DQ the cheats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddaddy

If you take Borrowdale, I think, I could enter having completed Kinder Trog and Windgather. Both done on fine clear days and involving zero navigation. Neither give a good representation of being competant to do Borrowdale with clag down and getting cold and lost!

---

Never having done any of them, I would imagine that Borrowdale on a sunny day would not be representative of Kinder Trod in clag etc. It cuts both ways.

Pendle / Bowland / Winter Hill / Lakeland - they can all be dangerous if you are ill prepared and maybe just unlucky.

We ultimately should take the responsibility upon ourselves when entering a race.

I went from short fell races like Darwen and Rivington to the PPP. I had to qualify, which I did by Chipping (AM) and Sedbergh (AL) and I also enhanced my competency by recces of the terrain, more mileage and some additional relevant race experience accumulated prior to taking on the race.

We have to look after ourselves and shouldn't enter races that we are not ready for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddaddy

If you take Borrowdale, I think, I could enter having completed Kinder Trog and Windgather. Both done on fine clear days and involving zero navigation. Neither give a good representation of being competant to do Borrowdale with clag down and getting cold and lost!

---

What does though? I've known well qualified mountain guides refused entries to races for lack of experience...

The BMC Participation Statement says that: The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1421

Thing is once we go the vetting way we then need to vet the vetters... and it just adds levels of bureaucracy...

We all know the 3 race thing is an accident waiting to happen... how easy is it to finish the edale skyline or 3 peaks in good weather... its just follow the leader.. you've seen people on here say if you aren't competent to run a route solo... do it as a race.. which is a scary attitude..

Anyway I still think there will be more and more responsibility placed on organisers and we'll have more and more shortened and cancelled races.. for me it should go back on the runners with clear participation statements and statements of competence... we're adults.. such methods ARE accepted practice in other sports.. so they are valid choices.. I understand the FRA may not go that way but this current attitude of mocking suggestions by members of the FRA committee and another race organiser is just out of order..I realise that this will mean some will enter who vet themselves safe... but all sports have that, how can you actually guard against without severely increasing the liability of the RO or vetters and allow an enable an open accessible sport...There has to be a balance somewhere...

I was recently publically mocked by a fellow Eryri member in our club magazine for suggesting the use of dibbers.. which if they are deemed suitable for 3 hr races in the peak in winter.. why aren't they suitable for 3 hr races in Snowdonia in September.. its just an atmosphere of one must not question...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

What does though? I've known well qualified mountain guides refused entries to races for lack of experience...

The BMC Participation Statement says that: The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1421

Thing is once we go the vetting way we then need to vet the vetters... and it just adds levels of bureaucracy...

We all know the 3 race thing is an accident waiting to happen... how easy is it to finish the edale skyline or 3 peaks in good weather... its just follow the leader.. you've seen people on here say if you aren't competent to run a route solo... do it as a race.. which is a scary attitude..

Anyway I still think there will be more and more responsibility placed on organisers and we'll have more and more shortened and cancelled races.. for me it should go back on the runners with clear participation statements and statements of competence... we're adults.. such methods ARE accepted practice in other sports.. so they are valid choices.. I understand the FRA may not go that way but this current attitude of mocking suggestions by members of the FRA committee and another race organiser is just out of order..I realise that this will mean some will enter who vet themselves safe... but all sports have that, how can you actually guard against without severely increasing the liability of the RO or vetters and allow an enable an open accessible sport...There has to be a balance somewhere...

I was recently publically mocked by a fellow Eryri member in our club magazine for suggesting the use of dibbers.. which if they are deemed suitable for 3 hr races in the peak in winter.. why aren't they suitable for 3 hr races in Snowdonia in September.. its just an atmosphere of one must not question...

---

I sometimes think that some of the posts on the forum by the Chair of the FRA Committee put the committee in a bad light. They sometimes give this image of an arrogant body that is beyond question

Personally however it doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I’m sure the reality is very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maddaddy

I sometimes think that some of the posts on the forum by the Chair of the FRA Committee put the committee in a bad light. They sometimes give this image of an arrogant body that is beyond question

Personally however it doesn’t bother me in the slightest and I’m sure the reality is very different.

