Just about puts all of this into perspective. Brave words nicely spoken. Thank you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
Printable View
Just about puts all of this into perspective. Brave words nicely spoken. Thank you for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
Quote:
Originally Posted by gazb
I cannot speak for her, but I suspect if FRA would talk to wynn, and treat her with the respect she deserves, and actually listen to her concerns and work around them with her, instead of talking down to her, calling her " recalcitrant" , telling her to stay in line, then fences could perhaps be mended. She was ballistic over recent unhelpful exchanges, I have never heard her quite so angry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
However, I can say as someone who has been involved in serious athletics, it is not the " UKA" way to listen , instead to " bludgeon" into consent , which is not just a top management thing, it is endemic at all tiers of blazer brigade, and pervades the organisations connected. That is to Hand down dictats " you MUST" and ignore or ridicule the concerns of those who actually have to do the job - and worse - to silence people from speaking out where possible. It created a furore amongst national coaches and athletes when this kind of nonsense came in over a decade ago, but they had them by the short and curlies. " You want to be a national athlete or coach , you do as we say and shut up, we have the final say even on your athletes coaching" It is not just the UK, it is sports officialdom everywhere - take the stupidity surrounding Kim Collins. officialdom generally seems more interested in authority and who wields it, rather than the common sense of any decisions that arise. I suspect most RO who read UKA recent testimony would have second thoughts about the reality of "support" from that direction, and certainly have second thoughts about daring to be one.
It is not just FRA rules that are of concern here, but that UKA are citing " best practise" in court cases for things not only most RO will have never heard of, but are probably unworkable in fell running too - take "marshall doing recording to have their backs to the oncoming runners" Whoever wrote that was seemingly unaware that in clag and because of route choice, runners can come from several directions, or any direction. I know stuff like that has spooked her too, and I bet it would be news to most RO !! Which is why that testimony MUST be given circulation
Bridges can be mended perhaps, but I suspect attitudes need to change first. FRA should listen to her, not " tell" her how it is going to be.
For one thing all our races are different, so some of of the rules are too prescriptive. Wynn has a job to register runners, check them out and in, and she has a timeproven formula for doing it. If it works, do not try to fix it. If her system ( eg non consecutive numbering) does not comply, change the rules, not the system.
Corporate legislation/ safety documentation might say in that case she should:
"Operate a suitable and sufficient system to achieve the following:
(a) identify runners uniquely via a waterproof code , mark, or number
(b) confirm by both count and identity the runners who start the race
(c) confirm by count and identity the runners who finish the race
(d) In all long races and where possible in others take a physical record of those complete ( eg collect number or tag)
(e) check that evidence of starters against record of completers
(f) because it is accepted that counting processes are fallible, organisers should Use at least two independent counts of each of ( b) and ( c)
Some alternative methods for these can be found in guidance notes, but is for the RO to decide the specific methods appropriate for the race."
Then having told hew what she has to achieve, let wynn decide what numbers to use, the marshalls needed and their jobs, indeed whether to prefer wristbands to numbers for example.
Safety legislation does not in general mandate method, generally only objectives and issues to consider, so it does not usurp responsibility to consider the unusual details of the specific task in hand.
In the end if you want the RO to be responsible, you have to hand them authority, not just responsibility. If FRA prescribe the how, they also become responsible for the consequence and failings of doing it that way. Safety legislation tries to leave the responsibility with an organiser, and in essence their risk assessment is what leads to what should be done.
On a related aside, can I suggest that this is such an important issue that the committee appoints a " safety officer" whose job is to keep abreast of such matters, recommending changes in the light of events: also that person should be a current or ex safety professional, or someone who has had a lot of exposure to that area.
The problems with the last changes arise from acting quickly dictated by outside events.
(a) we were bounced into the first revision my view unwisely which was done in too much of a knee jerk reaction - rather than wait to see how things played out - The timing dictated by that incident.
(b) this revision has come out of the inquest timing whilst hard up against deadlines
In between catastrophies nothing seems to happen, which is how we allowed rules which were non compliable, but no focus was there to change or upgrade them again.
A safety officer can review what we have - break it up into separate documents
( a lot think is needed) - coordinate with other similar bodies, talk to RO and third parties, and review what they do, that way come up with a more considered version whilst not against deadlines, to get the right answer rather than a quick answer. That way it all gets reviewed ( not necessarily changed ) every yesr.
Good idea?
I nominate fellhound.
This is my first post on the mammoth thread, mostly prompted by the loss of one of my favourite races (AW), so forgive me if this has been covered before.
I have clicked on the link about the new regs and found this:
COURSE DESIGN
"Compulsory sections MUST NOT include hazards...."
A hazard is potential source of harm! If you are in the mountains in any capacity, you are exposed to hazards. It is the RISK MANAGEMENT that needs to be talked about. All races include hazards and will therefore be non-compliant. I dearly hope the authors understand the difference between 'Hazard' and 'Risk'.
On another note, who fancies a 'run' in the lakes around Easter. We could meet say in Stair for example and jog round about 11.5 miles?
Good idea - but the obvious person for the job is you! You obviously have all the knowledge, experience and capabilities for the job, and just think of the disk space we'd save on the server!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
;):confused::eek::cool:?
Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
;);););) Sooner be a sniper??Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysunInsured
Not at all but people who have " run their own show" become largely unemployable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph Hooker
I have always found collegiate responsibility for decisions I do not like very hard to do when there are legal consequences for decisions.
For the most part I have owned or run businesses for the last 30 years till semi retiring a few years ago. On the rare cases I took paid directorships ( and / or consultant advisor ) either designate, or one occasion legal, it ended in tears. I could not sit idly by, as a board intended to take an action which clearly ( no scope for argument here) would make the company both technically and eventually actually insolvent: worse the chair decided tried to halt discussion when we had a legal duty to discuss it. Whilst I was only designate, shortly to become a legal director, I would certainly have been seen as a shadow director. After serious arguments I left a month later - as it was my dissent led them to do it a different way, but too much bad blood had been spilt by then,
On the one occasion I went along as a designate director in another company with decisions I thought both underhand and dangerous, and it was being kept from other investors. Blame was later deflected to me in the eyes of a main shareholder for something I had clearly opposed internally, but I kept the dissent private, biting my lip. I should have spoken out. In a small company it is also far easier to point at the " directing minds" to blame, when negligence rears its ugly head. It did not go there, but that is another story.
I find " collegiate " hard, it has bitten me on the backside before now.
I would not have been able to bite my lip after hearing UKA testimony recently, whatever the consequences.
For big company guys like fellhound it is a fact of life.
That is from an old draft ie not finalQuote:
Originally Posted by toppolecat
The only version that matters will be the one we will all read in the 2014 Calendar just before Christmas.
We are still in October.
Document control. again rearing its head! ... And but for the dissent on this thread, that WOULD have been in the rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan of Arc
Does it not worry anyone but me that Langdale is clearly not compliant in even the latest draft, yet it was ( knowingly ) allowed to run? Event the most optimistic interpretation of what is there rules langdale out.
Strange that we should want a set of rules that dump one of our major races deep in the poo! And it is so unnecessary to word it that way. I have largely given up repeating the obvious with that. Nobody seems to care.
Just the same as pretending marshalling, communications and tracking could ever be perfect in the old rules, knowing they were not. It is storing up a disaster looking for somewhere to hapoen, and an RO for it to happen to!