olympics are absolutely the IOCs property, and can't be shown anywhere. More likely, they're going to try to sell the video to news organizations and want a fucking monopoly.
3. Re:Nothing new by Sir_Lewk · 2010-02-22 12:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.
  
  --
  "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
4. Re:Nothing new by headkase · 2010-02-22 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Not proud of it but I've seen it. In this case there isn't anything gore at all, he comes to a complete stop: immediately. The problem is that today it is this video, tomorrow it may be something less clear cut. As every persons definition of "good" and "bad" is different you have to take the good with the bad. Agree or not with this particular case the proper thing to do is lump it under censorship as the law for newsworthy items is pretty clear and deal with that as an issue. You're not going to like everything - that is the point.
  
  --
  Shh.
5. Re:Nothing new by Dhalka226 · 2010-02-22 12:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  More than likely they hope to bury it. It's not exactly a shining-star moment in the Olympics. I'm sure they'd prefer people forgot about it and moved on.
6. Re:Nothing new by NeutronCowboy · 2010-02-22 13:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Because it shames the IOC's claim that it was only the luger's fault that he died. if you watch the video, you see that a basic miscalculation (misjudging the sled's speed when correcting the trajectory) caused him to an inside wall. After that came about 1 second of flying through the air, and hitting a metal pole with his head and upper back. It was pretty much game over after he hit the inside wall. There was absolutely nothing he or anybody else could have done once he overadjusted the trajectory of his sled.
  That's the tragedy, and that's why it needs to stay up: the course was designed with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away. If the downhill was held by running the skiers around large, unprotected metal poles, people would be in an uproar - and justifiably so.
  Sometimes, deadly videos are important to illustrate the deadly consequence of other people's actions.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
7. Re:Nothing new by Opportunist · 2010-02-22 13:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Do you think they want to cut it out to "protect the family of the deceased"? They care about the reputation of their precious cash cow. And that ain't the athletes. They're just the necessary evil to milk the whole deal.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:Nothing new by The+Archon+V2.0 · 2010-02-22 13:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think that's not quite what's happening here. I think the IOC is afraid that the more the video is watched, the more negative associations people will have with the Olympics, and the fewer viewers they'll get. They're hoping to lose as little as possible after this tragedy.
  So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.
9. Re:Nothing new by fredjh · 2010-02-22 13:14 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Maybe if they'd listen to the viewers complaining Olympics after Olympics that we want less human interest stories and more events. Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts. If it means that we're not just watching Americans, fine! I know people living here from all over the world, we want to see everything, whether an American is involved or not.
  
  --
  Stupid, sexy Flanders.
10. Re:Nothing new by sbeckstead · 2010-02-22 13:22 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes I agree, but he could offer to take it down out of concern for the families privacy rather than because the IOC has asked him to. Take the Moral high road and keep your freedom of speech at the same time. why not, you lose little. Blog about it by all means but the goreporn value is pretty nil anyway.
  
  --
  Why bother
11. Re:Nothing new by Dunbal · 2010-02-22 13:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yep, and the "Olympic Movement" is given special rights under US Laws
  It used to be that hosting olympic events was a money-maker for the cities involved. However recently data shows that towns that host Olympics are actually losing out. I don't agree with "special privileges" for anyone, but it's understandable to see how they can happen where there is a source of income for the state. But when the state is trying to "protect" something that is actually costing tax payer dollars, it's time to repeal laws (or repeal the damned state).
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
12. Re:Nothing new by MichaelSmith · 2010-02-22 13:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Content from the events cost $$$ so the TV networks pad the coverage out with cheap human interest crap and trolling. Its been this way for decades. We all hate it and it not getting any better.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
13. Re:Nothing new by wealthychef · 2010-02-22 13:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So rather than hoping to make money off the death of an athlete, they're hoping the death of an athlete doesn't damage their profits? I fail to see that much difference between those two possibilities.
  It's the difference between hiring a hit man and hushing up a family suicide.
  