---

I realise that's not the case.. I know a fair few of them in 'real life' and they are great...

Hon Chair has a forum 'personality' to maintain like the rest of us!;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Hon Chair has a forum 'personality' to maintain like the rest of us!;)

---

Possibly.. I'm just finding this common response by the err.... more mature members in the running community... of mock the suggestor rather than listen to sensible suggestions to be a bit of a weak response... it'd be great if we could all do that in our line of work... someone questions me in a paper.. argue back in the science.. or call him an arm chair scientist... 'you organise it'... it just suggests a weak intellect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Hon Chair has a forum 'personality' to maintain like the rest of us!;)

---

More than one I suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

Or the wisdom of people who are outdoor professionals... your call...

And don't hide behind that 'I've been organising races since 1993 what do I know"..Would you go to a witch Dr who has been practising for 30 years or a qualified MD...

The forum is for debate... don't be so precious... if you can't handle debate don't read the bloody thing!

---

Well said Iain. It's worth noting that not every suggestion or observation is people "armchair organising". Many of us on here have these discussions because we want the best for our sport and part of that is making sure people understand the rules.

Graham, you have a tendency to make up your mind about a post or question without bothering to fully read it or understand the context. If we're discussing kit requirements it doesn't mean we are trying to wriggle out of carrying the right stuff, or that we're not competent in the hills, or that we don't understand/wish to comply with the rules. It simply means we wish to discuss with other forum members their opinions as well.

To get back to the theme of the patriarchal tone of the FRA leadership on here. It is something I have noticed and it does puzzle me in this day and age.

Our glorious Chairman is a lovely bloke. It's just that his sense of humour is dry to the point of aridity.

I think we have almost succeeded in doing the impossible and having a constructive discussion on this theme. If we were chatting about these things before or after a race I dont think it would get anything like as heated as it sometimes appears to on here.
I dont think many of us are in disagreement over most of this at all. Most of us seem to think that we should carry what the FRA rules/RO ask for, I suspect that most of us dont mind what it is (ie waterproof or windproof) as long as someone lets us know if its one or the other. Some prefer windproof, some prefer waterproof, thats no surprise and no problem either - just take both or full waterproofs only, its only a problem if someone decides waterproofs are required but doesn't tell anyone which was the root of my concern and I see one or two feel the same way.
Just to try and put a few myths to bed.....
1) In most cases if we want to take windproofs it isn't because they weigh a few grammes less than waterproofs and will save us 30 seconds over a 3 hour course or bump us up from 150th place to 149th - its because some of us prefer to run in them.
2) In most cases we are all capable of looking at the weather, the forecast, the time we are likely to be out etc, and deciding for ourselves if windproofs or waterproofs are needed.
3) In most cases we know the difference between windproof and waterproof. Asking what a RO wanted doesn't mean that we cant decide for ourselves, just that we want to know what the RO wanted!
4) In most cases it isn't a problem anyway - but sometimes it is because if the RO wants waterproofs regardless we could do with knowing that and knowing that would be better than falling out with him or her after the event.

I still think however that we are 'fudging' the issue to some extent with regards to clearly stating what level of kit is required in particular races (I dont mean generically, I mean on the actual day) - we can all use our common sense and judgement but I think there is scope for misunderstanding with potentially serious consequences.

I think that covers most of the content of the last 26 pages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WIH 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.

Morgan W - some really good comments.
These are on the universal entry form. I would suggest that if a race organiser has these on the form and the advertises the race accordingly as ER then the athlete is responsible in most circumstances.
He knows that experience is required and has entered the race. If it's 20 miles with 5000ft with ER I think that is clear to all that you need to have done some AM, AL or BL races.

It should not fall on the RO to check the experience as they have made it clear that experience is required.

