DQ the cheats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Master

This constant drivel is really boring. I only started racing on the fells in 2006, it wasn't difficult to work out the rules even as a proper numpty....I have since run dozens of races, long, short, hard, easy, in sun, in blizzards and been lost etc.....I have never struggled to understand what is required either to satisfy the rules or to keep me safe. I don't see why we should accept that the world is becoming a little bit more stupid every day...let the rest try a bit harder....it's simple really

---

Hold on.. So now elitism is good..

So.. when I play that card elitism is bad... my view is self righteous...

But a fellpony plays it and its good..

OK.. I sometimes struggle with forum rules...

It's not about you and me and the magnitudes BTW.. its about how to keep the other safe.. I have no idea if my suggestions are correct.. I just think that we now have a unique demographic entering the sport... and that maybe.. just maybe.. we should reconsider.. not reword.. rules.. radical... f**king radical.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

at last something we can all agree on :p

---

If the cap fits...Thanks for getting my name back in those results by the way

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Hold on.. So now elitism is good..So.. when I play that card elitism is bad... my view is self righteous...But a fellpony plays it and its good..OK.. I sometimes struggle with forum rules...It's not about you and me and the magnitudes BTW.. its about how to keep the other safe.. I have no idea if my suggestions are correct.. I just think that we now have a unique demographic entering the sport... and that maybe.. just maybe.. we should reconsider.. not reword.. rules.. radical... f**king radical.....

---

Ah but Iain, the Ponies started out as an elitist club...ask Antisocial (unless you have him on "ignore" like I do)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Master

This constant drivel is really boring. I only started racing on the fells in 2006, it wasn't difficult to work out the rules even as a proper numpty....I have since run dozens of races, long, short, hard, easy, in sun, in blizzards and been lost etc.....I have never struggled to understand what is required either to satisfy the rules or to keep me safe. I don't see why we should accept that the world is becoming a little bit more stupid every day...let the rest try a bit harder....it's simple really

---

I too fail to see the problem. I don't recall anyone referring to this requirement, which puts all the subsequent requirements into context:
"1 SENIOR EVENTS
The general philosophy behind the following requirements is that the COMPETITOR should take primary
responsibility for his/her own safety on the fells. The organiser has the responsibility of making sure his race
is as safe as it can possibly be by ensuring that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each individual runner and that the event organisation is geared to monitor and control the race so that, if an incident occurs, help is directed to the needful party without delay."
In my experience RO are more concerned with whether a competitor understands the principles of safety on the fells i.e. has taken that primary responsibility, than whether they are carrying manufacturer A's latest product. Making the requirements more specific may lead to lists of acceptable manufacturers products. So how does a RO then deal with a competitor's jacket from last year that needs re-proofing or taped seams that are starting to leak? It seems to me some competitors aren't willing to take primary responsibility; that's the real problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

I too fail to see the problem. I don't recall anyone referring to this requirement, which puts all the subsequent requirements into context:
"1 SENIOR EVENTS
The general philosophy behind the following requirements is that the COMPETITOR should take primary
responsibility for his/her own safety on the fells. The organiser has the responsibility of making sure his race
is as safe as it can possibly be by ensuring that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each individual runner and that the event organisation is geared to monitor and control the race so that, if an incident occurs, help is directed to the needful party without delay."
In my experience RO are more concerned with whether a competitor understands the principles of safety on the fells i.e. has taken that primary responsibility, than whether they are carrying manufacturer A's latest product. Making the requirements more specific may lead to lists of acceptable manufacturers products. So how does a RO then deal with a competitor's jacket from last year that needs re-proofing or taped seams that are starting to leak? It seems to me some competitors aren't willing to take primary responsibility; that's the real problem.

---

So why did Graham say the FRA committee were looking at extra vetting?

"The general philosophy behind the following requirements is that the COMPETITOR should take primary responsibility"

So which is it?

My argument was right from the start was put responsibility back on the runners. At the moment I don't think race entry forms are as clear on that fact as say a climbing wall entry form...

