Calderdale Way Relay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Alty/NoEAA or whoever made the exception here that sets the president for so many other athletes. In a legal case I am sure anyone can run for whoever they want after the let Nick Leigh break the rules to run for P&B in fell events. Alty seem to have an active fell section at the club and lets face it, the old Chairman of the FRA runs for Alty as well. I can remember when Alty were highly placed in the UKA Fell Relays. So stating lack of competitive running is a load of bull.
We had Gilby run for us who runs for Derby. I am not sure if they have a fell section or what and I dont care. After they let Leigh run for P&B how can they possibly contridict this rule for one and not for all? I have no problem with anyone who ran the relays or for what team. Its rather interesting that someone else didnt ask Rick to come run with them as hes a good runner, always racing but never seemed to get the respect from Sale an athlete deserves.

---

I tend to agree with your position Roadrunner in that the authorites seem to have made these exceptions and I am sure that their precidents that they seem to have set with Nick Leigh, and with Michael Hunt Pendle/Trafford have blown holes in the structure that is supposed to be in place.

But it needs to be clarified. We at Blackburn have several decent endurance athletes that train with our group, but we have not been "tempted" to run them in events that they are not clear to run in. In the Red Rose and Mid Lancs XC Leagues for example, Lee Passco is a N/C and declared as such, which will adversely affect our overall position.
This will continue to be the case until such a time as he is cleared.

It would be interesting if a protest is lodged at a major event such as a Northern 6 stage, or FRA Relays, to an "ineligible" athlete, how it would be handled.

It can be very misleading when bold statements are made, but from a position of ignorance and totally misinformed, and especially with derogatory remarks about clubs or people.

Sale have affiliated to fell running for many decades as well as race walking even, and still do.

And Rick Hayman knows very well that he has had total support and respect from the team management at Sale, and knows he has been given every opportunity to perform at all levels from local to National, and in fact the team management have at times bent over backwards to accommodate his wishes and he has won many championship medals and prizes in the name of Sale Harriers Manchester and Rick will be the first to acknowledge this statement of fact.

So please don't anyone come on this forum to score club knocking brownie points, with false information.

It does not put our sport in a good light making false, bitchy and unnecessary comments.

If you like I will also promise to get out a Sale team next year at the UKA Fell Relay trying for a top 10 place and Calderdale for a top 5 place and with only fully first claim members.

Thanks and sorry to have a whinge

Mudluver

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Rice Pudding

I can assure you that there were no ringers in the Horwich team and no rules were broken. Rick Hayman resigned from Sale in the summer, joined Horwich, applied for hardship and was cleared a couple of months ago. Sale harriers do not affiliate to the fells, therefore a member of Sale can join another club who do affiliate and run for them first claim on the fells only. These are rules stated by UKA. Same applies to Belgrave and Paul Freary.

---

So Mrs Rice Pudding and Mudlover contradict each other - it seems like Sale do affiliate to the Fells.

This is getting tedius.

Sale do not affiliate to the fells, nor should they if they do not enter teams in this discipline. I went through all this about 3-4 years ago with the then chairman of the club.

UKA rules for competition state that:

Athletics is organised within the following disciplines:-
(a) Track and Field
(b) Race Walking
(c) Road Running
(d) Cross Country including Trail Running
(e) Fell and Hill Running
(f) Trail Running

Clubs are deemed to cater for those disciplines for which they have declared to the appropriate Association the intention to compete in team competitions in that particular activity. Members of a Club may only compete in Championships or other Open Team competitions if their Club is specifically affiliated for that discipline.

Not since the early 80s had Sale actively competed in Open Team competitions on the fells. My argument was that that they were no longer actively "catering" for this discipline I had an interest in, by not entering teams. I requested they stop affiliating so that I could legitimately compete in team events on the fells for Horwich - first claim. Unlike the Alty/Pudsey case this was not a request for a personal exception.

My request was granted, and there is no evidence to suggest they have since re-affiliated to the fells.

