New safety rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I agree. Always Injured does have some very good points, and I'm sure that these are being listened to. but using words such as pathogenic is spoiling what is a very useful argument.

It isn't easy creating guidelines which will satisfy all requirements in matters such as this, and I know that there is a lot of hard work going on in the background, so please contribute constructively and try to avoid winding people up. (Difficult on a forum, I know!)

---

The point I am trying to make (perhaps badly) is there must have been 100 occurrences of the word "MUST" implying that an overriding mindset is the need to "lay down the law". I have never seen a document quite so agressive and opressive in tone.

Proper safety documentation is NEVER like that.
It imposes duties to consider "suitable and sufficient" means to reduce risks in as far as is "reasonably practicable" and stresses duties to "supervise and train". It does not mandate (ever since the factories acts) because in the real world mandates can never foresee the huge variety of circumstances. Guidance notes are just that - they suggest how things could be done, or sometimes should be done unless reasons otherwise, recognising they can rarely mandate safely.

I have however pointed out many times - that whilst we have had "hypothermic" problems, we have yet to have had the inevitable "catastrophic injury" on a course hazard. It is only a matter of time. Simple what if games on langdale and anni waltz show that it is errant nonsense to imply that courses are warranted in any degree free of or limited risk: quite the reverse.

So you can only conclude one of two things.
(a) the what if games are not being done
(b) the outcome is not being treated seriously enough

So why - despite repeated requests - is the nonsense about courses still in the rules? The essential duty is to highlight the hazards, not to dump an RO with job of trying to warrant them as less than dangerous

Also Take the mandate to return directly to RaceHQ as withdrawal , and the RO is responsible for your safety whilst you do that.
No what if game can have been played on that.
If I am hypothermic and or injured, I WILL go to the nearest place I think is safe and or I hope to find assistance, before contacting/going to race HQ. And in doing it I just broke the rules! And I do not care how well meaning a volunteer was in drafting it, I will argue progressively more agressively until the rule is changed to common sense!

I have recieved rather more abuse here, than I have ever been responsible for!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wynn

Im through.
Goodbye waltz, now out of the calendar
Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
they know my race does not comply, and yours don't either.
but since so many are signing up they couldn't care less
hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging

---

This is very sad news, and should surely make some of those dismissing concerns raised here as "scaremongering" to sit up and think again. Or at least prompt them to offer an explanation as to why they believe such concerns can be so lightheartedly dismissed.

As an aside, I had always fancied organising a race and had planned to do so one day, but there's no chance in hell I will be with things like they are at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

So in fact you disagree with the old anonymous coward.... Because AI isn't all talk.. he's made some great points. OK in a long statements but he's talked a lot of sense and been sniped at by many with unnecessary contributions which have added nothing.

As Wynn has demonstrated there are real consequences to the new rules. I do see why they have been brought in but the debate has been healthy. Too accuse someone who disagrees as 'winding people up' is unhealthy in the extreme.

---

No problems with disagreement, Iain, that's what the forum's for.

Pathogenic means "capable of causing disease" - not a useful word to use when describing people who are trying very hard to cater for all the angles.

By and large this is a good thread, much better than some I've seen in the past. And it is useful input to the work which, I remind you, is still ongoing.

I wasn't intending to stifle argument, simply trying to ensure that what's written here doesn't simply turn off the very people who need to read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Pathogenic means "capable of causing disease" - not a useful word to use when describing people who are trying very hard to cater for all the angles.

---

It can also refer to some psychological states, or is that "pathological" as in the context used. But you are right - I should not have used it. Mea Culpa. I should have said "compelling need to lay down the law" which is not how safety documents normally read.

Ok these are my reasons for not entering our races in the calendar.
1. There is no way we can comply with the current rules..... It could be said that we haven't in all the time we've organised them.....
however I wonder what the case would be against the FRA when it can be proved that they encouraged RO's to enter races knowing that they didn't comply to the said rules
2. After seeing UKA's dealings at the inquest it would be difficult to believe they would ever be on our side if we had an incident.... Added to that that the chairman of the FRA thinks race organisers are fools and idiots.... It don't say a lot for how much support will be forth coming.
3. This made me really mad. When the committee comes out with the statement after putting the new draft rules on the web "I trust it will allow you to subtly bludgeon any recalcitrant RO's I into submission. By the 31st"
4. Again from a committee maybe " we'll be sad to lose your race but we have plenty of other ones" " but they're non compliant too" "few of them are"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fhithich

....... which essentially meant a claimant could cherry pick any or all of the members to sue if the "organiser" was proved negligent. ................

Mick Garratt

---

It is beginning to smell like the massive whiplash claim scam in motoring. Runners will be running to their lawyers to put in a claim for going over their ankle soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ydt

It is beginning to smell like the massive whiplash claim scam in motoring. Runners will be running to their lawyers to put in a claim for going over their ankle soon.

---

It is less the voluntary claim from a fell runner that is worrying, I doubt they will, it is when criminal/coroner investigations conclude negligence, that lead to family civil claims that is the disaster waiting to happen, as was a possible outcome recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wynn

Ok these are my reasons for not entering our races in the calendar.
1. There is no way we can comply with the current rules..... It could be said that we haven't in all the time we've organised them.....
however I wonder what the case would be against the FRA when it can be proved that they encouraged RO's to enter races knowing that they didn't comply to the said rules
2. After seeing UKA's dealings at the inquest it would be difficult to believe they would ever be on our side if we had an incident.... Added to that that the chairman of the FRA thinks race organisers are fools and idiots.... It don't say a lot for how much support will be forth coming.
3. This made me really mad. When the committee comes out with the statement after putting the new draft rules on the web "I trust it will allow you to subtly bludgeon any recalcitrant RO's I into submission. By the 31st"
4. Again from a committee maybe " we'll be sad to lose your race but we have plenty of other ones" " but they're non compliant too" "few of them are"

---

wow

very sorry to hear this (((Wynn)))

surely the loss of one of the best races in the calendar must prompt a re-think?

it seems to me that one of the problems is the attempt to get all this sorted so the calendar can go out at the normal time

can it not be put back a couple of months?

or keep the old rules for another year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ydt

It is beginning to smell like the massive whiplash claim scam in motoring. Runners will be running to their lawyers to put in a claim for going over their ankle soon.

---

I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand.

We recently had an incident at an event. It was a road event. An athlete attended first aid having claimed to have been hit by a car.
First Aid flagged it up as suspicious as there was no evidence of injury and they suspected that this might be a bit of a scam. No one had seen any such incident.
We haven't heard anything since - touchwood.

We've all heard about the guy from Sunderland who cheated in the Kielder Marathon (I think) and I've also had a Vet runner join our RV10K between 6 & 7K in order to scoop a prize and become highest ranked Vet in his age group for 10K.

If people are prepared to do that for minor prize money or accolades, they may be prepared to throw themselves of Catbells and break an ankle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

No problems with disagreement, Iain, that's what the forum's for.

Pathogenic means "capable of causing disease" -
.

---

Thanks for that Alan.. my PhD was on the pathology of fishery stresses.. I'm very aware of the meaning of the word.

But comments such as Fell Gazelles 'mountains heed no rules' are useless.. they may not but courts do.. which is why the FRA are dealing with this and why people are concerned. The anonymous old man just snipes, like the grump, yet has added nothing. AI has been long winded but has added a lot with a lot of personal abuse.