Now my missis would say that I should go for it as my legs are so short they'd probably fit!
Printable View
Now my missis would say that I should go for it as my legs are so short they'd probably fit!
They requested this at a race I ran this year, exactly the same, had to be the orange polythene version. I think it was Long Tour of Bradwell but I could be mistaken...mind, there was no kit check whatsoever at that once I got there which baffled me a little. Conditions were great but 34 miles on fells and trails is a long way to send out a group of runners unassessed in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
It is possible to kit check everybody. Whether it is worthwhile is another matter altogether and dependent on the race. But Edale Skyline and Nine Edges are two off the top of my head where you'd have a bit of a job to actually get to the start without having your kit assessed. At Nine Edges in 2010 they had a registration table with kit check right next to it, and a couple of people circulating the throng of runners asking if they had been checked. And quite right too. I missed 2011 with injury :thunbdown:
Jura kit checks at registration I think.. but I like the checking every 5 - 10 people at the end.. then you know they've ran.. even every person... as in Jura you can register than change what you carry... if you are the sort of person to run unequipped then you won't think much of that..Quote:
Originally Posted by simgreen78
So, I'm still not clear, was the item that flew over the wall at the start of Langdale this year REALLY someone's bum bag? I'd like to think it was just someone discarding an item that they didn't need and that wasn't required kit.
I didn't see anything chucked over the wall but did see a runner cut the very first corner and climb over the wall while everyone else went through the gate. From memory he was a dark peat runner too (cheaty cheats the lot of 'em). Or maybe he just had a brown running vest with a coincidental blue and yellow stripe :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr1470
I suggest the latter. (Mr Crawford did not have a bumbag at all on the day).
There is a police fell race in Wales which has a very long and comprehensive kit list and 20 years ago if you wished to do it you were obliged to run in boots and long trousers. Through debate like this (but not on a forum, they weren't invented!) the boots requirement was eventually dropped and then the long trousers a few years later. It was partly due to the efforts of some new more enlightened organisers and discussions with various entrants etc that these changes came about, but if people hadn't been prepared to discuss and question some of these things it would never have happened. I think debate about these kinds of things is good - the forum seems to be one place for it so why not? If people find particular posts/threads boring or ridiculous they are of course free to ignore them. I can never quite understand how such friendly and pleasant people at races seem to adopt a totally different personality on here - if you dont like it just ignore it and better still go for a run instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by daz h
The 3 peaks yacht race has an extensive kit list,full waterproofs,long trousers,long sleeved top,fleece jacket,survival sack,sleeping bag,first aid kit,map compas torch + spare batteries,food,whistle,pen and paper,hat,gloves and adequate footwear. which i think is a bit ecessive as most of the race is run on roads and the mountain sections are all on very well defined tracks,piece of piss nav even in thick clagg and at night.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned but I seem to remember the Four Inns kit requirements seeming a bit antiquated as well as prescriptive a couple of years back, but again, they have very good reasons for it.
yet in years i did it one team climbed Gable and another 2 teams were forced to bivi on the Ben! I know of other teams that have spent the night in Wasdale, and not just for a pint.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
the kit list now is less than it used to be :)
correct me if I'm wrong but the 4 inns like the fellsman is run by the scouts, well run and with stringent kit checks
So what do you have to do to get a decent proper ban then given the latest disciplinary hearing from langdale only gets until next March, for some one like me who might only bother racing 2 or 3 times a year (and only then if I'm persuaded) I never need to carry kit again and it wouldnt affect my racing plans.
Cheers Daz and Mike. I'll continue to chip in then :)
Without prejudging... etc etc, probably a full year, say until January 2013. The first time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
But now you have posted on here it might be viewed as a provocative act, rather than an oversight, so the FRA Committee might apply an exemplary sanction.
But this is academic. Cases are decided on the particular circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
I've done Fellsman several times and is a great race and really well organised - I dont agree with the mandatory rule of insisting on long trousers when it gets dark though :confused:. I even read of someone almost not being allowed to start one year due to not having enough tread on their shoes! (think they managed to get another pair). Someone's probably already mentioned this... Long live the Fellsman!!! (the antiquated rules do add a certain character).
I seem to remember when doing Tankys someone gave me a dog-eared card which read 'in case of emergeny ring Hope 345' - or some other 3 digit number only a few years back - now it seems it can't go ahead without the MRT on standby (although I'm told they were always involved in the past).
No one wins in a case of someone being banned for a period for not having the right kit - they look like an idiot, and the FRA look unsettlingly beurocratic.
Will, do you have Insurance? car? house? life?Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Bureacratic.
ROs want Race Insurance from the FRA. We get it for them. The FRA insurers want re-assurance that the FRA is responsible on matters like kit and that we do not allow racers to do Wasdale in flip-flops and equipped with an ice cream. Bureacratic.
But a RO doesn't have to request his race is listed in the FRA Calendar and he doesn't have to have FRA insurance. He can carry the liability himself. Not bureacratic at all.
