Mistlites aren't waterproof, neither the keks nor the coyt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wycoller
Printable View
Mistlites aren't waterproof, neither the keks nor the coyt.Quote:
Originally Posted by wycoller
They do not have to be. Under the rules. From what I recollect they have to be "marketed as waterproof" which they clearly are.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
Taped seams could be the problem, but the rules should not reference technology or construction which changes.
Again, poor drafting creates confusion.
"Waterproof to or in excess of 10000 head, and marketed as such" eliminates confusion., and sets a verifiable standard.
For what its worth I totally agree with AI as an engineer myself and with some knowledge/qualification in H&S ,a badly worded legal document just opens you up for all sorts of problems.you could compare it with a self written Will, where a savy solicitor would pull it to threads and your estate doesn't go to your intended recipient.
Rubbish!!Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
I've been following this thread with interest and AI makes some very valid points which would be folly to ignore now. He has also made them eloquently and in a non-confrontational way which is to his credit.
As Iain mentions the forum is about two way communications so I hope the committee are taking note - afterall the committee are there to repressent the views and wishes of the membership and should respond accordingly.
Why don't those with all the knowledge and expertise that seem to be on the forum rewrite the rules so that they are lawyer proof and then send a copy to the FRA Committee for their approval, rather than asking the "amateurs" of the FRA committee to rewrite the rules again?
If the rules were to be re-written by the FRA Committee you can be sure that someone on here will still complain about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wycoller
They're great and 5 years ago they used to be waterproof (although not having taped seams they were never sufficient for a mountain marathon), but the meaning of waterproof has moved on ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
But thank you for proving my point, that the FRA needs to make people aware of this one (the majority of vocal people on here apparently think it is obvious and needs no explanation).
And yes they are in practice waterproof (enough) as many of us know from extreme weather outings; they wouldn't have been top of my list to replace/upgrade.
The new rules are for next year, so they should pass a kit check this year, unless the RO specifies waterproof and sticks rigorously to the new definition with taped seams even on your leggings, which would be mean if you ask me.
Personally I think kit checks should allow slightly substandard kit with a warning for an interim period. Not sure that ROs would be comfortable with that though.
And this has already been discussed a few pages back and in the equipment section.
To be fair on those suggesting a re-write (albeit only recently and after the consultation window has passed, which is far from ideal, but nevertheless probably worthy of a listen): I believe they are not suggesting that another bunch of 'amateurs' (i.e. forumites) re-write it, but rather that the FRA as a Ltd company, like any other reasonable Ltd company, employ/engage a legal professional (with appropriate professional indemnity) to re-write it in more robust legalise, particularly if the overriding intention of the new rules is to increase (in a reasonable manner) the all-round protection for all Stakeholders. (FRA, RO, Competitors, etc); actual physical protection as well as litigation protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Is that a fairer summary e-assessment of the last few days?
****
PS. On a lighter note, I will now noisily disappear from this thread. BURP! (I couldn't find a suitable noisy emoticon).
Here you go Lecky ;)
I was asked to make an email submission around the rules, race specs and how they are framed of which this is a part made some time ago. I received no acknowledgement and no feedback.
Perhaps you'll give it a once over and let me know.
FELL AND HILL RUNNING RULES
RULE 400 DEFINITION OF TERMS
(1) An ‘‘official UKA Fell Race’’ is one held under UKA Rules for
Competition.
(2) Race Categories
A fell race is one run on fell, hill or mountain terrain and shall be categorised
as follows:
Category A
(a) Should average not less than 50m of climb per km.
(b) Should not have more than 20% of the race distance on road.
(c) Should be at least 1.5km in length.
Category B
(a) Should average not less than 25m of climb per km.
(b) Should not have more than 30% of the race distance on road.
Category C
(a) Should average not less than 20m of climb per km.
(b) Should not have more than 40% of the distance on road.
(c) Should contain some genuine fell terrain.
International Races
International races affiliated to the World Mountain Running Association,
and selection races organised by National Associations for International Races.
(3) Race Length Categories
(a) A Category ‘‘L’’ (long) race is 20km or over.
(b) A Category ‘‘M’’ (medium) race is over 10km but less than 20km.
(c) A Category ‘‘S’’ (short) race is 10km or less.
(4) Clubs
A Club as referred to in these Rules indicates a Club which is affiliated to
UKA or one of its constituent bodies.
