Originally Posted by
alwaysinjured
I presume you meant "no bad thing" not "now bad thing"
And I have to disagree.
I largely stayed out of the argument at the time of the union, whilst having every reason to be on the anti "UKA" side , I did not, I simply cautioned that UKA graded officialdom could never work for us.
Races would end up cancelled due to lack of officials.
Having seen UKA testimony the link is now demonstrably a bad thing for as long as they demand superiority rather than subservience to FRA in the relationship.
Their expectation and misunderstanding over what is possible in reality is dangerous for all RO. I also think that that link can and has compromised FRA from speaking its own mind and expressing reservations in similar incidents if they occur again.
It speaks volumes (at least to me) that FRA did not apparently use any and every means to contest vociferously the UKA citing of an overcount (and similar thinks like inevitable failing radio coverage) as a failure of duty when in reality the fact that several marshalls did agree with only one dissenting number (actually over by 2) is actually good marshalling for which the RO should have been commended - and a normality on a public courses where runners can come through who have nothing to do with the race. ie the marshalling was good, but made to look bad , in my view because of a difference in perception of what is really possible.
And radios are unreliable. Even if they work at 10am, there is no guarantee they work at 11am if the temperature and humidity pattern shifts, and even less guarantee you can hear what is said in the wind! or on a mobile! You would not believe they were unreliable if you read the testimony on the matter.
It is in my view a cultural problem , where UKA expect an RO to have and exert total control over every event and course and conditions, which cannot happen in fell running. I again ask FRA to publish that testimony to let readers make up their own mind. In my view that is not "bad faith" by UKA, but they simply do not understand our sport or the realities of fell running, and our very poor rulebook did the rest in giving them and the world a false view of it. Sure mistakes were made, and lessons need to be learned - but there was a lot presented as poor practise which was not, and UKA did not present (in my view) a balanced view at all, which is the danger for a body that does not understand our sport. If you read the police witness testimony and compared it with the UKA - you would wonder in parts of it if you were reading about the same event!. For as long as we are coupled to them UKA will be summoned as "experts" and that is a problem.
That is only my opinion but it is shared by many others who have read the documents. I suggest others hold their judgement until they have the documents on which to make such assessment.
Right now we are discussing rules. And to me the way the rules and expectation from them are used in court hearings is a serious issue.
It is not just UKA who are the problem, it is athlete perception. For as long as UKA are seen to be "governing" the expectation of every road runner is to get similar support and monitoring that they have on the road (and to chuck litter everywhere!) and to expect that the risks are no more than a road race. UKA are not to "Blame" for that perception- it is in essence true of road or track running. It is the link to the different sport of fell running causing the problem.
SHRA and WFRA have rightly chosen to recognise the problems in that linkage and plough their own furrow.
No doubt that will be seen that my contest to the problems in rules will now be stated as motivated by anti uka as though that had any bearing. It is not. The rules were genuinely bad, which is why the coroner mentioned a breach of tracking, which should not have been stated in the rules with any such certainty to begin with. To anyone who thinks that my opinion of UKA has any bearing, I suggest they read "straw man argument" as a falacy of critical thinking.