So where are you racing next?
You're not wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
They even describe what type of underwear must be worn (no jest), and every other item of clothing.
Having said that I did ask at the kit check this year if they needed to inspect my underwear and they refused!
You always looked to be carrying a bit too much to me ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
Tour of Pendle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Although you're right - I benefit from it too and is necessary in races.
It's need is a sad result of ever increasing cases of litigation and self perpetuating - it can't be reversed. Although when I can avoid it I dont have insurance unless it's really necessary. If I injure myself because of accident etc I would not pusue legal action for recompense if something were basically my fault. Just because you can doesn't mean you should etc.
My thoughts were more directed at the public ban and how I thought it made the FRA look and my opinion is that it's a moot point whether this was necessary or not.
WillQuote:
Originally Posted by Will
It might not be about you.
When the lady died in the Welsh Reservoirs Relay it was those left behind that tried to sue the RO.
As Wheeze will confirm.
Will - Absolutely agree with Graham - insurance isn't there because of the litigious nature of our society these days, it's there in case there's an accident to someone involved in the race or to someone not involved who may be injured as a result of the race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
Of course it protects ROs from liability, but it is there for the competitors and officials as well.
I'm fortunate to have never have been involved in any claim as a RO, athlete, coach or parent, but it can happen and I'm sure there are numerous fair instances of why insurance is important.
A fair enough point WP and Graham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I forgot about this one - in 1977 we had to wear boots for this as well, so there have been some changes. Although we had to wear boots and had quite a kit list most of the actual rules still fitted on a few sheets of photocopied paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
The positive thing about the fellsman is that every single participent is kit checked. But the long trousers rule at night is bonkers as is the running shoe tread check. Tread on that route means nothing really whilst surely comfort and no blisters is far more important?Quote:
Originally Posted by Will
The other thing about the fellsman is that their teaming up after dark rule, for safety, can ironically be quite dangerous in itself. When I ran it the first time in 2009 there was a huge wind and rainstorm in the early afternoon and crucially this storm blew away the tent at the Cray checkpoint. And when I got to Cray several hours later just as it got dark, even though I was running with two others, I had to hang around for 40 minutes before we could cajole a fourth person to join our team and meet the after dark grouping requirement. The tent like I said had been blown away and in its place they had a pig/sheep transporter thingy for runners to huddle in, fully open to the then prevailing wind and I became really, really cold hanging about. I think every one is a bit different but when I'm running I get hot and stopping for anytime, especially after dark and especially when the weather's cold, I can fast become chilled to the bone. Fortunately once we had 4 we were on our way again and I warmed up but, given another 15 minutes of hanging around and I could have become seriously cold and maybe have had to pull out of the race. Mind you even that would have meant hanging around in the pig trailer even longer. The teaming up rule though is overly onerous in requiring 4 together after dark - 2 I'm sure would be fine.
I thought the baggy running top hid that but obviously not!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
[QUOTE=IanDarkpeak;446653]yet in years i did it one team climbed Gable and another 2 teams were forced to bivi on the Ben! I know of other teams that have spent the night in Wasdale, and not just for a pint.
the kit list now is less than it used to be :)
does`nt this just strengthen the argument that it should be the runners ability that should be checked and not their kit?
Where are the committee standing on the issue of runners who are too young talking on races that are too long for them, slightly separate issue but you see it all the time. How do we protect race organisers from juniors putting down the wrong age and taking on races that are too long. What happens if they are injured through doing this. Should the FRA be banning these juniors as well as they are "cheating" the RO?
The FRA Committee treats such breaches, whether it is an underage runner (or the parent) or the RO, seriously and, without being specific on here, "action" has been taken in several cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
The FRA Committee may take "whatever action is deemed necessary" (subject to appeal to UKA) and the procedure is set out on page 114 of the Calendar.
GB
I know that, this time i was actually sticking up for the committee. I know there is a procedure in place I just wondered if it was happening and whether there was any reporting of it or whether its likley to be behind closed doors so to speak. Its just that with the proliferation of photos to look at these days its a lot easier to spot juniors after the race rather than just spotting a name in a result list. Photos from this years FTOP and Clay Bank West are fine examples. My sympathy is for the ROs if they have been "had"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clash City Rocker
Interesting this one, I would say that if a junior and parent deliberately hid the facts from the RO then I agree with Graham whole heartedly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
But is there a case for some discretion where a top junior approaches a RO with parental consent and ask's permission laying all the facts and experience before him/her? How else do they gain experience in harder races. I can think of 3 or 4 juniors in the peak who are more than capable of racing 20+ miles, one did a bg Last year and another has run the 50 mile boundary run since he was 14.
yet another was allowed to run round a medium but not enter the race, he would have come in the top 10 had he been allowed to enter.
I certainly see the point of protecting the youth from harm and parental pressure, just wondered what the thoughts are from Graham and the youth coaches out there, Discuss
Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
Ian,
The Rules are UKA rules. The FRA will not allow discretion because everyone claims to be a "special case". The FRA view is on page 8 of the Summer Fellrunner.