With races that ask for "standards" such as the Three Peaks, you could argue they are making a rod for their own back, but if they risk assess that a runner should have (for example) 2 x AM or AL races behind them and the athletes put such details forward at entry, they are covered in my mind.

---

Witton

I'm going to go all legal on you again; seems that some of my comments have been seen as helpful anyway!

The language on the standard entry from was my creation. A while ago I spotted an invalid disclaimer on the 3Ps entry form and told Dave Hodgson it didn't work. He asked me to produce one that did. I produced the words above in capitals and they found their way to the FRA.

I don't know whether they work or not. They are my best attempt bearing in mind the issue mentioned in post # 219. No-one will know if they work and protect the RO until they have been tested in the crucible of litigation, which I strongly hope never comes to pass.

As regards your suggestion above, I am not convinced this will work in all cases if the shit hits the fan.

I have mentioned the ROs duty of care a few times, and the scope of this duty will always be at the very heart of an issue if it goes down the legal path.

The ROs duty of care to an experienced runner and his or her duty of care to an inexperienced runner will, I suggest, be different, perhaps very different. (What I mean is that a judge would see them as different.) And this might well turn out to be a key issue if we ever get in a proper pickle.

We are familiar with differing duties of care of course in the sport. This is reflected in the way we deal with junior runners.

As Iain correctly points out, there are aspects of this thorny subject that relate to a combination of information and education, especially for newcomers and more inexperienced people who decide to compete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daz h

Keep it simple guys.Im sure the likes of selwyn, scoffer , alan greenwood, mr woodhead, roger bell and all the others that do great jobs will just keep it as it is. It works ok for me.

---

Darren

Agreed, keep it simple if possible (even though it isn't!)

"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

Feels like a maxim every RO might hold close to their heart.

That's enough legal bollocks on this topic. Apologies for taking the thread slightly off topic.

It's beer o'clock, even if I have to travel to Leeds to partake.

Morgan,

Is your camper van for sale?

Because you keep putting pictures of it on the Forum!

G

Have you got all that WJB????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorganW

Witton

As regards your suggestion above, I am not convinced this will work in all cases if the shit hits the fan.

I have mentioned the ROs duty of care a few times, and the scope of this duty will always be at the very heart of an issue if it goes down the legal path.

The ROs duty of care to an experienced runner and his or her duty of care to an inexperienced runner will, I suggest, be different, perhaps very different. (What I mean is that a judge would see them as different.) And this might well turn out to be a key issue if we ever get in a proper pickle.

We are familiar with differing duties of care of course in the sport. This is reflected in the way we deal with junior runners.

As Iain correctly points out, there are aspects of this thorny subject that relate to a combination of information and education, especially for newcomers and more inexperienced people who decide to compete.

---

I just cannot seeing a RO held responsible if for example they advise ER and a Park Run jogger eg. Danbert :thumbup: turns up at Sedbergh Hills and gets in to difficulty.
14 Miles, 6000ft, Local Knowledge, Navigational Skills Required, Experience Required.

I think that should cover it.

Otherwise that same duty of care would have already arisen due to the occasional death in the big city jogathons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I just cannot seeing a RO held responsible if for example they advise ER and a Park Run jogger eg. Danbert :thumbup: turns up at Sedbergh Hills and gets in to difficulty.
14 Miles, 6000ft, Local Knowledge, Navigational Skills Required, Experience Required.

I think that should cover it.

Otherwise that same duty of care would have already arisen due to the occasional death in the big city jogathons.

---

Most jogathon deaths are due to heart disease, in other words they are "intrinsic" - people do of course sign a form taking responsibility for their own health. If there was an "extrinsic" jogathon death say due to a car impact or slipping on a wet/slippery surface there might be a problem - similarly in a fell race a weather/terrain related death might also cause problems.

