Printable View
I note the Home Page reports a sanction applied to a runner (Grant Cunliffe - Rossendale Harriers) who ran in a race when unregistered. The key issue arising out of the Brian Belfield Inquest was the lack of clarity over the number of runners in the race. The changes the Coroner recommended that the FRA make with regard to ensuring the safety of runners were to help in eliminating this re-occurring. I applaud the FRA Committee for the action it has taken.
The improvement of procedures to protect legitimate runners is an on-going process. In this context it would be useful for race organisers and their teams to understand how current checks were circumvented in this deplorable incident. As I have commented before; due to the head count inconsistencies that can be generated by actions like this, the last legitimate runner in this race was potentially left unsupported on the fell, albeit only momentarily given the route and distance of this particular event. However, this would not be the case in a longer race over more remote terrain.
The post on the home page refers to a breach of "Rule 2c of the FRA Rules for Competition". The rules here:
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/documen...ompetition.pdf
don't have a rule 2c. Is that document out of date?
If you go to FRA Documents and scroll down to Requirements and Rules for RO's and scroll down again you will find Rule 2c, tucked up nice and warm, between 2b and 2d
"FRA Requirements and Rules for Race Organisers 2018"
Why is a rule specifically identified as a rule for ROs used to discipline a runner? Shouldn't it be in the rules for runners?
It is in the rules for runners - rule 2 to be exact:
2. Comply with the Race Rules. Enter the race by completing the race entry form. Do not run without having done this. Race Organisers may introduce special requirements to suit their particular race (for example additional equipment, time limits, previous experience criteria) and these must be obeyed.
Just read the latest disciplinary case on the Home page. The 2 and 3 month bans seem a bit lenient to me.
I've often thought that shorter length bans can be disproportionate depending on when they are applied. E.g.
2 month ban in Feb will not see you missing many races whereas the same in May would.