(5) National Committees
For the purpose of these rules the term ‘‘National Committees’’ refers to:
(a) Fell Runners’ Association Ltd. (England)
(b) Scottish Athletics Ltd. Hill Running Commission
(c) Welsh Athletics Ltd.
(d) Northern Ireland Mountain Running Association
Fell Running Rules
RULE 401 GENERAL
Rules 1–24 apply to all Fell Running competitions held under UKA Rules.
RULE 402 CLUBS
A Fell Running Club is defined as one which annually declares to the
appropriate Association that it intends to compete in team competition in Fell Running events.
-0
RULE 403 OPEN EVENTS
(i)Open Fell races must be advertised and decided under these Rules.
Appropriate entry forms must be used for all individual entries. Inter-Club races
for which no entry fee is charged are not considered Open Events.
(ii) All official UKA Fell Races must be registered with one of the National
Committees. The registration shall be effected by supplying to the nominated
officer of the relevant body details of the race on the form provided and by its
subsequent appearance in a published calendar /fixture list /magazine supplement.
A nominal charge may be made to cover calendar publication expenses
and race insurance.
RULE 404 ENTRIES
(1) All entries must include the full name, address, date of birth and
affiliated Club of the competitor unless unattached.
(2) Upon changing surname competitors must, for one year, insert both
names on all entry forms.
RULE 405 INFRINGEMENTS
No athlete shall join a fell race who is not qualified to compete.
Athletes infringing this rule shall be liable to expulsion from any race under the
jurisdiction of UKA and could render their Club liable to disqualification.
RULE 406 THE START
The start should be signalled by the firing of a gun or other similar apparatus.
An athlete crossing the starting line before the starting signal is given shall be liable to disqualification.
RULE 407 AGE GROUPS
For Junior Championships and other Junior races young athletes are grouped into age
categories. The Competition Year extends from 1st January to 31st December in
the same year.
(i) Under 12 Boys and Girls. Fell competitions for Under 12’s shall be confined to competitors
who are aged 10 or 11 on the 31st December prior to the commencement of the competition year as defined above.
(ii) Under 14 Boys and Girls. Fell competitions for Under 14’s shall be confined to competitors
who are aged 12 or 13 on the 31st December prior to the commencement of the competition year as defined above.
(iii) Under 16 Boys and Girls. Fell competitions for Under 16’s shall be confined to competitors
who are aged 14 or 15 on the 31st December prior to the commencement of the competition year as defined above.
(iv) Under 18 Boys and Girls. Fell competitions for Under 18’s shall be confined to competitors
who are aged 16 or 17 on the 31st December prior to the commencement of the competition year as defined above.
(v) Senior Men and Women
A Senior is a competitor who is aged at least 18 on the date of the competition
(vi) Senior Open Races are age on day of race and juniors who meet this criteria are then able to run in the Open Senior Race so long as the race does not exceed the distances set out in rule 408
(vii) A veteran is a man or a woman aged 40 or over on the date of competition.
RULE 408 MAXIMUM DISTANCES
(i)Up and Down Races
Age Group Maximum distance
Under 12 years 3000 metres
Under 14 years 5000 metres
Under 16 years 7000 metres
Under 18 years 10000 metres
Seniors Unlimited
(ii)Uphill Only Races
Age Group Maximum distance
Under 12 years 2000 metres
Under 14 years 4000 metres
Under 16 years 5000 metres
Under 18 years 6000 metres
Seniors Unlimited
RULE 409 TEAM SCORING
The team scoring the least number of points, according to the positions in
which the members of the team finish whose positions are to count, shall be the
winner; the positions of the non-scoring members of a team, whether it finishes
all of its members or not, shall be scored in computing the totals of the other
teams. In the event of a tie on points, the team whose last scoring member
finishes nearest first place shall determine the result.
RULE 410 MIXED COMPETITION
Licences for mixed competitions will be considered provided all competitors
are 17 years or over.
RULE 411 RELAY COMPETITIONS
In fell relay races where a team includes a runner who has already
run a stage of the race, that team shall not, subject to the entry conditions of the
race, be included in the results. Competitors must compete within their respective
age groups as defined in Rule 407.
RULE 412 TEAM RACES
An Open Team Race is one open to all affiliated Clubs within a defined
geographical area. All scoring members must be eligible first claim members of
that Club.