A few years ago (2002?) i seem to remember the Snowdon race organiser was being taked to court by the relatives of a runner (i think he was injured in the race). Anyone else remember this or know the outcome? I think lack of a drinks station was one of the issues raised. Would it have been Ken Jones organising it then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheGrump

To get back to the original post:


If someone believes there is sufficient evidence, which can be corroborated, to make a formal complaint about rule breaking, make one using the procedures in the FRA rules. There have been a number of transgressions this year, the outcome of which have been published in The Fell Runner. If they don't get reported, then no action can be taken.

---

27 posts? How many have you deleted and why?

Yes i remember.
I dont think the runner persued it any further and no case was answerable.the runner was left with a loss of sight in one eye and a speech impedement due to severe heat stroke
.yes, Ken Jones was organising it then

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Head

A few years ago (2002?) i seem to remember the Snowdon race organiser was being taked to court by the relatives of a runner (i think he was injured in the race). Anyone else remember this or know the outcome? I think lack of a drinks station was one of the issues raised. Would it have been Ken Jones organising it then?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Morgan,

Is your camper van for sale?

G

---

Graham

Everything's for sale if the price is right; otherwise "No". :wink::D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MorganW

Graham

Everything's for sale if the price is right; otherwise "No". :wink::D

---

By that reasoning, is Graham's face for sale?? :w00t:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike T

Where required by the RO and/or where the conditions look dodgy I do carry waterproof kit - with hood and taped seams, as well as a hat and gloves, but not a balaclava! Whole body cover does not actually mean whole body cover!

---

I was reflecting on this today in PBS:

9a "whole body cover" was always meant to mean and does mean a top with a hood (not least because if your top has a hood it will not blow away like a hat can)

9b "other body cover" meant and does mean things like gloves, hat, and if the RO feels like specifying it, a balaclava.

If "whole body cover" meant hat and gloves there would have been no need for a rule 9b.

It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this. The current rules have stood for decades without causing anyone any difficulty but that was, of course, BF (Before Forum).

Rule 9 also allows a RO to demand any other equipment he likes: eg mobile radios.

The approach of the FRA is to set a minimum level consistent with safety, gaining race insurance, etc and that will be implemented by RO and accepted by runners.

The FRA Committee (made up of active fellrunners and RO) will not set the bar so high or specify equipment so explicitly that the real world of fellrunning ignores its position, which is why the rules have lasted with relatively little alteration for 30 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this. The current rules have stood for decades without causing anyone any difficulty but that was, of course, BF (Before Forum).

The FRA Committee (made up of active fellrunners and RO) will not set the bar so high or specify equipment so explicitly that the real world of fellrunning ignores its position, which is why the rules have lasted
with relatively little alteration for 30 years.

---

As the Grump says we are now in a different age.. like it or not we have people entering the sport from a position of almost novices and are not serving the apprenticeship or being ignorant of general know how about the hills, such ambiguity and room in the rules for common sense will have been less of an issue 30-20 even 10 years ago. I think the FRA has to think about if things need changing due to the changing demographics of the sport...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

As the Grump says we are now in a different age.. like it or not we have people entering the sport from a position of almost novices and are not serving the apprenticeship or being ignorant of general know how about the hills, such ambiguity and room in the rules for common sense will have been less of an issue 30-20 even 10 years ago. I think the FRA has to think about if things need changing due to the changing demographics of the sport...

---

That, sadly, is true. As is the fact that some people refuse to listen to sound advice, perhaps because they feel 'they are worth it'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

I was reflecting on this today in PBS:

9a "whole body cover" was always meant to mean and does mean a top with a hood (not least because if your top has a hood it will not blow away like a hat can)

9b "other body cover" meant and does mean things like gloves, hat, and if the RO feels like specifying it, a balaclava.

If "whole body cover" meant hat and gloves there would have been no need for a rule 9b.

It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this. The current rules have stood for decades without causing anyone any difficulty but that was, of course, BF (Before Forum).

Rule 9 also allows a RO to demand any other equipment he likes: eg mobile radios.

The approach of the FRA is to set a minimum level consistent with safety, gaining race insurance, etc and that will be implemented by RO and accepted by runners.

