NationStates Jolt Archive

I just heard the cancelled the Paris-Dakar because of worries about terrorism.

http://www.dakar.com/indexus.html
A.S.O. cancels the 2008 edition of the Dakar rally

After different exchanges with the French government - in particular the Ministry for Foreign Affairs - , and based on their firm recommendations, the organisers of the Dakar have taken the decision to cancel the 2008 edition of the rally, scheduled from the 5th to the 20th of January between Lisbon and Senegal’s capital.

Based on the current international political tension and the murder of four French tourists last 24th of December linked to a branch of Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, but also and mainly the direct threats launched directly against the race by terrorist organisations, no other decision but the cancellation of the sporting event could be taken by A.S.O.

A.S.O.’s first responsibility is to guarantee the safety of all: that of the populations in the countries visited, of the amateur and professional competitors, of the technical assistance personnel, of the journalists, partners and rally collaborators. A.S.O. therefore reaffirms that the choice of security is not, has never been and will never be a subject of compromise at the heart of the Dakar rally.

A.S.O. condemns the terrorist menace that annihilates a year of hard work, engagement and passion for all the participants and the different actors of the world’s biggest off-road rally. Aware of the huge frustration, especially in Portugal, Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal, and beyond the general disappointment and the huge economical consequences in terms of direct and indirect repercussions for the countries visited, A.S.O. will continue to defend the major values of great sporting events and will carry on its engagement for a durable development through the Actions Dakar, started 5 years ago in sub-Saharan Africa with SOS Sahel International.

The Dakar is a symbol and nothing can destroy symbols. The cancellation of the 2008 edition does not endanger the future of the Dakar. To offer, for 2009 a new adventure to all the off-road rally passionate is a challenge that A.S.O. will take on in the months to come, faithful to its engagement and its passion for sports.

I like the last paragraph...do they somehow think there won't be the same threats made again next year?

Regardless of whether you're a fan, what do you think? Should major sporting events like this pull through no matter what, or are they doing the right thing? Does it matter that people die every year anyways?

In before rants about alarmism.

It must have been a late-developing threat. In prior years the rally course has been moved to avoid areas of unrest in Africa. The Paris-Cape Town rally was pretty exciting, and the Paris-Moscow-Beijing rally was just odd (and absurdly long).

If they believe the threat to be a genuine risk, then they've done the right thing. Imagine the outcry if they went ahead & people were killed due to terrorist activity. It is very disappointing though.

The cowboy American in me insists that if they give in the terrorists win, etc etc.

However, as pointed out the race has always been dangerous and they've always dealt with it. So, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it must be a threat that they couldn't account for. It does seem like short notice, so maybe next year they'll have the flexibility to respond. The test comes from next year.

Though it would be different if the teams decided not to go.

there's still the Plymouth-Banjul rally though.

If they believe the threat to be a genuine risk, then they've done the right thing. Imagine the outcry if they went ahead & people were killed due to terrorist activity. It is very disappointing though.
People have been killed by bandits in the Dakar Rally. Are they so different from terrorists?

People have been killed by bandits in the Dakar Rally. Are they so different from terrorists?

Not neccessarily, but if the organisers believe there is a genuine threat to the competitors lives from a 3rd party, and the organisers can't protect the competitors from it, then they have an obligation to act. In this case they have done so & cancelled this year's race.

There are going to be a lot of racers owing a lot of money.

Hopefully the relevant sponsors will be sympathetic.

There are going to be a lot of racers owing a lot of money.

Hopefully the relevant sponsors will be sympathetic.

Hmmm...I wonder exactly how something like that is handled...

Hmmm...I wonder exactly how something like that is handled...

Well, I imagine sponsors who are already involved in top-flight worldwide motorsport...F1, WRC, Le Mans..they'll say "we understand motorsport yadayadaya...next year etc"

Sponsors who don't..."we want our money back".

Well, I imagine sponsors who are already involved in top-flight worldwide motorsport...F1, WRC, Le Mans..they'll say "we understand motorsport yadayadaya...next year etc"

Sponsors who don't..."we want our money back".

There's got to be some sort of clause in there that acknowledges that shit can happen and the car might not finish or qualify or something...

I say cancel the Dakar rally primarily because, what the hell is a Dakar and why would i care?

I say cancel the Dakar rally primarily because, what the hell is a Dakar and why would i care?

It was originally called the Paris-Dakar rally.

Paris is the capital of France.

Dakar is the capital of Senegal.

It is/was a race between the two cities. In recent years the start position has moved around south-western europe.

There's got to be some sort of clause in there that acknowledges that shit can happen and the car might not finish or qualify or something...

You'd think that, but sponsors who aren't used to motorsport are a different matter.

It must have been a late-developing threat. In prior years the rally course has been moved to avoid areas of unrest in Africa.
the article did mention that it was in response to some French tourists being murdered on Dec 24th and the subsequent warning by the French govt to it's nationals to avoid Margheb (where 7 of the 15 legs were to be held, iirc).
My guess is that this just didn't give them enough time to change their race plans. Shame as it does mean next year al Qaeda no doubt will try the same again. Hopefully though it does give the rally officials a year now to plan a rally through safer territory and increase security.

Too bad they couldn't just put it off for a month while they re-route and arrange security.

The cowboy American in me insists that if they give in the terrorists win, etc etc.

However, as pointed out the race has always been dangerous and they've always dealt with it. So, giving them the benefit of the doubt, it must be a threat that they couldn't account for. It does seem like short notice, so maybe next year they'll have the flexibility to respond. The test comes from next year.

Though it would be different if the teams decided not to go.I have to agree with you that this is a victory for the terrorists. I think they should of armed the drivers if the threat was against the drivers. If it was against the race it self, just increase security by increasing police and/or military presence.

I have to agree with you that this is a victory for the terrorists. I think they should of armed the drivers if the threat was against the drivers. If it was against the race it self, just increase security by increasing police and/or military presence.

Neither of which would be something that would have worked.

For your first suggestion...if a car gets ambushed, the driver/co-driver doesn't have enough time to fire before being killed.

For your second...this was to be a race from Lisbon to Dakar. Such a distance just couldn't be controlled by police/military, especially considering the vast range of jurisdictions it would have passed through.

Oh, and it's "should have", not "should of". Sorry, that's just a pet peeve...

I have to agree with you that this is a victory for the terrorists. I think they should of armed the drivers if the threat was against the drivers. If it was against the race it self, just increase security by increasing police and/or military presence.

I don't know that they would have enough time or resources to make things safe. Arming the drivers really wouldn't do much to protect them from bombs...or terrorists for that matter, they're race car drivers, not soldiers.

I have to agree with you that this is a victory for the terrorists. I think they should of armed the drivers if the threat was against the drivers. If it was against the race it self, just increase security by increasing police and/or military presence.

I'm not sure if your idea of arming the drivers is serious, but if the risk to the drivers is so great that it warrants them carrying weapons, the it definitely should not be going ahead.

The race covers 1000s of kms, over some very remote terrain, so providing adequate security over the entire area required is just not feasible.

I am not sure the route that they take in southern Morocco but I can tell you from being there that the government doesn't have full control. If they have had direct threats then it would be difficult for the Moroccan military to safely guard them due to the vast wasteland they would have to cover.