  --
  Currently hooked on AMP
14. Re:Nothing new by mcsqueak · 2010-02-22 13:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Events are going on there ALL DAY. The downhill skiers aren't waiting for the Hockey game to be over; they have TONS of actual events they could be showing non-stop during their relatively few hours of Olympics broadcasts.
  Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.
  I don't have a DVR, and I don't plan my schedule around TV viewing, so I've missed a lot of games I would have liked to have seen. I was lucky to have happened to be sitting in front of the TV with the Olympics on when Lindsay Vonn had her gold medal run last week. That was great. But then look at how they botched the Canada/USA hockey coverage yesterday to show "ice dancing" or whatever instead. Seriously, folks?
  As pointed out elsewhere, the NBC Olympic coverage has not kept up with how people want to consume media these days.
15. Re:Nothing new by blackraven14250 · 2010-02-22 13:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  DVR? That wouldn't help at all. NBC has been time delaying tons of events, and doesn't list different events separately in their programming. It's a giant 3 to 6 hour block of "Winter Olympics", with no distinction on events shown.
16. Re:Nothing new by interkin3tic · 2010-02-22 13:55 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If we started making exceptions to freedom of speech/press every time somebody got offended, then we would be left with nothing.
  I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."
  It's my opinion however that "not showing someone dying" should not be enforced by law, enforced by corporate interests, and especially not barred by copyright law used as a weapon by corporate interests. Blogger showing it was bad, IOC was even worse.
17. Re:Nothing new by multisync · 2010-02-22 13:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Indeed. They really should have 3-4 channels that show nothing BUT Olympics during the two week span of the games, that way you could actually see all the events you want to see, plus they would probably still have time for "human interest" stories (gag) between events.
  
  That's the way it is in Canada for these games, but interest is huge because we're the host country. There are at least four networks (including NBC) showing non-stop coverage here, and I've heard some of the "specialty channels" are carrying some events as well. But I don't know if there is enough interest outside of the host country to justify the kind of coverage you are calling for.
  This list notes that NBC, Universal Sports, Telemundo, USA Network, CNBC, MSNBC are carrying at least some coverage in the US.
  I don't know what kind of ratings NBC is getting for these games; I know it was a concern prior to the games starting, as they paid a record amount for the rights. The US is leading in meddles, so maybe interest is higher than anticipated.
  
  --
  I don't care why you're posting AC
18. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-22 14:03 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You have to keep in mind that the Canadian lugers had been practicing on the course for two years prior to the games, without serious incident. While it's not fair to place blame solely on the shoulders of the luger in this case, it also isn't fair to suggest that the course was designed to be a deathtrap or "designed with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away". The course was designed to be fast and challenging, though some argue it was perhaps too fast.
  The guy make a mistake, and it cost him his life, and that's tragic. The course was designed maybe 10kph faster than the norm, which may have magnified the impact of his mistake. Though based on the general negative raction the other lugers had to moving down the starting position, I'd say any claim that the incident happened solely because the course was expressly designed to be a death trap are more than slightly exagerrated. Lugers like challenging and they like fast even more. they absolutely love a combination of fast and challenging, otherwise they woudn't be hurling themselves down a track at 140+ kph, would they?
  And the skiing example? I reckon you didn't catch the womens' alpine downhill last week, where a huge portion of the skiiers whiped out, including Anja Paerson (most decorated aline skiier, all time) botching her landing and rolling something like 200 meters to the finish. She got up on her own eventually, others had to be airlifted out. Nobody argued that the course was designed to be a death trap. The skiiers may have commented that it was a tough course, but not one, especially not the ones who didn't make it all the way down, so much as suggested that it was meant to be dangerous. They knew going in that it was a tough, technical course.
  The risk of injury (or worse) is something you're well aware of and accept in any sport than involves moving downhill at breakneck speed while requiring hairpin maneuvering. You might as well argue that the luge, bobsleigh, skelleton and alpine skiing as sports, are "with deadly obstacles a minor mistake away" since they all involve hurling oneself down at breakneck speeds, while requiring pinpoint accuracy in maneuvering. The athletes were well aware of what the sport entails and the risks involved were when they signed up. Let's throw in the ski jump as well, $deity knows you can break your neck vaulting yourself 90-100+ meters at high speed. And hell. the figure skating system should be redesigned as well, after that poor Candaian girl got kicked sqaure in the face by her partner.
  This isn't about "covering up" their "shame". It's about tastelessness. A news articl would have sufficed, and picture of the aftermath would have been plenty. but a video of someone hitting a pillar at 150KpH? It's certainly more attention grabbing, I'll give 'em that.
19. Re:Nothing new by Surt · 2010-02-22 14:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because, you know, having a fascination with death, the end of us all, the foundation of every major religion, makes you evil.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
20. Re:Nothing new by haruharaharu · 2010-02-22 14:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes I agree, but he could offer to take it down out of concern for the families privacy rather than because the IOC has asked him to. Take the Moral high road and keep your freedom of speech at the same time. why not, you lose little. Blog about it by all means but the goreporn value is pretty nil anyway.
  What privacy? The dude died during the olympics - this isn't a private matter. And if you need to take something down, then you don't have free speech. Sure, it's poor taste, but it's also news.
  