The FRA Committee (made up of active fellrunners and RO) will not set the bar so high or specify equipment so explicitly that the real world of fellrunning ignores its position, which is why the rules have lasted with relatively little alteration for 30 years.

---

I think what we have seen from this thread is that many experienced people interpret the laws differently. Now as you say for decades this has not been a problem but as others have said there are possibly more people entering fell races without the necessary mountain experience.

You previously accused some people of being armchair race organisers but i think the majority of people who contributed to this thread have done so not as critics of RO's but out of concern that the RO could end up in a difficult situation if something serious was to occur and a lawyer or insurance company exploited any perceived ambiguity in safety procedures.

We all want to keep it simple and just go and run in the hills with the minimum of fuss but there is a minority with the modern mentality that if something goes wrong then someone else is always to blame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

As the Grump says we are now in a different age.. like it or not we have people entering the sport from a position of almost novices and are not serving the apprenticeship or being ignorant of general know how about the hills, such ambiguity and room in the rules for common sense will have been less of an issue 30-20 even 10 years ago. I think the FRA has to think about if things need changing due to the changing demographics of the sport...

---

Not sure I agree with this. I well remember the floods of non-apprenticed novice runners flooding into the sport in the mid 80's running boom. In particular, I remember one young idiot who thought that you could get away with running in cotton fleece training pants or that a M&S 'rain suit' and a pair of puma trainers with a studded resole were suitable equipment for competing in the Welsh 1000 metres!!!






:o:o:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Not sure I agree with this. I well remember the floods of non-apprenticed novice runners flooding into the sport in the mid 80's running boom. In particular, I remember one young idiot who thought that you could get away with running in cotton fleece training pants or that a M&S 'rain suit' and a pair of puma trainers with a studded resole were suitable equipment for competing in the Welsh 1000 metres!!!






:o:o:o

---

I would agree with you Wheeze. Blackburn Harriers has a long tradition of fell running with Harry Walker and John Calvert legends of the club and of fell running and I am a recent member and only get the folk lore.
But I have Vet members of the club who tell me of their tales of running Ian Hodgsons, 3 Towers and 3 Peaks with no fell experience hardly at all back in the 70s with Calvert and Walker.

They may have been experienced and high quality endurance runners but I would hazard a guess that the likes of IainR would venture that a sub 2:30 marathon was not an ideal qualification for a 20 mile+ fell race or a Lakeland test.

I don't think it's that much different these days to be honest. Most people I know taking on a challenge these days will prep by recces, prep races and training to suit before the real thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wheeze

Not sure I agree with this. I well remember the floods of non-apprenticed novice runners flooding into the sport in the mid 80's running boom. In particular, I remember one young idiot who thought that you could get away with running in cotton fleece training pants or that a M&S 'rain suit' and a pair of puma trainers with a studded resole were suitable equipment for competing in the Welsh 1000 metres!!!



:o:o:o

---

That's the beauty of it though isn't it.. but also why its difficult. Those 'I survived' experiences are part of fell/ultra running/climbing/hill walking. My first race since leaving school was at 22 when I bet a mate a £5 I could run the WHW in 2 days, then found out about the race, and 6 weeks later was falling asleep on my feet after 80 miles....with a resultant DNF... but it got me in the sport...

I remember one guy, a hitch hiker, doing one of Yiannis's races, Arenig Fawr, after he was picked up by a runner, talked into racing and given the gear to run...

There is a really hard balance to maintain between accessibility and safety...

In North Wales we simply do not have enough runners, 13 runners in a recent race... so for me the promotion of the sport is a no brainer issue in certain areas.

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;445458]I was reflecting on this today in PBS:

9a "whole body cover" was always meant to mean and does mean a top with a hood (not least because if your top has a hood it will not blow away like a hat can)

9b "other body cover" meant and does mean things like gloves, hat, and if the RO feels like specifying it, a balaclava.