I think the vetting is as dangerous as a one day leadership course personally...

a) GB posted "It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this." That is requirement 9a and 9b.
b) Requirement 1 of Safety Requirements for Fell Races is quite clear that the competitor has primary responsibility.
c) The standard FRA entry form states "I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH THE RULES AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA. I CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ORGANISER’S INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RACE. I ACCEPT THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN FELL RUNNING AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT I AM ENTERING AND RUNNING THIS RACE AT MY OWN RISK. OTHER THAN THE ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, I CONFIRM THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORGANISER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO ME FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE TO MYSELF OR MY PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS RACE."

All three above of course depend on competitors actually reading them carefully and properly. An activity apparently in decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

a) GB posted "It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this." That is requirement 9a and 9b.
b) Requirement 1 of Safety Requirements for Fell Races is quite clear that the competitor has primary responsibility.
c) The standard FRA entry form states "I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH THE RULES AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA. I CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ORGANISER’S INFORMATION AND REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RACE. I ACCEPT THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN FELL RUNNING AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THAT I AM ENTERING AND RUNNING THIS RACE AT MY OWN RISK. OTHER THAN THE ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, I CONFIRM THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORGANISER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO ME FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY NATURE TO MYSELF OR MY PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS RACE."

All three above of course depend on competitors actually reading them carefully and properly. An activity apparently in decline.

---

I didn't think he did but I'm off for a run... but I think it lacks a statement of competence, like a climbing wall risk waiver. Anyway what do professionals at the BMC and MLTB's know... its like this crazy idea that you require 5 days training, 5 days assessment and a valid first aid to lead groups in the hills... when a 1 day unassessed FRA course is perfectly valid....

It's just a court case waiting to happen... fine for the competent but too easy to abuse and misuse... (I've seen one 'guide' claim a UKA 'qualification' (which I expect is now redundant) on his running website) and before I get the 'scary mongering'.. and all the other rubbish... you have to remember the guiding system in the UK was overhauled because of serious incidents when people died... and if it is misused I think it will come back on the FRA for lack of a clear remit.

Its strange on the one hand the FRA seem to trust competency.. yet on the other don't.. quite inconsistent.

Also you go on about taking responsibility.. then you organise these leadership courses which takes the responsibility and puts it on the leader, who then, whether leading or not has a duty of care. If I'm out in the hills, not working, I still have a duty of care over those around me.

Strangely though these courses are created to break down barriers in participation... so promoting the sport, which in principal I think is great, but very much against the wishes of the great Chairman....

But anyway even by designing and implementing such courses you are accepting there is a need to change how the FRA works in making sure people are safe in the hills.. you've just gone about it badly in my opinion. I think having poorly qualified leaders with a poor remit you create a false sense of security for those under their duty of care.

Have you changed topic?
I do not understand the relationship between a thread on RO v. competitor responsibility, and criticising a fell leader course for those involved in coaching and training sessions. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

Have you changed topic?
I do not understand the relationship between a thread on RO v. competitor responsibility, and criticising a fell leader course for those involved in coaching and training sessions. :confused:

---

Absolutely superb dodging of a question.. I had a little laugh then. I knew you had no come back.. my guess was an insult from you or a sound bite from Graham...

Yes I explained a clear link between the FRA's stance on participant responsibility.. you have no comprehensive consistent policy.. its just box ticking.. Sadly it won't be until we have a cairngorm disaster that the FRA will look at actual issues rather than be so concerned by liability....

I think we all know the LiFR was poorly named.. its not a leadership course is it... but with that name and the confusion with the Mountain Leaders term... I think we'll see it misused... as I said I already know of someone guiding and using a UKA teaching certificate as one of their 'qualifications'... its actually, as you say, much more targeted at training sessions rather than a generic fell running leaders course.. however, changing something requires someone to admit an error.. which is not something that you guys can do..

But yes grump, conversations in real life sometime wave around a subject area.. I'd have thought people with yours and graham's obvious intelligence that would not be a problem?