Originally Posted by
alwaysinjured
There is no value in giving anyone grief - the right result is the key.
Amateur is not an offensive word or comment of general capability, it is a proper description of fitness to conduct specific tasks.
I am happy to consider my self amateur in places I am not competent to advise. Building fascinates me, and whilst I am happy to tinker, i have to take and follow and take advice on anything of significance. I am not professional or competent builder.
I am a professional and well qualified chartered engineer - I have advised on seriously dangerous projects which had I got it wrong could kill thousands, so I have to ensure that I am competent to do that, or decline to comment or advise where uncertain. I am expected to know my limits, and not blunder in areas outside expertise. I am or was a professional company secretary charged with handling contractual matters, so wherever I had qualms about knowledge or legal interpretation I had to take advice. Ditto safety, whilst qualified on operational safety and a responsible person for corporate safety I have to know the limits of that and so on, or be open to claims of negligence.
After much experience of contractual and safety things, I am certain no professional would create a safety document such as the rules without proper regard to the limitations of practicability, which the document clearly does not contain. The language and presentation of the document screams amateur, and I think a lawyer acting against an organiser could have a field day with it.
I expected to see a more rigorous document aimed at minimising the likelihood of negligence claims, and I see the opposite.
I find it hard to believe professional advice has been taken to determine the respective likelihood of liabillity for FRA and organisers in respect of the final document because it is not written in the kind of language those people use. I cited examples.
If the committee are indeed amateur - ie no professional lawyers or safety people - not an insult - then considering events and the recent use of the previous rules in the context of a tragedy, which could have had criminal not just civil consequence, then that failure to take advice outside the scope of their professional competence would in any other context Be considered negligence on the part of the committee.
That is all I am asking them to do. If there are as I suspect, no professional lawyers or safety people among them, which that document radiates, then they should seek a professional opinion on the likely consequences to organisers in event of a tragedy, and in consequence rewrite it in a more robust way to protect all parties interests.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and claims that well intentioned people lost by failing to pay attention to detail in a litigious world.
I know my own limitations, and declare myself not competent to give said advice, but I know enough to know when such advice should be taken.
Since I neither race nor organise, it is not of much significance to me, but I suspect the organisers if they appreciated how exposed it leaves them would cancel,most of the race calendar until sense prevails.
I have repeated the same things several times so until something changes, little point in adding more.
If another accident happens, that document will become the nails used by amoral lawyers to crucify the organiser. I do not want that to happen, but seemingly I am almost alone in that. If the worst happens it will be everyones lawyers: not just the victims families, but also the insurance company, the police and CPS, and probably UKA too, lining up to take potshots with that document, citing broken rules. The organiser will stand alone. We owe it to the organiset to at least make it a fair contest based on practical rules. Right now they are not. It is a chocolate fireguard.
