Safety Matters

Quote:

---

no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA

---

Say the insurers! Who are providing the cover at a cost.
Sadly, if this is ever tested again, it won't be the insurers who will be deciding if anyone was negligent, it will be lawyers/solicitors/council of a bereaved family......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

Brilliant. Case closed...

---

Not a chance of that;)

There seems to be increasing confusion over the safety debate. Confusion about what each side is arguing over.

Alwaysinjured often doesn’t help his case by writing so many words and opposition to his postings is often based on their length or their ‘belligerence’ This isn’t helping.

I believe there is no doubting the veracity of AI’s arguments but his point is often overlooked because of the sheer wordiness of his posts, which are often too long even for me – and I have a relatively lengthy attention-span!

So, what’s it about?

Basically, some of us (AI, me, Witton Park, people in SHR and WFRA, and we believe many others) think that the organisation of races and the authority to decide how it’s done should be firmly in the hands of ROs.

We believe that the sport is unique and its ethos and atmosphere should be preserved.

We believe that fell racing is an adventurous sport and a sport with accepted hazards and a certain level of risk.

We believe that accepting this risk is principally a matter for the individual competitor.

We believe that race organisers (not the FRA) are the heart of the sport.

We believe that prescriptive rules should be kept to a minimum and that ownership of races should be in the hands of the ROs

We believe that ROs should not be placed in unnecessary ‘legal jeopardy’ if something should go wrong, provided the basic duty of care has been taken care of.

We believe that race organisers should be free to organise their races in their own way, but also that they should be helped in documenting how they do that so that everyone in the organising team knows what their role is and the risk of mistakes is minimised.

We believe in helping race organisers by providing as much guidance and information as possible.

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN “laying down the law” or in giving ROs unrealistic hurdles to jump over, or in laying tripwires for ROs among pages and pages of rules.

Regardless of what certain people might say, the FRA’s current actions are out of step with all this and thus with most fell runners. We wish they weren’t. That’s what it’s all about.

As far as alternative rules go, we have drafted a number of alternatives but we are now working towards an agreed set (shock – horror – they might fit on one page!)

We can already offer:

An alternative to the FRA’s current policy of imposing unrealistic one-size-fits all rules.

Alternative sources of race permitting/insurance. (safer for the organiser as there are fewer pitfalls inherent in it)

Support and help in working up a race plan and race entry requirements – a far more logical approach than the FRA’s current confusion of documentation.

A return to the core values of fell running (simplicity, informality, adventure, an element of risk, and responsibility being mainly in the hands of the competitor)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

That's the man:
- Dardanelles
- invasion of Norway
- sinking of the two great battleships he dispatched toSingapore without air cover
- at Yalta allowing Stalin to take over Poland (and much of Eastern Europe), the country Britain allegedly went to war to protect
- supporting Edward V111 to stay as King
- returning Britain to the gold standard in 1925

Enough?

---

One modern battleship and one old battlecruiser actually :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

There seems to be increasing confusion over the safety debate. Confusion about what each side is arguing over.

Alwaysinjured often doesn’t help his case by writing so many words and opposition to his postings is often based on their length or their ‘belligerence’ This isn’t helping.

I believe there is no doubting the veracity of AI’s arguments but his point is often overlooked because of the sheer wordiness of his posts, which are often too long even for me – and I have a relatively lengthy attention-span!

So, what’s it about?

Basically, some of us (AI, me, Witton Park, people in SHR and WFRA, and we believe many others) think that the organisation of races and the authority to decide how it’s done should be firmly in the hands of ROs.

We believe that the sport is unique and its ethos and atmosphere should be preserved.

We believe that fell racing is an adventurous sport and a sport with accepted hazards and a certain level of risk.

We believe that accepting this risk is principally a matter for the individual competitor.

We believe that race organisers (not the FRA) are the heart of the sport.

We believe that prescriptive rules should be kept to a minimum and that ownership of races should be in the hands of the ROs

We believe that ROs should not be placed in unnecessary ‘legal jeopardy’ if something should go wrong, provided the basic duty of care has been taken care of.

We believe that race organisers should be free to organise their races in their own way, but also that they should be helped in documenting how they do that so that everyone in the organising team knows what their role is and the risk of mistakes is minimised.

We believe in helping race organisers by providing as much guidance and information as possible.

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN “laying down the law” or in giving ROs unrealistic hurdles to jump over, or in laying tripwires for ROs among pages and pages of rules.

