I believe the attendees CAN sue and get around the Disclaimer.
Intentional torts require some level of intent to be committed, such as the intent to batter someone. Negligence torts don’t require intent to harm but require some level of carelessness or neglect. Strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness. In fact, if strict liability applies, it is irrelevant how carelessly, or how carefully, the defendant acted. It doesn’t matter if the defendant took every precaution to avoid harm—if someone is harmed in a situation where strict liability applies, then the defendant is liable.
Since this rule can have harsh consequences, it applies in a only few limited circumstances. One of those circumstances is when the defendant is engaged in an ultrahazardous activity. An ultrahazardous activity is one that is so inherently dangerous that the risk to human life is great if anything wrong happens, so the person carrying out the ultrahazardous activity is held strictly liable for those activities. Transporting dangerous chemicals or nuclear waste, for example, is inherently dangerous. If the chemicals spill, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent injury to property or persons. Similarly, businesses that use dynamite, such as building demolition crews, run the risk that no matter how careful they are, people or property could be damaged by intentionally igniting dynamite. Therefore, strict liability applies.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/montgomerycollege-masterybusinesslaw3/chapter/strict-liability-in-business/#:~:text=An%20ultrahazardous%20activity%20is%20one,strictly%20liable%20for%20those%20activities.&text=Therefore%2C%20strict%20liability%20applies.
Asking spectators into a venue that is so inherently dangerous that they cannot possibly assume the risk of harm makes this situation a class action strict liability tort.
= new reply since forum marked as read