  --
  Reboot macht Frei.
21. Re:Nothing new by jayveekay · 2010-02-22 14:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The luge course has walls along its length to keep the lugers within the confines of the track. The height of the walls is higher at some points of the track. I would guess that the baseline wall height is 4-5 feet. At the point where the Georgian luger went over the wall there was 2-3 foot high extension. The Georgian luger cleared this extension just barely, allowing him to exit the relative safety of the track. [Once a luger traveling at high speed leaves the confines of the track the result is uncontrollable and quite likely catastrophic for both the luger and anyone he hits.]
  The next day the walls along that portion were raised substantially higher.
  My question is: How does a luge course designer determine how high the walls should be in order to ensure that lugers are kept contained to the track? Is it based on "gut feel" or some mathematical analysis?
22. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-22 14:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  > The US is leading in meddles
  Certainly. Iraq... Afghanistan... hard for anyone else to compete!
23. Re:Nothing new by quacking+duck · 2010-02-22 14:36 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  No amount of padding in front of the beams would've made a difference, going from 140+ km/h to zero in a fraction of a second.
  What they needed was a higher wall to deflect any crashing luger downward so they'd stay on the luge track itself.
  Which, incidentally, is what the Olympic organizers did immediately after. While at the same time claiming the death wasn't caused by the track, but driver error. That just disgusted me; yeah, it may have been driver error, and it was a freak accident how he hit the inner wall just so to launch out of the track, but the track was not blameless no matter what the organizers say.
24. Re:Nothing new by indiechild · 2010-02-22 14:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think it's outrageous that courses are designed with such an obvious lack of safety precautions. If the wall had been higher, he wouldn't have slammed into the pillars. In every other industry such a lack of OHS would be damning, yet it's acceptable here for some reason.
25. Re:Nothing new by g1zmo · 2010-02-22 14:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The US is leading in meddles, so maybe interest is higher than anticipated.
  Yes, we're some of the best meddlers around!
  