Regardless of what certain people might say, the FRA’s current actions are out of step with all this and thus with most fell runners. We wish they weren’t. That’s what it’s all about.

As far as alternative rules go, we have drafted a number of alternatives but we are now working towards an agreed set (shock – horror – they might fit on one page!)

We can already offer:

An alternative to the FRA’s current policy of imposing unrealistic one-size-fits all rules.

Alternative sources of race permitting/insurance. (safer for the organiser as there are fewer pitfalls inherent in it)

Support and help in working up a race plan and race entry requirements – a far more logical approach than the FRA’s current confusion of documentation.

A return to the core values of fell running (simplicity, informality, adventure, an element of risk, and responsibility being mainly in the hands of the competitor)

---

Precisely!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Porter

“One who is too insistent on his own views, finds few to agree with him.”

Lao Tzu

---

That does not make him wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

We believe that prescriptive rules should be kept to a minimum and that ownership of races should be in the hands of the ROs

---

I think this is your key point. I'm not trying to ignore the others, but can't address them all.

For me, it sounds like the FRA would argue that ROs still have that power, since the guidelines only state minimum requirements. Also, there are many race organisers that look to the FRA to provide leadership on this, since those ROs don't have the experience to draw up race plans for themselves.

I know you'll probably counter that the FRA have made their guidelines too prescriptive. But you must acknowledge they had to act following the inquiry, and their main objective had to be to tighten up the guidelines to reduce the potential for future fatalities - which is what they have done.

It sounds like we're arguing within the grey areas here. You think the guidelines are too restrictive, others think they're OK.

Just for interest Graham, and prevent people misunderstanding please could you:
1. List the 'facts' fabricated by AI.
2 Give examples of his 'fetid imagination'.

These are very direct claims so it should be possible to give direct responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

There seems to be increasing confusion over the safety debate. Confusion about what each side is arguing over.

Alwaysinjured often doesn’t help his case by writing so many words and opposition to his postings is often based on their length or their ‘belligerence’ This isn’t helping.

I believe there is no doubting the veracity of AI’s arguments but his point is often overlooked because of the sheer wordiness of his posts, which are often too long even for me – and I have a relatively lengthy attention-span!

So, what’s it about?

Basically, some of us (AI, me, Witton Park, people in SHR and WFRA, and we believe many others) think that the organisation of races and the authority to decide how it’s done should be firmly in the hands of ROs.

We believe that the sport is unique and its ethos and atmosphere should be preserved.

We believe that fell racing is an adventurous sport and a sport with accepted hazards and a certain level of risk.

We believe that accepting this risk is principally a matter for the individual competitor.

We believe that race organisers (not the FRA) are the heart of the sport.

We believe that prescriptive rules should be kept to a minimum and that ownership of races should be in the hands of the ROs

We believe that ROs should not be placed in unnecessary ‘legal jeopardy’ if something should go wrong, provided the basic duty of care has been taken care of.

We believe that race organisers should be free to organise their races in their own way, but also that they should be helped in documenting how they do that so that everyone in the organising team knows what their role is and the risk of mistakes is minimised.

We believe in helping race organisers by providing as much guidance and information as possible.

WE DON’T BELIEVE IN “laying down the law” or in giving ROs unrealistic hurdles to jump over, or in laying tripwires for ROs among pages and pages of rules.

Regardless of what certain people might say, the FRA’s current actions are out of step with all this and thus with most fell runners. We wish they weren’t. That’s what it’s all about.

As far as alternative rules go, we have drafted a number of alternatives but we are now working towards an agreed set (shock – horror – they might fit on one page!)

We can already offer:

An alternative to the FRA’s current policy of imposing unrealistic one-size-fits all rules.

Alternative sources of race permitting/insurance. (safer for the organiser as there are fewer pitfalls inherent in it)

Support and help in working up a race plan and race entry requirements – a far more logical approach than the FRA’s current confusion of documentation.

A return to the core values of fell running (simplicity, informality, adventure, an element of risk, and responsibility being mainly in the hands of the competitor)

---

Andy many thanks for the clear summary.

This is the alternative way forward that the FRA Chair prevented Andy, then a committee member, presenting to the committee at the December meeting. Why, why why? Surely we would expect our committee to be open minded and at least listen to alternatives rather that just stick to the same methodology regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

their main objective had to be to tighten up the guidelines to reduce the potential for future fatalities - which is what they have done.

---

non of the guideline changes would have helped poor Brian B