I was agreeing with you - poking fun at us including me - we are an outspoken lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
Printable View
I was agreeing with you - poking fun at us including me - we are an outspoken lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by OB1
in a lay context " compulsory" can mean what you like. In a legal context if undefined it means what a judge decides on the day on the basis of argument and precedent, and that may be nothing like what you think it means, which is why it has to be defined, and in properly drafted legal documents such words always are.Quote:
Originally Posted by luxinterior
Or better, get rid of the ridiculous idea of stating " no hazards" in compulsory sections then nobody will care what it means any more.
The rest of that section is drafted no better, because the route clealy temps you down bad step which is arguably in contravention of rule 4 demanding that RO should not choose a route that tempts people to rock climb - and if push came to shove - a lawyer would definitely try to argue that rule had been broken.
People forget a guy went headlong over bad step, in the race, but amazingly ran away with an egg sized bump, instead of being dead with a broken neck, another possible outcome. If that had happened those rules would be scrutinized in the coroners court and by police. It would no longer be up to the dead runner on whether to iniate proceedinds.
The RO would find it hard to say the route did not tempt them to use it - and the fact of a previous faller, and nothing done about the route, would make a claim of negligence for the RO on breaching rule 4 very hard to defend.
The stakes are higher than people seem to think.
Crazy those rules.
Barking.
It is a place for professionals, not well meaning amateurs to draft them.
WITH PROTECTION for the RO this time, not the insufferable " I am allright jack" coming from runners and the FRA.
Few people are qualified to comment on any aspect of events leading to or taking place at the recent Inquest; and certainly no one who was not even there but is using hearsay and anecdote to grind their axe.
FRA fell races rely totally on race organisers.
The FRA will therefore always support its race organisers.
Fairly obvious I think.
Mike & Hazel Robinson received unswerving support from the FRA from the moment Mike rang me 18 months ago on the morning Brian Belfield was found to a couple of weeks ago when we both spent 4 days at the Inquest.
Talk to them.
Then choose: fun of the Forum or fell running reality?
I just googled that inquest and what reporting there was of it on line seemed to be skewed towards looking for fault more than anything else. In the scheme of things anybody could get disorientated in bad weather, slip, and bang their head and all fell runners I think appreciate that. Heck the weather doesn't even have to be extreme. All the same a really usefull insight into how 'facts' might look or be presented in the cold light of dayQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
None of this is fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
They have been through enough,
We will know when you are serious about supporting RO s when you start addressing the weaknesses in the rules which is the rope the next ones will be hung by.
Get a legal opinion from an RO point of view on the points made before someone comes a cropper. Like is it wise to certify any section of a course hazard free? Play the "what would happen if" games needed to make sure there are no unintended legal consequences.
I fail to believe ANY solicitor would recommend a client RO sign up to that, or some of the other warranties the rules now demand.
Then amend as advised.
It is all I am asking.
Why do you always attack the messenger and demean his motives, rather than heed the message?
Wheeze said. he was dead against UKA/FRA linking.. which I would cause animosity. In Wales especially it was very contentious..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I suppose my experience of GB/UKA is as a runner. I've competed with the support of WA and UKA.. incomparable. I just found it so professional. Everything dealt with, early selection, kit, hotels, there was nothing you wanted, it really changed my experiences about how athletes should be treated.
But, There is now real UKA (GBA) recognition of mountain and fell running. This weekend I was at the GBA celebration dinner and they had a review of the years and of course it was dominated by the track and field, but ultra and fell/mountain were mentioned in the talks and pictures shown.
I think that can really inspire the kids especially, to push on and gain a GB vest. that helps participation and keeping them in the sport..
Son has numerous GB vests, which is how I got sucked in (suckered in?) to athletics management, so I know a lot of what goes on , and how the sport works up to senior levels, and it really is chalk and cheese with fell running: the entire philosophy is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
I supported wheeze in saying that I do not think Minimal races are either a bad thing or impossible to find legal formulas that allow them to run without exposing organisers, but it will be increasingly hard to do that with the UKA tie up, because of how they view the role of event organiser, so difficult to do with their insurance.