RULE 413 REGISTRATION Of Fell Running LEAGUES
All Fell Running Leagues must be registered with the respective National
Association, setting out its Constitution, together with the names, addresses and
telephone numbers of its Officers. These details must be updated immediately
following each Annual General Meeting of that League. Before any new Fell Running Leagues are formed at any level, the organisers must apply to the
appropriate National Association prior to commencing activities. The application
must identify the aims and objectives of the League and include a copy of the
draft or agreed Constitution, together with the names and addresses of those
persons intending to establish that League.
RULE 414 TRANSPONDER TIMING
(1) The use of transponder timing systems is permitted provided that:
(a) the system requires no action by an athlete during the competition, at
the finish or at any stage in the result processing.
(b) the weight of the transponder and its housing carried on the athlete’s
uniform,race number or shoe is not significant.
(c) none of the equipment used at the start, along the course or at the
finish line constitutes a significant obstacle or barrier to the progress
of the athlete.
(2) At the finish the athletes shall still be placed in order in which any part of
their bodies (i.e. the torso as distinguished from head, neck, arms, hands, feet and
legs )reaches the vertical plane of the nearer edge of the finish line. The Referee
shall be final arbiter regarding the finishing order of the athletes.
(3) In competitions where the event promoter chooses to use a transponder
timing system, each competitor must wear the necessary equipment, as directed
by the event promoter. Failure to wear the necessary equipment as issued may
result in disqualification.
RULE 415 : OBJECTIONS AND APPEALS
(1) Any runner or affiliated Club objecting to the conduct or the result of a
race shall raise that objection with the Race Referee immediately after the event
or immediately the results are displayed.
(2) (a) If the results are not available at the conclusion of the event, then
such an appeal may be made at any time up until 14 days after the
publication of the results.
(b) In such cases the appeal should be made to the Race Referee through
the Meeting Organiser.
(3) The decision of the Referee shall be final.
(4) If, as a result of an appeal under (i) above, a runner is disqualified or the
race result otherwise altered, the Referee shall inform the Meeting Organiser of
that amended result, in writing, within 14 days. The Meeting Organiser must then
inform the individual(s) affected by the decision and, if required, take steps to
recover prizes or awards made to the athlete(s).
It wouldn't let me post all in one, so here's the end bit.
RULE 416 : Safety Requirements
Official UKA Fell Races must be organised to comply with the Mountain
Running Advisory Group’s Safety Requirements.
RULE 417 Additional Rules
All competitors must obey any additional rules drawn up by the race
organisers for that particular fell race.
RULE 418 RETIREMENT FROM A RACE
All competitors must ensure that if they retire from a fell race for any reason
the fact is reported immediately to the race officials, including those at the finish.
Race organisers MUST report infringements to this Rule to the appropriate
National Secretary.
RULE 419 DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES
Upon notification of the breaking of any UKA Rule at an official UKA Fell
Race by competitors or organisers, the relevant National Committee is
empowered to take whatever corrective action is deemed necessary. There is a
right of appeal to the UKA Mountain Running Advisory Group. The following
time scales shall be adhered to in any such process:
(a) Notification shall be in writing to the relevant National Secretary
within fourteen days of the event in question.
(b) The relevant National Committee shall investigate and conclude its
findings and make a decision within seven weeks of the event in
question.
(c) Notification of the National Committee’s decision will be given to
the parties concerned within eight weeks of the event in question.
The above are maximum time scales; the process should be expedited as
rapidly as possible, hopefully in a briefer time-span than above.
I'm sure that is very interesting, but somewhat irrelevant to the issue of the safety requirements, which is what I believe this thread is about.
The section about Transponders (414) would stop organisers from using SportIdent. Some think this is a cost effective extra measure that would add to safety. As other transponder units can't easily be carried to the top of a mountain and cost thousands, they are not yet appropriate, to my mind - and I've looked into them.
OK Lecky I haven't done as you asked, but it's relevant because the establishment is miffed because they've gone through a "process" and come up with a piece of work that is getting a rather mixed reception.
It also seems that they are miffed that people who chose not to contribute via the desired email method are voicing opinions now.
I'm just trying to give an example of how people who might be quite willing to contribute and perhaps are in a position to do so with a little experience behind them might be unwilling to do so due to previous experiences.
Bear in mind I've was asked to make a contribution,I didn't just volunteer it and yet I heard nothing in response.