If "whole body cover" meant hat and gloves there would have been no need for a rule 9b.

It may be the next time the FRA looks at the Safety Rules it will clarify this. The current rules have stood for decades without causing anyone any difficulty but that was, of course, BF (Before Forum).

Rule 9 also allows a RO to demand any other equipment he likes: eg mobile radios.

The approach of the FRA is to set a minimum level consistent with safety, gaining race insurance, etc and that will be implemented by RO and accepted by runners.

The FRA Committee (made up of active fellrunners and RO) will not set the bar so high or specify equipment so explicitly that the real world of fellrunning ignores its position, which is why the rules have lasted with relatively little alteration for 30 years.[/QUOTE

Is it not time to admit that the wording of 9a and 9b is really quite poor and, in the modern parlance,"unfit for purpose"? I suspect the current rules have caused problems/confusion in the past, it is just there was no easy way for these to be aired, unlike now.

.[/QUOTE

Is it not time to admit that the wording of 9a and 9b is really quite poor and, in the modern parlance,"unfit for purpose"? I suspect the current rules have caused problems/confusion in the past, it is just there was no easy way for these to be aired, unlike now.[/QUOTE]

I wonder how much of the original decision was affected by the differing weights of waterproof V wind proof... which is now almost negligible..

If weight is the issue then why not make everybody carry a minimum weight bum bag ?
say 1kg. within that they will ba able to accommodate the necessary safety kit, they just then need to add some ballast.
Simply place a set of scales at the start and finish to weigh people in and out and you are sorted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy k

If weight is the issue then why not make everybody carry a minimum weight bum bag ?
say 1kg. within that they will ba able to accommodate the necessary safety kit, they just then need to add some ballast.
Simply place a set of scales at the start and finish to weigh people in and out and you are sorted.

---

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

---

Apart from the fact you forgot to mention flogging for folk with waterproofs without taped seams and tarring and feathering anyone with a folded number it appears fine and very workable :closed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

---

You haven't considered weight loss during the event - which would negate the need to consider the weight of the mud?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

But then heavier and stronger people will find it easier to carry this relative to small slight ladies. Also, a small windproof would weigh less than a large one.

So, I propose a very simple system where all entrants are weighed and then they receive an allowance that their packed bag needs to exceed (for example 1/100th of their weight). Obviously, if this is done at the end of the race, you'd need to apply a simple calculation to account for the amount of mud that they are carrying. This again could be standardised, based on conditions and the course.

I can't see any drawbacks with this system, other than the difference in weight between equal volumes of fat or muscle. Fatter people should carry enough to cover them, but will weight less than an equal size muscly person. So, we need some sort of pool to immerse people in, to work out their volume. This would also be a handy way to test full body waterproof cover. If they come out wet, they're disqualified.

Can anyone think of any improvements on this?

---

THIS is what the Forum was invented for! Radical, lateral thinking instead of the sameoldsameold.

If you think you could stand the incessant, unthinking abuse from hoi polloi you could be on the Committee. Or with the intellectual qualities you display: perhaps you already are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

In North Wales we simply do not have enough runners, 13 runners in a recent race... so for me the promotion of the sport is a no brainer issue in certain areas.

---

In my opinion a few of our PD races have the opposite problem. Overpromotion. A few odd situations have cropped up in the last couple of years, predominantly through more people turning up to run than a particular race can reasonably accomodate, or at least it expected to accomodate (regardless of race limit), both practically and administratively. We've had massive influxes of 'first timers'. From there, we run into the problem touched on in this thread and others where we have people rolling up to race but not really having any idea about kit requirements and the like. As this has occurred mainly in midweek evening races throughout the summer it is as such not so great an issue, but I sometimes worry that we have a heck of a lot of people out there with little concept of mountain craft. Not that we have 'mountains' :wink:. I feel that some of the races have suffered a bit.

It's a tricky one because it's not anybody's fault. The RO can only estimate how many runners might turn up, they don't possess a crystal ball. The runners (whether seasoned fell experts or complete first timers) are well within their rights to race wherever they want to. But how to balance it out for a safe and productive outcome for everybody?

