ahh a nasty reply - got you I win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keswick_Krumble
Printable View
ahh a nasty reply - got you I win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keswick_Krumble
If you really are arguing with yourself Anti, I'd certainly recommend seeing a psychiatrist. Dear oh dear.
Am dating a nurse if that countsQuote:
Originally Posted by Rob Furness
what 24 hours a day free bed, free food?? nappy change as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Antisocial
I am young and completely new to fell racing and these forums so apologies if I am a bit abrupt but this issue has affected me. (I don't want to make any enemies already!) Although I now know the rules I don't necessarily agree that someone should be named a cheat without the kit. You've got to look at the situation. If a runner knowingly ignores the rules then I agree they should be punished but I turned up to my first fell race this September without kit and without knowledge of the rules. I was told of the rules and told I may not be allowed to race. After a weather forecast I was eventually allowed to race. There was no mention of a kit check on both the fra site and the ro site. There needs to be more awareness of the rules. btw I had a heavy waterproof jacket with me which I was told it was ok to run in so I don't think I gained an unfair advantage. I have now purchased a bum bag and will carry the full kit with me for my next race.
I think that's fair enough..Quote:
Originally Posted by wjb
But you still cheated.. people get too hinged on that term.. if you break the rules of the race you cheat... we've all done it... I've taken short cuts that weren't allowed... I've cut corners.. I've even doped (though those 2 times were accidental..ish..).. I think most of us push the boundaries of what is allowable..you do in any sport.. football.. especially rugby.. so people are too sensitive about the term..
I don't think it's cheating if you don't know the rules, cheating is the intent to decieve for your own gain or obtain unfair advantage by trickery...either way it needs to be deliberate.
(the defence of ignorance only stands once mind)
But if a race is advertised as being ran under fra rules the isnt it the competitors responsibility to establish what they are and adhere to them? It like someone playing football and handling the ball then pleading ignorant that they didn't know the rules.
wjb said it was his first fell race, and turned up without kit or knowledge of the rules, so was ignorant. The RO obviously was generous in this instance and applied a bit of common sense. If the RO was satisfied I don't see the problem.
True to some extent, but if you've previously raced in other types of running events (trail, cross-country, road) it's easy to assume it's all the same thing and not realise there may be some more specific rules that apply to fell racing. Rather different than taking up a completely new sport when you know there are rules to be learnt.Quote:
Originally Posted by beasty1711
Hear hear! If you're not following the rules, it's either because you haven't made the effort to learn them or because you are intentionally bypassing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by beasty1711
If you're caught not following the rules, it's a fair cop either way. The consequences are a separate issue, decided by the RO - using some discretion, given that fell-racing isn't F1.
That said, the RO has the responsibility of making the rules available and comprehensible.
Every time I try and tactfully raise this for a constructive discussion I get suspected of moaning about ROs, being a pedant or lacking the ability to apply common sense. Most of us can apply common sense. If all of us could we wouldn't need any rules, but we cant all do that so we have rules that are adaptable to meet the ROs assessment of conditions etc - so it would help to know clearly what their assessment is because on some occasions it will inevitably be different to our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
I just wonder what would happen if the RO said it was fine to ignore a rule for a single person as a one off (which ever that maybe).... and then a situation occured? Would that then mean that the RO was liable?
Equally if a competitor in a race chooses to ignore a rule, be that intentionally or not, would they efectivley be un-insured and on their own if anything happened?
Personaly I take the view that 90% of fell running rules are more for my saftey rather than anything else.
Ignorantia juris non excusat (I think thats right) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
I'm trying to remember but don't all(most) entry forms have the caveat "Run under the rules of the FRA" or some such wording, where as I have some sympathy esp to new runners if you see every one wearing a bumbag or a rucsac wouldn't you ask why. But yes Mark I agree, I've been to lots of races and have had to ask what the requirement for the day were, If the weather looks bad or it's a big race I wouldn't ask I'll just take waterproofs etc but it doesn't take much to put a sign saying full waterproofs or windproof, could be printed out days in advance and choosen on the morning of the day.
I have absolutley no complaints about any RO and they all have my admiration and backing but some times a bit of forward planning would help.
As a comparative novice I must admit I was disappointed when I did the Hope Moors and Tors that quite a few people were carrying nothing at all. I can understand the rules being relaxed on a shorter summers evening, but surely not for a twenty miler?