For all that the image of UK Athletics and the experience of it are two different things. The sad reality is that the essential prime mover that gets kids through the ranks to international level, is a lot of people who quietly devote all their time to coaching and competition management, and yet they barely have a voice in how the sport is run, and continuously fight for the things they need. They are not the kind of people that get invited to the kind of do you went, it is the blazer brigade, well known athletes and upper echelons that tend to get invited instead. Or that was true when I was involved.
Some of the silly catch 22 s still annoy me. Take you cannot get funding (or even selected for international competitions) unless you are a prospective/finalist/ medal hope , and you likely cannot become a prospective finalist/ medal hope unless you are able to get funding, and experience of international competition, because of the need to train full time to stand a chance of being good enough. It is those lower down, not those already earning that need the funding!
I am an athletics fan that attends meetings, yet I despair of how badly the events are marketed, even to people like me. It is luck that I discover they are either on, or on TV. All is not as rosy as seems.
Thats what it wasn't.. everyone in the room was an athlete or coach.. we had a few office staff maybe.. but it was Neil Black and then we had the ultra coaches, not sure mountain running lot were there.. then loads of 16-18 year olds.. on every table there must have been 3-4 16-18 year olds. It was a dry event presumably for that reason. Of the big names there weren't many, Adam G and Hannah England were the two biggest I think..Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I think this was the first time for that sort of meal so they said.
I'm sure there is still a lot of blazer brigade but I find it much less than in football..
I really am glad. Maybe as Bob Dylan said "the times they are a changin'"Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
Is five years since I was last involved in athletics event organisation. A decade was enough for me....pain thresholds being what they are. Probably ought to leave it there related the event: a bit off topic the thread.
Except in as far as UKA philosophy and custom and practise on event organisation, is far removed from the needs of the average fell race.
A course to an athletics organiser, is somewhere essentially under his control, where he/she can segregate, spectators from athletes from dangerous areas from traffic. And where public and athletes include many minors, so organiser is totally responsible for telling them what to do and where to do it. Where he is in direct communication with all of the other officials, and can SEE!! Where the course can be inspected minutely and any hazards found and removed, and will be the same when it is inspected, as when it is used some hours later.
A far cry from a fell race.
I think I detect clashes of expectation and experience on a whole number of levels. In regards to the last post a clash between UKA and fell running: the latter with little experience of the somewhat wilder nature of the fells (and the people who choose to run on them). But I also sense an "old school" who have grown up with, and are used to, both the mountain environment as a whole, the ethos and approach to fell running specifically and who grew up with a sport which whose lack of regulation and rules was one of its attractions.
But we (sadly) live in changed times. People have different expectations. The new rules are a reflection of this, and the debate on these pages have been an attempt to draw attention to some of the issues that the (more general) shift in focus to managing risk and the potential for litigation when things go wrong which is now prevalent in society as a whole (where someone, somewhere must be responsible, for whatever befalls us). I think we all agree that fell running is a risky sport and it's a sad reflection on wider society that it's felt there's need for regulation etc, but that's the way it's gone and we'll have to get used to it. It's surprising that we've got away with it for so long, frankly.
So: the Rules should be as watertight as they can be, within the boundaries and limitations of the environment we find ourselves. It seems from discussion on here that they aren't, and, without going into massive detail, I'm inclined to agree. There's a Health and Safety culture out there, folks, and people who will exploit it if they get the opportunity. This, coupled with the changed expectations of people new to the sport, or coming into it from other areas where there is more regulation, has huge potential to cause problems across the board from the FRA to ROs and, ultimately, to us humble runners who turn up and try to comply with the rules, but just want to get out into the hills and "enjoy" ourselves.
It seems a real shame that some real issues raised here don't really seem to be given the full consideration they perhaps deserve, largely, it seems to me, as an outsider, based on clashes in personality and issues over protocol.