Who are these two eegits?

Ronan_d,

Thanks for the clarification - I had thought that your post was directed specifically against the two rowers.

On your point about the life-jackets, I hadn't seen the article you referenced but after reading it I agree 100% - they should have had life vests on and it was stupid not to and they should have had the hatches closed (even on in-shore races these are standard operating procedures).

With regard to staying with the boat they did try to stay with it but kept on getting washed off and that's why they took to the raft

"We then decided the best thing we could do was climb into the life raft. People say you should never leave the boat, but we were just getting washed off the hull and the life raft seemed the best option.
Click to expand...

With regard to the general suitability of the boat for the potential conditions - the doubles boats are built to the equivalent of a "one class" design so they were restricted in the type of boat they could use; so if they wanted to race they had to use that type and design of boat. This also poses the question, should there be a minimum size of boat that should be used in off-shore racing? Even 30 and 40 foot racing boats can be victims of the sea as you referenced with the Fastnet and Sydney-Hobart races.

Finally, the wave that capsized them came at a different angle than the other waves they were riding - it was strong enough to pull their drogue anchor, and the actual stern, off the boat completely - this is not what you would expect even from Force 7 seas.

My point behind all of this is, as I said earlier, that I think that these guys should be congratulated for taking on this challenge and not vilified because they failed.
 
efm said:
Thanks for the clarification - I had thought that your post was directed specifically against the two rowers.
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. But this one is.

Based on their failure to follow 2 very basic and simple safety measures on such a dangerous trip (wear life jackets and keep their hatch closed), I don't think that they should be in any way congratulated for taking on this challenge.

I realise that this is a tough challenge, and all the more admirable for 2 of the crews that are all female, and 4 crews are half-female. Yet our two "heros" are the only crew who, from looking at the , are the only two out of the 28 boats that started that have failed to finish. And we give them all this praise and tv coverage.

Nuts!!!!
 
What gets me is the word "heros" in all the media coverage. Surely these were the "victims" or "participants" but the heroes were the people that risked their lives rescuing these chaps.
  1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
  2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
  3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.
  4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.
These gentlemen fit none of these definitions.
 
I don't think they qualify as heros either, but they do seem to fit your definitions:
A person noted for feats of courage.

Or maybe given the near miraculous rescue:
favored by the gods

:)
 
Its not a feat of courage - its a fitness test in a rowboat. :D

and a current revision of God (V7.1.4b) should He exist would not be MYTH ological, (if He saved them He would not be a myth but a reality) ergo not relevant.

:D

Ha Ha - I win na na na na na!!!! Who gives a ****!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top