However 13 runners for a race is at the opposite end of the spectrum. What steps do you think need to be taken to promote more in your area Iain?

I'm rambling. I guess this is for a different thread isn't it?!

9 EQUIPMENT
Competitors should arrive at races prepared to carry any or all of the following equipment:-
a. Windproof whole body cover.
b. Other body cover appropriate for the weather conditions.
c. Map and compass suitable for navigating the course.
d. Whistle.
e. Emergency food (long races).
These requirements constitute “best practice” and are mandatory at all Category A Long and Medium races.
However any race organiser is free to impose additional safety requirements (e.g. waterproof as distinct from
windproof whole body cover) and competitors must be prepared to accept such requirements as a condition
of race entry.
In the event of settled fine weather, confirmed by a local weather report, the organiser may decide to waive
some of the above requirements for races of other categories.
Organisers must ensure that whatever requirements they specify on the day are met by holding complete or
random checks before and after the start of the race.
Race organisers should be aware of the dangers of hypothermia if injury to runners causes them to stop or
slow to a walking pace. Body heat is lost quickly and in cold, wet or windy weather the onset of hypothermia
can be very rapid unless sufficient warm clothing is carried. This factor should influence decisions on the
extra equipment runners are required to carry in poor or unsettled weather conditions. If necessary the fact
that the weather creates a high risk of hypothermia should be stressed to competitors.

I really cannot see that this needs any review.
a. Is clear - this is a minimum requirement and I think if someone has a jacket without hood that shouldn't be an issue. There is the additional warning that waterproof may be requested and anyone who turns up at a race without waterproof jacket and trousers are risking not being allowed to run to start with and also risking their own well being if they get passed the ROs scrutiny.
b.Covers not just hat and gloves, but sun protection which for me was equally important at Duddon a few years ago when I was out for 6 hours on a super warm day.
It basically means be prepared and we should all do that. We have our different ways of being prepared and so some flexibility has to be given by ROs as to the different efforts that athletes make to be comfortable and safe.

We cannot start getting too prescriptive and officious or where does it all end? Do we stop someone running around a race in trail shoes instead of fell shoes? Do we insist that gaiters are worn?
Do we have to specify what counts as emergency food and how much of it we have to carry?
Do we have to sound check the whistles?

What we have is fine, generally works. If organisers have any event specific requirements like radio or mobi then that will be in the race info to start with and if the regular equipment that we take is deemed insufficient on the day, then probably the race should be cancelled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

9 EQUIPMENT
Competitors should arrive at races prepared to carry any or all of the following equipment:-
a. Windproof whole body cover.
b. Other body cover appropriate for the weather conditions.
c. Map and compass suitable for navigating the course.
d. Whistle.
e. Emergency food (long races).
These requirements constitute “best practice” and are mandatory at all Category A Long and Medium races.
However any race organiser is free to impose additional safety requirements (e.g. waterproof as distinct from
windproof whole body cover) and competitors must be prepared to accept such requirements as a condition
of race entry.
In the event of settled fine weather, confirmed by a local weather report, the organiser may decide to waive
some of the above requirements for races of other categories.
Organisers must ensure that whatever requirements they specify on the day are met by holding complete or
random checks before and after the start of the race.
Race organisers should be aware of the dangers of hypothermia if injury to runners causes them to stop or
slow to a walking pace. Body heat is lost quickly and in cold, wet or windy weather the onset of hypothermia
can be very rapid unless sufficient warm clothing is carried. This factor should influence decisions on the
extra equipment runners are required to carry in poor or unsettled weather conditions. If necessary the fact
that the weather creates a high risk of hypothermia should be stressed to competitors.

I really cannot see that this needs any review.

---

It doesn't need review and there are no plans so to do. But the next time we look at the Rules we will consider them all to test if any of them lack clarity for today's ingénue and ingénu.