Girls, Girls, Girls !!!

[Gravymuncher]

Interesting. What does it mean by another appropriate Body? Is that term better defined anywhere?

What makes a body appropriate to sanction a race?

I would say that any body that has the power to allow the race to go ahead and provide insurance etc for the race would be appropriate, or is there something else that would be needed?

I would have thought that that rule wouldn't stand up to any legal challenge though.

[XRunner]

Interesting. What does it mean by another appropriate Body? Is that term better defined anywhere?

What makes a body appropriate to sanction a race?

I would say that any body that has the power to allow the race to go ahead and provide insurance etc for the race would be appropriate, or is there something else that would be needed?

An Association is defined by UKA as, for example, the FRA or the NoEAA.

You are correct that anybody can organise a race. How other established or new organisations react to these events may define the future of athletics within the UK.

In the past organisations like the AAA have banned athletes who have participated in events that were organised without their jurisdiction.

[Pike]

Do Horwich RMI Harriers return the unattached levy to any Association (NoEAA, etc)?

In theory the organiser can apply an unattached levy and pocket the money.

The unattached levy at the Pike race is not returned to any Association, it's just treated as extra income from the race. The justification I was given for the levy is that it may encourage unattached runners to join a club. I disagree with having it. And why £2? It's as though it's being disguised as the road race levy, which of course it isn't.

Is the unattached levy from the Lakeland trail races similarly pocketed?

[Britta]

Is the unattached levy from the Lakeland trail races similarly pocketed?

Can't speak for the Lakeland Trail races, but we got the permit for the Grizedale Trail race from the TRA this year - didn't think paying the unattached levy to them was optional!?

The way i understand it is that the permit was free, but a £2 unattached levy has to be paid.

[david]

As has previously been stated, it has long been FRA policy that unattached levies should not be charged on races registered with the FRA. Surely a race organiser benefiting from the FRA insurance cover and also the publicity gained from the race being in the calendar should respect this?

[Trail Runner]

As has previously been stated, it has long been FRA policy that unattached levies should not be charged on races registered with the FRA. Surely a race organiser benefiting from the FRA insurance cover and also the publicity gained from the race being in the calendar should respect this?

But the FRA REFUSED to insure the Challenge aspect of the event - presumably because this catered for people walking as well as running ?

Therefore we had no option but to register the event with the TRA, which DOES cover the Challenge, and also means paying the unattached levy direct to the TRA. We have to fill out a form indicating all the unattached runners, and repay the levy accordingly.

[invisible]

We organise lots of trail races and obtain permits from TRA. We send any unattached levy to the TRA. They deduct a small charge and send back at least half the fees to us.

It means it gets back into the clubs that put on the races. If only the UKA did the same, there would be a lot of money back at the clubs and the entry fees could be slashed.

If you object to paying a levy that much, you can always (shock horror) join a club.

[XRunner]

As has previously been stated, it has long been FRA policy that unattached levies should not be charged on races registered with the FRA.

I suspect the new English registration scheme may cause the FRA to review their policy. This may be because UK:Athletics (or England Athletics) impose the rule on the FRA.

It is also very probable the only fell runners registered with England Athletics (either via a Club or with the FRA) will be eligible to compete in Championship races.