I'd rather see these guidelines scrapped. I don't care how they are written, it is nigh on impossible to write guidance notes that can cover the diverse range of events that are Fell Running. I don't see how they help me as an RO.
Ah!Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
I knew that one day having a (proper) University Degree and being a Chartered Engineer with two professional institutions would be useful and it appears that being allowed to opine on the Forum on matters pertaining to fell running is it.
Ha ha!
But it is too late, there was consultation and it is now passed. Best accept the outcome as it is and thank the committee for giving up their time so we can all carry on racing. If it ever comes up for consultation again then raise all your concerns but I can't see what good it does to keep going on about it now. Next Saturday I will be running langdale with the same kit I have had for years all of which comply with the safety rules and hopefully will keep me safe. All very simple reallyQuote:
Originally Posted by Richard123
You are absolutely right! Nothing has changed for the competitor. Graham and the committee have and continue to do a sterling job for us all to keep our sport as close to the nub of what we all love and enjoy under ever increasing pressure from The Suits. See you at Langdale.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
But what about for the RO?
I'm both and I can see where you last 2 posters are coming from. Your own environment seems unchanged and that will be the same for most athletes in terms of how you approach race day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
A classic case of I am alright, jack, not my problem, it won't affect me.
But it certainly might.
You assume the organisers are willing to give up their time to operate races under a set of rules that in my opinion will leave them up sh!t creek without a paddle if anything happens.
Don't bank on racing because my opinion is upon discovering how exposed they are, I expect them to cancel in droves.
The problem is not for competitors or the FRA: the organisers are the ones hung out to dry with this - which seems to me a classic case of an ill considered knee jerk overreaction to a disaster, done to impress a formal hearing that "rules are now tighter" the consequences of which has not been properly thought through. Not least what would happen if an exact repeat occurred - it would be hard now for any organiser to defend themselves, because it is hard to see how any race could ever comply. I also worry that professional advice has not been sought to confirm ( or disprove) my fears.
If the FRA does not get legal opinion , I strongly recommend an organiser does as part of their own due diligence to determine their own personal exposure and the extent to which they might be exposed to negligence proceedings.
It is NEVER too late to assess the impact of safety , which ALL companies are obliged to do CONTINUOUSLY - and never too late to assess legal exposure prior to undertakings. It is better to get it right slowly, than wrong quickly.
I've just gone back over as much of this thread as I could take and haven't noticed "establishment" people getting miffed about the general comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
If you chose not to contribute via the email route and then start complaining now, it seems a bit like you may be trying to score points, for whatever reason.
In my view there isn't an "establishment", just a bunch of people who try to do their best. Some people may disagree with them, and I know that you are constantly one of them. But it doesn't mean that you are always right, or that they are always right. Sometimes it is worth agreeing to disagree and leaving it at that.
If emails fall on deaf ears it could be because they don't agree with you, have made that point and feel that they could end up replying to emails for ever on the same subject.
I don't doubt that, indeed opened my contribution to this thread by stating respect for those willing to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
For all that, there are areas in which committee opinions are not enough, they should defer to professional advice - and the far reaching legal consequences of rules which may become evidence of negligence in legal proceedings ( and have already been so ) is one of those areas.
And if they do not, organisers would be very wise to do so, I think they are in for a shock.
The links below provide some interesting reading about definitions of hazard and risk.
For a fellrunner, a cobbled section does not constitute a hazard that is an unreasonable risk (neither does the Corridor Route or the descent to it from Scafell Pike). The overall risk of falling on the cobbled section of Borrowdale is low, even though the possibility of injury may be high. If someone falls and breaks their leg on that section, then they can more easily be transported to safety. If someone falls high up the risk is higher. These rules place an onus on the competitors to have the right kit and to display their safety equipment (number) is such a way as it can be read, and on race organisers to monitor competitors progress. All good.
Fellrunners accept a large element of risk in our sports, as do sports people in almost all other sports. (A professional rugby player is likely to be injured 25% of the time.) Fellrunners HAVE to take on that they play a big part in reducing risks. Most do this as a matter of course, some do not.
I have read all the document and find little to disagree with, when read with common sense and after reading some of the information on the HSE website. It is possible that one or two phrases may have been better written, but that is the case with any document.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarpglance.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principles.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/principlespoints.htm
http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp1.htm
This is smacks of scaremongering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
For example, if you decided to put a 12 year old girl in a secluded wood at a gate on her own and something happened, I doubt that anyone would accept your argument that the FRA told you to. However, if the same 12 year old were on the second gate from the start, in view of the officials and spectators, then she may well have a good time!