We appreciate the difficulty a RO may have and we know of cases where the junior lied about his age on the entry form, or persuaded the RO to let him run and we have contacted ROs in the past warning them of the need to be vigilant. A sanction against a RO could include the FRA refusing the race insurance and excluding all his/her events from future Calendars.
GB
Ok fair comment, I can see the logic in that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
IDP I am with GB on this as history will show a succession of juniors approaching whatever the next age limit pleading their own inborn uniqueness to be able to run ever increasing distances better than anyone else ever has. History does not however detail their steady progression from successful juniors to successful senior very often. Why because in the words of the Specials they have "done too much much too young" and are burned out and knackered. As coaches of juniors we have a responsibility to protect them from their biggest danger - themselves (excluding pushy parents as thats a given). I have no problem with juniors training over longer distances within reason (I would question what a 50 mile boundary run is doing to someones body as they develop) and indeed would seek to build this into plans where appropriate as there is a different purpose to this and its not done at race pace so is less likely to be harmful.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
I have been involved in a few of this year's transgressions; some unintentional through ignorance of the 1st January rule by competitor and/or RO (which is no defence of course), and one quite deliberate as referred to by Graham. By various means, RO of championship races and their registration teams are being reminded of the age qualification and distance limits rules, and the need to check date of birth, rather than just accept an entry for a particular age group. Many adults accompanying young runners at races assume that, as for seniors, 'age on the day' is the determining factor.
Sharp eyed readers of the Pennine Bridleway Relay rules may have noticed that the definition of minimum age for the under 6 mile leg 4 is now quite explicit, and refers to the UKA rules. As elsewhere there should be no excuses for entering under age runners. If this is the lengths that RO have to go to, then so be it.
However this year, I have been asked by more than one parent, why they cannot sign a disclaimer for senior races to 'let the RO off the hook' in the event of an incident involving their under age child. This fails to recognise that a third party can bring an action against an RO in a court of law, and demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of how the law can be applied, over and above any UKA rules or bits of paper.
I agree with FJ.. we were warned about this when we allowed under 18's on our evening runs, even though the parents consented, we were actually warned that should an accident happen a third party, for example their school, could come after us. We allowed them along, but a training run is less formal than a race and they were never left unattended... well we did lose one of them once... but not for long...
Good Grief! Stop the Press. I think we've finally found something that we all agree on! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
It's also fair to say that if you allow someone in a race under age, after they have signed a disclaimer, as an RO what would happen then if that under age child caused an injury to another runner.
I could see the RO in deep water there, having already signed up to the Safety Requirements that dictate the accepted age limits.
However, with my other hat firmly on, there is ample evidence that some of the race limits, not just for fell, but for endurance runners progressing through their teens are ill judged.
A young endurance runner of say 14 would be far less likely to come to any grief in say a 4 mile trail race such as they have in Astley Park Chorley, than in a sprint hurdles race.
I also often see 10K race where they have age limit at 16 or 17, when UKA rules state 15.
I actually think that fell running gets it about right with the age and distances. But the closest comparison is XC - our U13 Girls are running around 2.5km / 1.5 mile cross country races in flat parks and yet can run up to 3 miles on fell terrain a U14s.
Two points:Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
1. I believe UKA are currently considering age/distance limits. I think the FRA will comment on the differences between, say, a fell race and a road race ie "apples and oranges".
2. "Hard cases make bad law" as in "Ian Holmes ran a marathon when he was 16 or something and it didn't do him any harm". Well, maybe not, but there is only one Ian Holmes, hindsight is always 20:20 and we can only have one rule. Not one rule for the weak and another for prodigies.
I agree on the above points. What I would say is that we treat our young endurance runners with kid gloves in T&F and Cross Country. Talking to an old grandee of endurance running who coaches and has a sub 4 mile to his name, he thinks 1 track session a week up to U15, a bit of grass work and some drills is all that's needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
He will talk of burnout, over-training injuries etc, but he only has a couple of adult athletes.
Back to fell specific, ROs have to take the ultimate responsibility, but clubs, coaches and parents have to bear their part.
I had my first taste of the Bunny Runs last year and will be back again - great event, great fun and the juniors that went over thoroughly enjoyed it.
But I know there were U10s in the races at times and certainly quite a few U12s. I nearly fell over some of them as they had a tendency to sprint off and then die a death after 150m as we hit the narrow climb.
Whether Dave knew, I don't know, but parents knew, coaches knew and they are all compromising the RO, the athlete who is too young and the safety of all the other athletes who have to be wary of youngsters who are sometimes below waist height to them.
How would the Mum or Dad of a 9 year old reacted had I tripped over them and knocked them head first in to a rock?
Well not themselves because they are are responsible parents and not their little darling, obviously, and not Dave 'cos he walks on water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
That leaves just you Richard.
I'm afraid you'll have to explain yourself here - your statement doesn't make any sense - well what not themselves?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sara