Post by schlager7 on Aug 2, 2005 7:41:12 GMT -6
from Minutes of the FIE Medical Commission Meeting
June 11-12, 2005
Hotel de la Paix, Lausanne, Switzerland
The full text can be found here: www.fie.ch/download/letters/2005/urgent/10/en/FIE%20MedComMinutesJune05.pdf
I have artificially imposed some paragraph breaks just for flow. No text was removed from within this except. This is just FYI
----------------------------------------------------------
Considerable discussion followed related to the new obligatory requirement for use of the transparent mask in all weapons.
Rodriguez-Rey pointed out the significant detrimental effect that making these considerably more expensive transparent masks compulsory will have on smaller, less well-funded countries.
van Dugteren noted that illegal (unsafe) transparent masks were on sale at the Cadet/Junior World Championships in Linz. It appeared as if the FIE has no control over the manufacture or sale of illegal masks as when this was pointed out to FIE officials in Linz, no action was taken.
Polycarbonate visors must be at least 3mm thick and may have no holes or notches (which would render them unsafe). It was noted that up til now transparent masks had been approved for use only in sabre where bouts are generally of short duration, and that there is little information how they will fare in lengthier foil and epée bouts.
Only 4 manufacturers' transparent masks have been approved to date after meeting the rigorous physical safety standards (CEN) and the "physiological" ventilation safety standards of the Medical Commission (Leon Paul, PBT, Negrini, Gaiardoni). However, the polycarbonate visor is susceptible to degradation by a number of common chemicals such as acetone and petrol.
Masks need considerable care (carried in special bags, visors must be discarded after 24 months, cracks must be checked for constantly). Already there have been at least 2 reports of transparent mask failures (Pascu witnessed one personally in Womens Sabre in Budapest in Jan 2004; Defoligny-Rayaume reported the same problem for Flessel-Colovic (Womens Epée) in 2005).
van Dugteren noted there may be some additional problems related to vision (internal light reflection, lens action, risk of condensation). However, the major safety concern is what happens when the visor is changed, especially if changed by the fencer. There is no way to guarantee the safety of the mask or assess its compliance with CEN safety standards once a visor is replaced.
This is particularly serious considering the tolerance for face and head injuries is much smaller should the mask fail.
The Commission decided that without appropriate data regarding the safety of used masks it could not support transparent masks being obligatory and recommended the following decision to the COMEX:
“Although the safety of newly manufactured transparent masks homologated by the FIE is not in question, no satisfactory mechanism for assessing the on-going safety of the masks has been established. In light of the many elements that can undermine the integrity of the visor and the risk of serious life-threatening injury if a visor fails, the Medical Commission strongly recommends that the obligatory use of these transparent masks is postponed until such time as a dependable method for testing the safety of the masks with use can be established”.
The Commission also determined that more emphasis should be placed on educating athletes about the need for proper care of their transparent masks.
June 11-12, 2005
Hotel de la Paix, Lausanne, Switzerland
The full text can be found here: www.fie.ch/download/letters/2005/urgent/10/en/FIE%20MedComMinutesJune05.pdf
I have artificially imposed some paragraph breaks just for flow. No text was removed from within this except. This is just FYI
----------------------------------------------------------
Considerable discussion followed related to the new obligatory requirement for use of the transparent mask in all weapons.
Rodriguez-Rey pointed out the significant detrimental effect that making these considerably more expensive transparent masks compulsory will have on smaller, less well-funded countries.
van Dugteren noted that illegal (unsafe) transparent masks were on sale at the Cadet/Junior World Championships in Linz. It appeared as if the FIE has no control over the manufacture or sale of illegal masks as when this was pointed out to FIE officials in Linz, no action was taken.
Polycarbonate visors must be at least 3mm thick and may have no holes or notches (which would render them unsafe). It was noted that up til now transparent masks had been approved for use only in sabre where bouts are generally of short duration, and that there is little information how they will fare in lengthier foil and epée bouts.
Only 4 manufacturers' transparent masks have been approved to date after meeting the rigorous physical safety standards (CEN) and the "physiological" ventilation safety standards of the Medical Commission (Leon Paul, PBT, Negrini, Gaiardoni). However, the polycarbonate visor is susceptible to degradation by a number of common chemicals such as acetone and petrol.
Masks need considerable care (carried in special bags, visors must be discarded after 24 months, cracks must be checked for constantly). Already there have been at least 2 reports of transparent mask failures (Pascu witnessed one personally in Womens Sabre in Budapest in Jan 2004; Defoligny-Rayaume reported the same problem for Flessel-Colovic (Womens Epée) in 2005).
van Dugteren noted there may be some additional problems related to vision (internal light reflection, lens action, risk of condensation). However, the major safety concern is what happens when the visor is changed, especially if changed by the fencer. There is no way to guarantee the safety of the mask or assess its compliance with CEN safety standards once a visor is replaced.
This is particularly serious considering the tolerance for face and head injuries is much smaller should the mask fail.
The Commission decided that without appropriate data regarding the safety of used masks it could not support transparent masks being obligatory and recommended the following decision to the COMEX:
“Although the safety of newly manufactured transparent masks homologated by the FIE is not in question, no satisfactory mechanism for assessing the on-going safety of the masks has been established. In light of the many elements that can undermine the integrity of the visor and the risk of serious life-threatening injury if a visor fails, the Medical Commission strongly recommends that the obligatory use of these transparent masks is postponed until such time as a dependable method for testing the safety of the masks with use can be established”.
The Commission also determined that more emphasis should be placed on educating athletes about the need for proper care of their transparent masks.