Compare the memership application forms of Sale and Horwich. Both assess which disciplines you may be interested in. Sale do not cater for fell running. This does not prevent a Sale athlete from representing their club on the fells as an individual, but members are free to join another club first claim for the fells.

Not that it's any of my business but I'd trust Pike with this one. He's as honest and upstanding as anyone can be really and always seems to have his facts right.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FellMonster

Not that it's any of my business but I'd trust Pike with this one. He's as honest and upstanding as anyone can be really and always seems to have his facts right.....

---

I can't disagree and I think my initial light-hearted referal to this a couple of pages ago now, and the dialogue that has gone on, shows that there are differing opinions and this obviously is an issue that is unclear. The lack of understanding of the rules and how some athletes and clubs put their own interpretation on them is what causes the problem.
Maybe the rules need amending, or clearing up. Maybe the Club affiliation system needs to be more transparent.

I love it when two members from the same club don't know what they affiliate to. Pike seems a nice lad and goes by the book, or so I believe and want to believe in.

I think Sale could field a strong team in UKA Fell Relays and alike but will struggle to do so unless they affiliate to the fells.

Salford Harriers dont affiliate to the track as we always struggle to field legal teams!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pike

This is getting tedius.

Sale do not affiliate to the fells, nor should they if they do not enter teams in this discipline. I went through all this about 3-4 years ago with the then chairman of the club.

UKA rules for competition state that:

Athletics is organised within the following disciplines:-
(a) Track and Field
(b) Race Walking
(c) Road Running
(d) Cross Country including Trail Running
(e) Fell and Hill Running
(f) Trail Running

Clubs are deemed to cater for those disciplines for which they have declared to the appropriate Association the intention to compete in team competitions in that particular activity. Members of a Club may only compete in Championships or other Open Team competitions if their Club is specifically affiliated for that discipline.

Not since the early 80s had Sale actively competed in Open Team competitions on the fells. My argument was that that they were no longer actively "catering" for this discipline I had an interest in, by not entering teams. I requested they stop affiliating so that I could legitimately compete in team events on the fells for Horwich - first claim. Unlike the Alty/Pudsey case this was not a request for a personal exception.

My request was granted, and there is no evidence to suggest they have since re-affiliated to the fells.

Compare the memership application forms of Sale and Horwich. Both assess which disciplines you may be interested in. Sale do not cater for fell running. This does not prevent a Sale athlete from representing their club on the fells as an individual, but members are free to join another club first claim for the fells.

---

Seeing as I am being called a liar and that Pike is more trustworthy me.

Affiliation is now with England Athletics and not UKA and the declaration recently sent by our club chairman included, as I stated all the disciplines including fell & Hill running and also race walking, just as it had with North of England affiliation.

Hell it costs no more it's just a tick in each box
All the disciplines are actually still written into the club constitution
despite the fact that fell running was missed off the membership form.

I am on the club executive committee and the team manager, but yet people assume that Pike is more trustworthy of the facts, disaffiliating has never been on the agenda at meetings and never will be, it is only a tick in a box, it would be who would have the final say of this choice.

I agree it is tedious now.
All Sale 1st claim members are registered to compete at all the disciplines unless they resign 1st claim from a specific discipline.

Ok may be Teams have not been entered in championships, but that is another issue, and a huge ambiguous and grey area of claim qualification.

So no more calling me a liar or others using veiled excuses for knocking a club, surely we are better than this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Alty/NoEAA or whoever made the exception here that sets the president etc etc

---

There are too many inaccuracies in this debate, and it's not right to let them go un-addressed. RR, its "precedent" dude, not "president". One is a course of action which once adopted, binds future decision makers, often following a lamentable inability to properly consider all conflicting issues, and often producing a result to the ultimate detriment of all concerned. The other is a twat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marrow

...its "precedent" dude, not "president". One is a course of action which once adopted, binds future decision makers, often following a lamentable inability to properly consider all conflicting issues, and often producing a result to the ultimate detriment of all concerned. The other is a twat.

---

...brilliant:). In the case of President (Precedent?:rolleyes: ) Bush the latter has often been responsible for the former.