Changes to SCGB Reps' Off-Piste Rules

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

infamy infamy... they've all got it in for me...

nothing like a conspiracy is there?

nothing like one.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

achilles, so, just to spite him you're going to put yourself through the torture of more skiing. A selfless act.

You'll need to Register first of course.

achilles, wasn't Gerry the "rep of the year" a year or so ago?

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

Bode Swiller, Laughing

I really have been wanting to get back to St Anton - haven't been there since before the railway station was moved. All this argy bargy has got me looking at the SCGB holidays again. I think this holiday just might press sufficient buttons for me - assuming I can find the time to get away for it. I must say a comfy 2* (like the Lutins at Les Deux Alpes) is more my cup of tea than the 4* Sport Hotel at St A - but, as you suggest, one must make sacrifices.

stoatsbrother, yup.

After all it is free

achilles, Looks alright. But you now need to choose... you can't be a snowHead

agent and an SKGB operative on the same trip (it's somewhere in the Ts&Cs). So, what are you? How do we know you're not going to pass over secrets from this public forum. Hmm?

From what I remember, Rep of the year is based soley on the number of new members recruited.

I recall Gerry being rather rude, to put it mildy, to other members on the SCGB Forum, in his robust defending of the Club.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Bode Swiller, I do sometimes find myself explaining to SCGB members that snowheads are all right really, and vice versa to snowheads. rolling eyes

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

achilles,

Please don't do it, I don't think I couldn't live with myself if you spent another £1,050.00 just for my sake. Wink

PS The train ticket to St Anton costs me around 100 euros (ca £75 GBP) and it's overnight so I can manage 9 days straight skiing using two weekends.

snow reports

Bode Swiller, Oh dear...guilty as charged here too. E.g. at last year's snowHead

"extreme"

trip we were in the same hotel as the SK( rolling eyes

)GB (on my suggestion) and we have to admit to a degree of fraternisation, particularly as richjp was also there on the "other side". This year I've only got two Freshtracks' holidays booked and one snowHead

trip, and I'm just about to go on my second snowOrks course of the season. Tart, moi?

achilles, snap.

achilles, DB, hey, why don't you go together? Toofy Grin

You know it makes sense.

stephen buck,

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

boredsurfin, What name does he post under?

A snowHead

A snowHead

boredsurfin, what mistake? Laughing

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

You need to Login to know who's really who.

Bode Swiller I think you can only post under your 'real' name in the ski club members only chat room. AFAIK

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

Bode Swiller, post under the name boredsurfin, over here wink

You'll need to Register first of course.

boredsurfin, thought someone said he posts on here tho'. I'm not privvy to the dark side's forum.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

After all it is free

The sad fact is that the boarder did not put his snowboard on when instructed to by the rep.

- insider information ?

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

The official position is that SCGB reps don't instruct. There's no reason for anyone to follow instructions from someone who has no authority to instruct.

So I'd give no credence to the above.

snowHeads are a friendly bunch.

David Goldsmith, A SCGB rep instructed me to go away and get some ski lessons.

snow reports

Must have been your Dad.
Or was it your Mum?

David Goldsmith, - not funny. Skigal appeared to have information and you know full well that the Rep was not being described as "Ski instructing" but rather apparently advising of the appropriate time to get back onto ski/board to continue on the terrain..
However, if the Swiss court were to follow the logic you have shown above

You know it makes sense.

"Instructed" was skigal's word - not mine. "Instructed" doesn't mean "advised".

SCGB reps provide advice, not instruction.

Your last paragraph assumes that whatever case is being contested in Switzerland involves instructions of some sort. I've no idea if that's the case.

What I learned in the 12-or-so years that I operated as an expert witness in ski accident cases is that you work from the point of injury(ies) backwards, examining each detail of the sequence of causes (physical, communicated, or otherwise) that led to the trauma (and usually the fall) ... or whatever is involved. Of course, expert medical evidence is vital to this because a ski expert looks at the medical evidence for clues. Many many factors can contribute to a ski/board accident, and it's a matter of investigating them all. Ultimately it's down to a large collection of facts, processed as appropriate, which are usually contested by opposing experts. So the facts have to be 100% kosher.

There might be a report running to 20, 40 or even 100 pages to properly inform a court of law, so this thread is largely pointless conjecture. Presumably the facts will emerge in due course.

Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:

David Goldsmith, I think that ,even for you you, you are being rather obtuse in continuing to confuse the word "instruction" with the fact that SCGB Reps are not allowed to offer "ski instruction" as it equates in common parlance with "ski teaching" . In the case of SCGB Reps such terminology is used to advise them and the SCGB membership and the resorts that the Reps will not teach those who ski with them.
Skigal appears to have used the word "instruct" without realising that you might pick up on it in such an obtuse way - unless we hear more we do not know whether an apparent instruction was ignored, whether a piece of advice was ignored, or whether a collective decision by the rest of the group to get back onto planks was not chosen by the unfortunate boarder.
Whichever, I feel sorry for the poor Rep. concerned who has had all this hanging over her for nearly a year now whilst leading a group, the members of which had each accepted responsibility for their individual safety when joining the day's skiing.

A snowHead

A snowHead

Scrumpy, you're expressing sympathy (shared) for the rep and anyone could well understand that the period between a fatal accident and a comprehensive hearing of the facts would be very stressful for anyone directly concerned or related to those involved. But maybe any delay is in the interests of reliable justice for the rep and anyone else affected.

Back on 22 November I asked on this thread (then 11 pages long) whether there had been any inquest. The medical cause of Jean-Philippe Marquette's death would have been rapidly ascertained. The primary evidence relevant to his death would also have been heard by the Swiss coroner, if an inquest occurred afterwards.

Whether the SCGB's waiver/indemnity statement is persuasive in Swiss law could be relevant to what you're saying, but precious little is (apparently) known to anyone contributing to this thread. I'd be confident that there will be a fair outcome once the full facts have been aired, and I suspect they go far far beyond the very selective points you're making. You say that people taking equipment off, and putting it on, is a factor. If that's correct, had the group taken their skis/boards off to climb or walk? Were they about to set off downhill, or were they traversing or gaining height? If a boarder is trying to gain height he'll be carrying the board while others are side-stepping on skis. There are so many questions, and (typically) there will be various witness accounts.

As I've said above, the starting point in analysing the accident is the final point of injury, working backwards from there to unravel all the facts and how they contributed to the causes. In my experience of these cases, a fair amount of evidence and opinion is contested in any event.

Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?

Bode Swiller, does it make a difference? wink

David Goldsmith, indeed - I have had a total failure to find more details about this via conventional internet seacrhes. Which either speaks to my failings or a rather less sensationalist approach on the part of the Swiis media compared with ours. All I have heard is rumours. I am sure we will find outmore in the long term. In the meantime sympathy for both the family & friends of the deceased, and anyone else including the rep involved seems the most appropriate thing to express.

You need to Login to know who's really who.

You'll find some more information in the minutes of the Club's annual general meeting, which was on 29 November. Perhaps these are now ready for circulation to members and posting up on the website.

Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.

David Goldsmith, Not there yet, but right clicking the 2006 minutes and looking at the properties suggests they were completed on 31/1/07, so may be due soon - of course these would be draft subject to approval at the 2008 agm.

You'll need to Register first of course.

Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...

It doesn't make a difference, though (with no disrespect to Scrumpy or anyone else) we haven't had any information from any proven primary/authoritative source on this incident anyway.

It does illustrate, though, how easily any old bit of information, misinformation or error can enter the pot. In investigating ski accidents I found I had to test any detail documented, cross-check and corroborate any evidence. In one major case in Australia my instructing lawyers were able to obtain disclosure of company minutes of the lift-operating company in charge of the mountain, so that we knew how they had responded to specific snow and weather conditions. That sort of material could be relevant in this case. Who knows?

After all it is free

David Goldsmith, I gather that J-PM fell whilst off piste, crossing, or having crossed,an area of old avalanche debris Skigal added that the Rep had [indicated in some way] that ski/board should be mounted - indicating that the fall happened whilst on foot. I assume that the position being considered is more to do with the question of whether the Rep was negligent in leading the group in the way she did rather than the precise medical cause of death.

I will apologise if this has been said before.

Whether the Reps are qualified guides/instructors or not, if there is an accident they will be at risk of ending up in court. Possibly those who are more highly qualified will be at greater risk of being found to be negligent. I suppose SCGB has a duty of care for the reps and doesn't want to be seen to be encouraging them to take members to areas thought to be more risky. If SCGB is telling reps that at leaset part of their raison d'etre is to accompany off piste groups it needs to have cast iron insurance to stave off potential claims. Not just from the members but also potentially from the reps themselves.

SCGB should offer off piste guiding to those who want it, make the qualifications of the rep clear to those taking part, highlight potential risks, and SCGB should carry suficient liability insurance to protect them and the rep should tragedy strike. It may be that people who want this service will have to pay for it directly. Perhaps as a consequence membership will become cheaper for everyone else.

*Ski* the Net with snowHeads

Aurial, yup, it has all been said before. But welcome to snowheads, anyway. Very Happy

Help!!

Changes to SCGB Reps' Off-Piste Rules

snowHeads Forum Index >>> The Piste