If you've doped then that's totally unforgivable. Doping and turning up without kit are two different ball games. I didn't push the boundaries I simply didn't know I needed kit but the RO let me run so I'm satisfied that I didn't cheat. Did your race organiser know about the doping?Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Maybe Iain took some cough medicine that's on the list of banned substances or something similair, don't reckon he's a deliberate doper wjb:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by wjb
Brilliant Antisocial, brilliant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antisocial
WJB, welcome to the fold! Over the years I've enjoyed this forum almost as much as the running. Things can get blunt, overheated, downright rude at times but, like fell running, it is the refreshing freedom to express yourself with like minded individuals that makes the forum so addictive (for a very tiny, sad minority of the fell fraternity!!). In your case, I think the football analogy is very pertinent. If someone joined a game you were playing and then whined that they did not know about handball I suspect you would think they were a bit of a twat and, at the very least, disrepectful for the spirit of the game. So can I suggest that you reflect for a moment about turning up to your first fell race without first checking what was involved? And how you might prepare yourself? Without wanting to sound preachy, and at the risk of repeating myself, it comes down to having proper respect....respect for your own safety, the responsibility of the organiser, the terrain you are committing yourself to and the spirit of wild racing in the hills.
But, no harm done, you've done the right thing and bought the appropriate kit. Just sling it in your kit bag and take it to EVERY race, no matter how short, flat or hot. Then you will always be one of the sensible majority who just get on and race in the proper spirit and not one of the spoilt complaining brats who make life hell for RO's by always trying to bend sensible rules that have absolutely NO effect on their performance.
Were you guilty of cheating? Of course not. Choose your own from ignorant/silly/presumptious/thoughtless/etc etc!
It really is as simple as that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
A report will be posted shortly on the main website that the runner who ran Langdale without any kit (and who later used the 'first race' excuse when DSQ by the RO) has been banned from all FRA Registered races for 6 months. Had he been a more experienced runner the sanction would have been a lot longer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wheeze
The FRA Committee is also considering broader issues such as the "vetting" of inexperienced runners by RO and the rigour applied to "kit checks".
That seems fair enough Graham, but when a similiar ban was given for an offence at the Half Tour of Pendle in 2002 i remember thinking how would it be enforced. If he was irresponsible enough to do Langdale with no kit he could be irresponsible enough to turn up at a race and give a ficticous nameQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Head
Something like this would solve it:
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...Wg9hm3tKbDsRQw
(Could change it to 'Not Wanted'.)
Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Head
Even at a fell race, No man is an island...
Graham
Vetting of inexperienced runners is normal in certain races and always made total sense to me.
Didn't see this.. I took a simple stimulant... just gave me a quicker start... we all do...Quote:
Originally Posted by stevefoster
Pseudoephedrine... its a decongestant... its on and off the banned list/watched list all the time.. if I'm flying and I have blocked sinus's I'll take some sort of decongestant and had checked it wasn't on when I first started using it, but then it had been put back on the banned list without me keeping up to date and I used it in Slovenia....
Ignorance is no excuse. Last week I got a $100 fine for parking within 10 ft of a fire hydrant... I had no idea about that law, but I was ignorant of the laws and ignorance is no defence. You participate in a sport, you check the rules. You may make mistakes, get caught, but that's your fault. I didn't appeal the fine, people said I should have, but it was my fault.
"Ignorance is no excuse. Last week I got a $100 fine for parking within 10 ft of a fire hydrant... I had no idea about that law, but I was ignorant of the laws and ignorance is no defence. You participate in a sport, you check the rules. You may make mistakes, get caught, but that's your fault. I didn't appeal the fine, people said I should have, but it was my fault."
This fire hydrant incident is a good example of an unknown unknown - similarly I suspect that most of those who run with no/inadequate kit do not know that they do not know the relevant regulations - despite having signed a piece of paper that alludes to them. The solution is better kit checks - I have never been fully kit checked - but then I always have a full looking bumbag - or I am wearing the kit needed.
Isn't this unbelievably simple or am I being naive?
Runners:Have all the mandatory kit applicable to the grade of race you're doing plus any pre-announced requirements from the RO and, unless you hear otherwise, carry it all.
RO: do four or five random kit checks on the start line with the genuine threat of instant DQ's.
Why is it any more complicated than that?
Has anyone thried archery? Ive done it a few times and find that to get it bang-on target I have to aim down and to the right.
The race organisers could equip themselves with a long bow and a few arrows and pop off the cheats?