Competitors do not really count as obstacles.
Signs for kit requirements - at a World Trial in Witton Park - one A4 would do perhaps?
Who are the FRA to advise you? They are a bunch of fellrunners who have organised races for years. You don't have to take their advise, so long as you can justify your risk assessment on your alternative way of doing things.
Your marshalls probably don't need flasks of tea in Witton Park, unless they are going to be out in the rain for a long time. Those guidelines probably apply to fell races where marshalls are out on hills.
You miscounted the number of people at the Finish, even the guidelines say 7!
I do think it would be useful if the documents on the FRA website were dated to avoid confusion.
Indeed and thank you Lecky.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
The fun of the Forum is to allow free rein to the utterances of the ego driven, axes to grind, cabal and long may that continue
But if I may be boring: the 2014 Safety Requirements etc were sent to the FRA lawyers over a month ago, the same people with whom I have spent 6 full days discussing these very issues over the last few weeks.
And the current position? They will apply from 1st January 2014.
But now let's get back to throwing Christians to the lions.
I believe the new Safety Requirements will be prefaced by 2014. I also believe that the revision of the aforesaid is the start of a broader review of FRA documents (but not before 1st January 2014) and these will be dated as revised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559090]Indeed and thank you Lecky.
But if I may be boring: the 2014 Safety Requirements etc were sent to the FRA lawyers over a month ago, the same people with whom I have spent 6 full days discussing these very issues over the last few weeks.
QUOTE]
Hhmmmm.... you coud have mentioned this some time ago then couldn't you.
With respect the last thing this thread needs is an illinformed and erroneous opinion, and a clear error in defining risk and hazard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
NONE of that legislation applies, which binds employers and employees, or the concept of reasonable practicability which the FRA ( stupidly, or cynically) ommitted.
The rules should include concepts such as ALARP, possible, practical, indeed I have argued they should on this thread. THEY DO NOT, the committee failed to put them in.
And that is my bone of contention.
The only takeaways from those documents are the established definitions of hazard, risk, trip hazard and so on, which In essence carry over into Civil torts, and the duty of care that organizers must exercise to follow established rules and due diligence.
If a race organizer certifies his race is under rules that warrant no hazard in compulsory sections, and someone trips over a cobble and breaks an arm costing a month of work, then ker ching! Lawyer and claimant walk away with damages and costs, since the organiser has failed in his duty and undertaking. It happens every day in the courts in respect of pavements. There was clearly a hazard undeclared.
If someone trips, falls, cracks their head open and dies. It is the CPS, police, UKA and victims family who will look for any rule that was broken and use it as prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the organiser. Over prescreptive rules could easily lead to civil claims resulting in bankruptcy or manslaughter charges
Unlike the FRA organisers will find it Less practical to hide behind the limitation of companies, so to me it is a cynical move for FRA to pile such impossible obligations on hapless organizer.
It seems to me we have been to the brink, and instead of learning from it, we have actually made matters worse for next time.
As for risk , the risk on the corridor and scafell is clearly possibility of death, and the hazards that can cause that are many and varied so please stop offering opinions in places apparently outside your competence. It is open season for a claims lawyer to argue that the corridor is compulsory on the borrowdale race, and therefore it should be free of hazard. All because of pathetic rule drafting and lack of rigorous definitions and absence of moderating phrases like "reasonably practicable"
There is an entire industry of amoral and immoral legal piranhas wringing their hands with glee at the rule changes and Awaiting the prospect of shafting a race organiser on a no win no fee claim when someone falls. Don't think it cannot happen to us.
That is what I accuse FRA of - failing to ask qualified opinion, so producing a document which is a chocolate fireguard for race organisers, indeed is the fire that will burn them to a crisp. It is a disaster waiting for somewhere to happen and and organiser to become a victim,
Unlike the committee I know enough to know , I don't know enough. The stakes are so high I have to be certain, and I cannot do that without qualified opinion.
So I now suggest all race organisers do take advice ASAP , since The document screams out FRA have not done so, I think they have been hung out to dry.
I hope I am wrong, I am sure I am not.