  --
  I have found there are just two ways to go.
  It all comes down to livin' fast or dyin' slow. -REK, Jr.
26. Re:Nothing new by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-02-22 14:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think there's a pretty clear line between "not showing someone getting killed" and "not showing anything offensive to anyone."
  I don't. You might argue that there is a scale on one end is grandma baking apple pie and the other end is something like a snuff film.
  But the death of an athlete on the field at the olympics is nearly as important as the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, maybe even moreso depending on your perspective.
  My point being (a) its real grey to begin with, nowhere near a clear line and (b) the circumstances of a death affect the offensiveness of its publication.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
27. Re:Nothing new by scdeimos · 2010-02-22 14:46 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  He's a Canadian citizen reporting on a Canadian sporting event, his domain is registered to a Charlottetown, CA address via a Canadian name register. So far he's got a good case to give the big FU to the IOC (which I wholly support).
  Unfortunately it looks as though his site is hosted in Chesterfield, USA (according to cqcounter's visual traceroute), so the IOC may be able to leverage a shut down at the hosting provider. Sometimes it's unfortunate that the Internet is international.
28. Re:Nothing new by PopeRatzo · 2010-02-22 14:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  You've got it exactly right, fredjh.
  Seriously, they need to just show one event after the other. None of the backstory. None of the human interest bullshit. They think that just because most of the skaters are gay and the snowboarders are high that everybody who watches it is going to be more interested in a soap opera than exciting sports action.
  It's actually quite insulting and condescending of the networks to assume that to get women or gays to watch sports they have to show this kind of fluff. Actually, a couple of the most gonzo sports geeks I know are queer and last night when I was watching USA whip Canada in hockey at the neighborhood sports bar, I distinctly heard them jeering at all the human drama crap.
  Interestingly, this couple I'm describing were mocking the hell out of the male figure skaters for their slightly less than manly attire. You know that when you're dressed so gay that even gay people make fun of you, you're way out there.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
29. Re:Nothing new by commodore64_love · 2010-02-22 15:03 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I like the human interest "crap".
  Otherwise it would be just a bunch of strangers moving around on screen. At least this way we know the motivations behind the athletes. For example I would not have known that one Canadian skier was motivated by his brother's Down Syndrome to push even when he's in pain.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
30. Re:Nothing new by Brian+Gordon · 2010-02-22 16:01 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Nobody's posted the video link, so I'm top-posting.
  This is the specific video he was ordered to take down.
31. Re:Nothing new by NeutronCowboy · 2010-02-22 16:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm a downhill skier myself. I'm well aware of the risks in skiing, and am amazed at the crashes that these athletes walk away from. However, there's a very specific reason why there are no trees on the course, and why there's netting all around. People crash, and these things are designed to minimize catastrophic injuries if something does go wrong. Finally, skiers have far more control over speed and direction than the lugers.
  And yet, you won't find large metal beams around a corner of a downhill course - or anywhere that isn't protected by netting or foam.
  Yes, Canadian lugers practiced without any deaths. But if you look at the track, what happened to the Georgian luger was a guaranteed event once the sled hit the inside edge. Just because no one else had died before doesn't mean that the track was designed in a fashion that minimized risks. Just shaving the inside of the track to make it impossible for the sled to just rid up and over would have drastically reduced the speed.
  As for your examples of what else should be redesigned - again, there's a difference between designing something to be more dangerous than necessary and changing the sport. Raising the wall, putting padding on, cutting the inside corner - none of that would have reduced the speed or the difficulty of the course. All the other examples you provided change the sport. Understand the difference.
  
  This isn't about "covering up" their "shame". It's about tastelessness. A news articl would have sufficed, and picture of the aftermath would have been plenty. but a video of someone hitting a pillar at 150KpH? It's certainly more attention grabbing, I'll give 'em that.
  Really? The video is the only thing that demonstrates conclusively what happened. Everything else is hear say and assumption. I'm glad the video exists, because it allows me to cross-check claims and understand assertions.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
32. Re:Nothing new by TheSHAD0W · 2010-02-22 17:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And this is the actual video file; shift-click to download.
  Can you say, Streisand effect?
  I knew you could...
33. Re:Nothing new by PopeRatzo · 2010-02-23 01:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That wasn't your gun you were cocking, son, that was a blow dryer.
  Now don't you have to run? I think Bravo is going to re-broadcast a Liza Minelli special. Shoo!
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
I want my Streisand effect NOW! by sakdoctor · 2010-02-22 12:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Link to video please.
1. Re:I want my Streisand effect NOW! by choongiri · 2010-02-22 13:04 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  From the site in TFA:
  http://www.njnvideo.com/njn/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/luge_accident2.flv
  From another source:
  http://s3.amazonaws.com/lazyjock/117509.flv
Re:If wishing made it so... by LostCluster · 2010-02-22 12:49 · Score: 3, Informative

Do they require that everyone attending sign an agreement assigning all rights in any recordings they make to the IOC, or something along those lines?
Haven't read the back of a sports ticket lately? Every sports league claims copyright over their event, and the right to use your image while you're there. You'll find your Bluetooth not working because 2.4 GhZ unlicensed band devices are being jammed... and if you talk on the phone too long you'll find an usher making sure you're talking about something other than the game.
Looks like we've got the "1984" baseball season about to start...
Re:Mirror please! by Locke2005 · 2010-02-22 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sorry... I've been writing software for 25 years, and my fingers pretty much automatically spell it "queue"... what's really sad is that somebody on slashdot has corrected me for this same exact mistake before! But hey... without spelling Nazis, how are we going to learn?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Mirror please! by adonoman · 2010-02-22 12:51 · Score: 3, Funny