Or speed up the back markers!??Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fowler
There is a very simple answer to this, it doesn't involve bans nor does it involve naming people on forums, the race organiser makes everybody taking part in his/her race stand for a minute on the start line and kit check the persons nearset to them, anyone with inadequate kit or no kit gets pulled out and given a bum bag full of heavy rocks to carry round with them, lets face it the real reason runners don't take a kit bag is to run faster, not that it makes any difference anyway..
Then maybe the race organiser could start a list of entratnts who tries there luck for other race organisers to add too or just note.
Bans for amature sport is over the top in my book, too much (HS)
Get real.Quote:
Originally Posted by multi coloured
This is peoples lives we are talking about.
I have been injured in a fell race and had full kit on but was in a bit os a mess after 2 hours on freezing cold moorland in hail storms.
If you don't like the rules, get out of the sport or run on your own and don't race!
Sadly I think it often is. Its hard to raise this without attracting lots of flak for a) slagging off ROs, b) trying to cheat, or c) being unable to apply common sense. The reality for most races is that we currently have a default position of full windproof body cover. The RO can of course specify additional levels above that - ie waterproof. Plain and simple on the face of it, but we see requests for 'windproof', 'wind/waterproof', 'waterproof', 'waterproof with taped seams', and I've also heard reference to 'rainproof' and 'heavy duty'. Sometimes which of these is required varies depending on which particular notice you have read at registration and your own personal interpretation of what constitutes each of the above, the views of whoever checks your kit and the views of the RO, all of which may vary.Quote:
Originally Posted by nikalas
Much as I would like it to be the case (and I think most of us would share this view) I dont think it is an option for a RO to say that they relied on everyone applying their common sense. What a shame.
Now before everyone starts accusing me of trying to do all or any of a,b, or c, above, please let me try and make this clear, because I think sometimes the point is missed - I am not moaning, trying to carry less kit or cause problems for ROs. I am actually trying to constructively suggest a way that might make life a bit simpler for them and for us. My suggestion is that we need to agree two simple definitions of kit - ie windproof and waterproof. Once agreed they could be included in the FRA rules for competition and this should do away with all the boring discussions on here about what constitutes which, whether or not we should have a hood or taped seams etc. ROs should then be politley and tactfully asked (reminded?) to make it clear on a notice at registration what they require for their race on that particular day. You register, you read the notice, you take the kit they ask for, it really could be that simple.
Ultimately of course the rules we have are intended to make our sport as reasonably safe as it can be and that is the purpose of them. Rightly in my view we take sanctions against individuals who breach them - but if we are going to do this I think it is only fair that the rules are clear and unambiguous and that when additional requirements are made that those requirements are clearly communicated to runners. Of course this doesn't excuse those who deliberately choose to ignore the rules for some reason, but there will always be a minority who try and do this - probably for a,b or c above!
I'm sure someone will say we could avoid all this by just taking waterproofs all the time. Well I disagree, I think there is a place for windproofs and the FRA seems to agree, based on the rules as they currently stand. Requiring waterproofs all the time could also be counterproductive - runners may delay putting them on in circumstances when they would have happily worn a windproof.
Finally please accept that I am genuinely trying to be constructive here. I realise that this forum is not a policy making mechanism for the FRA but if enough people support my suggestions above I will take them more formally to the FRA and ask them to consider them.
Stagger I am with you on this. Whats the problem with carrying the gear stipulated by the RO?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
Ok, I'll humour you...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodders
It's my first AL in the lakes on Saturday. What kit should I go and buy to ensure that I pass any kit inspection both now and in the future? I can't afford to buy a new pile of kit every week because a different RO has stipulated a higher standard than the last race I did.
Kit doesn't contain anything that someone considering running an AL wouldn't already have or couldn't buy for say 30 to 40 quid surely dom?
Dom thanks for the humour, it is appreciated. Regatta do a cheap set of taped seamed water proofs and windproof cover is cheap enough. Tanky's 09 was kit checked by IDP and it all fitted in a Bum Bag for most. If you are up for the race whats the problem with taking the kit?Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Ive just ran 14 miles over the hills with FULL waterproof gear in my bumbag, along with i phone and dog shit bags and a dog lead. A compass, passing clouds and langdale map. Then i did 40 mins on the rollers and still the kit debate rages on.Im just going to bang my head against the shed door.Jeeesus
Absolutely not a problem with carrying the kit - I just want to make sure I have the right kit to carry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodders
Thanks DT, I bought this one in the end - cost a bit more but must mean it's better??Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/montane-...jacket-p144394