And as for these comments... .. .Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
You are wrong on this. ALARP can be contested where there are no known standards or procedures defining what is ALARP for the activities being carried out. So if the FRA rules had included what you are suggesting a whole raft of standards and procedures for every single activity would have to be produced. How would this make things better for the RO? Just a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Totally unwarranted comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I think you are missing the point here. some of the the comments on this thread are , as far as i can see,nothing but constructed.
no digs at the sterling work of the commitee in general.
chill out
Believe me I am certainly that. Hence ha ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by rocksteady
If you read back you will see that two posters proclaim that they are engineers ("Chartered" in one case) and therefore...
So my post meant "well so am I and so what?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Any chance we can move on now?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
[QUOTE=Richard123;559093]Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
There were good reasons why I didn't.
But I know of no good reason why nobody bothered to ask what the position was before rushing to pontificate.
Incidentally the FRA Secretary up to July 2013 is a qualified lawyer and was working on the revisions until then. And even later than that he accompanied me to talk with Kennedy Law about, inter alia, the current and revised Safety Requirements.
But in my experience boring facts like these have no effect at all on those who like to sound off on here.
As we may see in the next post?
Graham
I agree.. and said so earlier.. nothing has changed... we all had to use full waterproofs for many races anyway, which made Craig Jones comments slightly odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buhnting
I do think a few things can improve but as Graham/drafter states these things are subject to change, so defining a HH may be a later addition..
Its the RO's which I think are most affected here.. for those that run lots in proper mountains our kit need not change really. Forget racing.. if you run lots in the mountains you want a lightweight waterproof jacket.. not one that is just fit for passing a test.. I can't believe anyone in North Wales who would run the Peris for example would not own a water proof jacket.. if you have the experience for such a route.. you have the kit..
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559107]Did I satisfy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard123
Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559107]Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard123
[QUOTE=IainR;559109]Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Iain,
You are always good value for the Forum.
The new document is not crystal clear in all respects to avoid being too prescriptive and that is why the Chair is implementing evening Workshops for RO from late November to debate best practise etc.
Graham
[QUOTE=rocksteady;559110]Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic
but on a serious note,
its good to hear that professional advice has been sought.
[QUOTE=rocksteady;559110]Dont you just love this forum ?
fantastic
Well I do so I try to play my part with enthusiasm and a smile on my face.
Glad to see you engage graham. this is not personal or show business, just genuine concern by someone who has seen how the law can shaft people in practise when unguarded statements are made.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
From FRA perspective, I am sure the lawyers said the rules are fine.
Solicitors answer in respect of the interests of the parties that pay them, which is also why they are next to useless in respect of drafting business contracts because they seem unable to balance other peoples interests, instead making demands that other parties are never able to accept,
in a commercial context It guarantees a ping ping of exchanges that rack up the bills for both parties lawyers.
So Who in this exchange with solicitors represented the race Organisers interests whose duties are clearly made far more onerous?
Did they comment on the practicability of making a course "hazard free" or just express the opinion it would be safer in such a cloud cuckoo land.
I would be fascinated to see the opinion of someone scrutinizing the rules on behalf of an organiser who has to be bound by them. I expect their opinion would be far less rosy.
Would you care to share the opinion of UKA lawyer as it pertained to the recent case? I will bet they used the current rules to try to put a noose ariund the organisers neck, because that in practise is what they do. Now imagine what they would have said , with the ammunition you now give them...
I stand by what I said. Those rules are not written using the language any solicitor would use. So if they read them , they did not refine them: I suspect the primary function of FRA and lawyer interaction was in respect of the recent inquest, not the modified rules, so that sounds like a convenient half truth.
[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;559111]Not too prescriptive?Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Certifying compulsory sections "hazard" free!
ha! how can it be more definitive?
I am disappointed you consider it all a matter of levity graham, With all the thinly disguised insults - that as witton remarked, is why few are willing to engage with you in such a process.
A race organiser has nearly been indicted on manslaughter charges and you have cetainly made it even more difficult for them to stay compliant, and atay within rules. How is that a good thing?
Probably just as well you're not a member of FRA then?? You've written nearly 6000 words on this thread alone, but still the 2 lines that stand out for me are,Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I am not giving advice, just a personal opinion
I am not giving legal advice, just an unqualified opinion.
If you don't like the rules register your races as "multi-terrain" races through RunBritain. There'll be far less paperwork to deal with.