No, he meant queue. We're all busy spreading the latest iPhone jailbreak exploit right now. They'll have to wait in line for their turn to be Streisanded like everyone else.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-02-22 12:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Locality blocks... by Yvan256 · 2010-02-22 13:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.
If you comply with laws from all over the world then you can't post anything online.
Re:Locality blocks... by sakdoctor · 2010-02-22 13:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

Remember, if you're a copyright holder, you'd better be prepared to suck it down. The internet is a global network, and the law varies all over the world.
Fixed it for you.
Re:Locality blocks... by GasparGMSwordsman · 2010-02-22 13:26 · Score: 5, Informative

If this guy wanted to use the Canadian law exemption, he should have also put in a block (which is available to the big guys like the NBC and MLB) that made sure his stream was only available in Canada. He'd have no liability there, but he's breaking copyright law in the USA because he's not NBC, and every other territory where there's an official broadcaster. Remember, if you're positing on the web and not targeting a specific part of the world, you better be ready to comply with laws all over the world.
Under your logic, you could be tried and punished for any speech offensive to other countries, say Iran or North Korea. You better hurry and make sure everything you have ever posted online is blocked from everywhere that it might be illegal!
I'd like to ask you by ElusiveJoe · 2010-02-22 13:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

People shouldn't be watching videos of a tragic event like this.

Who are you, and why are you deciding what should I watch?
Re:If wishing made it so... by Lehk228 · 2010-02-22 14:14 · Score: 4, Informative

deliberately causing interference is illegal even in an unlicensed spectrum.

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2010-02-22 14:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Re:Its wrong to have pillars that close to the tra by Obfuscant · 2010-02-22 14:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is wrong to have pillars that close to the track and Stephen Plate shows this to the rest of the world. Period! No discussion!
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
It is absolute stupid the way the track was designed and that is the flaw. The guy would not have died if its was not for the pillars.
The guy would not have died if he didn't get on a tiny little sled and push himself down the start of an icy half-tube where the only exit other than the far end was off the side and into hard metal objects.
Lugers can still die if they take a wall too high and capsize, smashing their heads into the solid ice track.
If you want to remove all means of death in the sport of luge, you might as well not luge at all. In fact, you won't be luging. You'll have to have a solid tube filled with soft water (instead of the open ice-caked half-tube). That's the "thrill ride" at a water park. How exciting. And someone could still drown if they aren't careful.
You could compare that to have trees around a racing circuit directly beside the track and no run off area ...
How about solid concrete walls at most car race tracks?
Bugger off IOC and let the rest of the world see what is wrong so it can be prevented next time.
Next on NBC, the 2046 winter olympics. At 8PM, the US and Canada face off for the snowball fights, followed by the mackeral slapping contest between Great Britain and France. At 11PM, Greece and Latvia compete in 'walk around the block', and then Bolivia and Japan face off in a rematch of the famous 2042 "fill the slurpee cup as full as you can without spilling" contest. Stay tuned...
Re:Its wrong to have pillars that close to the tra by Engeekneer · 2010-02-22 19:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

It is wrong to have pillars that close to the track and Stephen Plate shows this to the rest of the world. Period! No discussion!
And yet, here we are discussing it. I think it is fine for pillars to be that close, on a track for a sport that is participated in voluntarily and with full knowledge that those pillars are there. All it would have taken is for the lugers to say "we aren't going down that course with those pillars there", if it were so clear that the pillars shouldn't have been there.
Of course the athletes can choose not to participate. However, most athletes have been training for years for this event, so the threshold for not participating is really high, even if they had a pool of sharks with friggin lasers at the bottom. Just because you don't have to participate, doesn't mean that the security measures can be inadequate. Simply raising the walls doesn't make the sport equivalent to kitten hugging