FRA Members ratio in races

[noel]

Thank you.

[ba-ba]

Having attended the first organiser meeting (but not yet read the notes) I took away this:
All the disciplinary issues the FRA had to deal with last year involved non-members.
There is some evidence (not that the explicit evidence was flagged up) that membership of an organisation leads to a greater likelihood of following its rules. The publishing of the 'Rules for Runners' posters has also been brought in to target the 'I didn't know the rules' excuse (not that it is a valid excuse, we sign the rules every time we enter a race, but how many read it?)

Travelling around fell races across the country FRA committee members have been surprised at how many people aren't even aware of what 'FRA' means, let alone what it does or its existance.
The collection of FRA member status at races is primarily a data collection exercise, but is also a bit of nudge theory to maybe encourage people to join (which seems to have worked a bit over Dec and early Jan).

Regarding championships - ROs organise the races, but the FRA organises and runs the championships. There are some championship stalwarts (unnamed!) who race in and win English/British championships, get on the guaranteed entry list, avail themselves of free FRA doo tickets provided to gold medal winners etc., but aren't actually FRA members. The free tickets and guaranteed entry list now, I believe, require FRA membership.

The FRA stated that they may allow a levy (e.g. £2) to be applied to FRA races for non-members, but that they don't want to broad brush the entire calendar. They stated that this would be at organisers' discretion and, as with most small EA races, the destination of the levy would be decided by the organiser and not sent to the FRA (we were told that for the EA levy, EA only keep it for the bigger commercial city marathons and the like)

There is some thought towards that for particularly arduous races - e.g. the ALs - FRA membership could be an entry requirement as they want people to think about their capability before entering a race willy-nilly online.
(Sort of like - Fell Running welcomes everyone but not all events are made for everyone right at this moment! It could be some way to head off people thinking 'I've done a Trunce therefore I can now enter Wasdale as they're both fell races so must be similar' or the like. I'm not sure how prevalent this mindset is but it is something I worry about!)

The Durham meeting was worthwhile attending and the organisers there were generally on the same page as the FRA for the points discussed.

[Mark G]

I try and look at this from the point of view of FRA members having to pay levies/extra to enter other organisations events - LDWA events come to mind, many now seem to have more runners than walkers. I try and do 2 or 3 a year, usually over the winter as early season preparation. At present someone who is an LDWA member but not FRA can still enter our events with no levy - I'd prefer this to remain the case but perhaps negotiate with the LDWA (and other similar bodies) to allow FRA members to enter their events without an extra charge?..... 'You are welcome to enter our events at no extra charge, would you like to consider allowing our members to do the same with your events?'
It would be nice to be a member of lots of organisations/clubs - but where do you draw the line? BMC, CTC, FRA, MBA, BCU, ISKGA, EA, LDWA, BT (British Tri) - the list goes on, plus many have local branches or clubs with separate individual membership fees on top of that. If you do many different things and want to join all it could get very expensive, especially if some of your events/outings are occasional things. I try to keep it simple and am a life member of the FRA (cheaper - its paid for itself), a member of CFR (a fell only club), in the CTC (primarily for the insurance) and pay the extra levies for things like BCU qualifications or triathlon entries.

[Witton Park]

(we were told that for the EA levy, EA only keep it for the bigger commercial city marathons and the like)

In the old days the levy was returned to the North and it was a huge source of income as they received up to £60k from the Great North Run.

When it passed to EA they also used to have all the levies, but after a couple of years came up with a scheme where races were banded.
It went something like very small races to huge ones like GNR in around 15 bands from £25 to £15k

I think clubs races now just pay £25 regardless of unattached runner levies and only non-clubs such as privateers and charities pay the fee.

It has saved a fortune for the big races, but I suppose they could have just threatened to take out their own cover and run the event outside of EA although then they couldn't have had the accreditation necessary for the elites to set records and PBs.

So to summarise. EA haven't taken the levy for almost a decade, but take a fee for permitting dependant on the size of race and who the RO is.

[Witton Park]

There is some thought towards that for particularly arduous races - e.g. the ALs - FRA membership could be an entry requirement as they want people to think about their capability before entering a race willy-nilly online.

The tried and tested way is by having the recent qualifying races. I'm hoping to have another trot around the Three Peaks in 2021 after a few years of little racing and being too slow, before I am permanently too slow - I might be already
They insist on qualifying races so I have this year to get in 2 x AM, AL or BL which is actually a great way of getting me to get the appropriate prep in

[Witton Park]

I try and look at this from the point of view of FRA members having to pay levies/extra to enter other organisations events - LDWA events come to mind, many now seem to have more runners than walkers. I try and do 2 or 3 a year, usually over the winter as early season preparation. At present someone who is an LDWA member but not FRA can still enter our events with no levy - I'd prefer this to remain the case but perhaps negotiate with the LDWA (and other similar bodies) to allow FRA members to enter their events without an extra charge?..... 'You are welcome to enter our events at no extra charge, would you like to consider allowing our members to do the same with your events?'
It would be nice to be a member of lots of organisations/clubs - but where do you draw the line? BMC, CTC, FRA, MBA, BCU, ISKGA, EA, LDWA, BT (British Tri) - the list goes on, plus many have local branches or clubs with separate individual membership fees on top of that. If you do many different things and want to join all it could get very expensive, especially if some of your events/outings are occasional things. I try to keep it simple and am a life member of the FRA (cheaper - its paid for itself), a member of CFR (a fell only club), in the CTC (primarily for the insurance) and pay the extra levies for things like BCU qualifications or triathlon entries.

but the point is Mark, they are UKA events and have been for quite a while now, held under UKA rules subbed down to the National Associations and then in England by England Athletics down to the FRA as the National Committee.
That FRA members think they are more entitled to run than EA members is an error in my opinion.

[Mark G]

but the point is Mark, they are UKA events and have been for quite a while now, held under UKA rules subbed down to the National Associations and then in England by England Athletics down to the FRA as the National Committee.
That FRA members think they are more entitled to run than EA members is an error in my opinion.

I get your point but I don't think FRA members feel a sense of 'entitlement' in that way - if we did we would probably charge non FRA members a levy, whether they were in EA or not! And the EA has nothing whatsoever to do with the International Sea Kayak Guides Association, The Mountain Bothies association, or indeed (as far as I know - the LDWA)- I'm just pointing out that's its impracticable to join everything but I'd rather see reciprocal arrangements than have the FRA charging levies to non members.
As regards fell running (as opposed to say cross country or athletics) I think its more accurate to say we have a sense of ownership perhaps? But its a generous ownership where all are welcome, subject only to abiding by the rules.

[FellJunior]

Having attended the first organiser meeting (but not yet read the notes) I took away this:
All the disciplinary issues the FRA had to deal with last year involved non-members.
There is some evidence (not that the explicit evidence was flagged up) that membership of an organisation leads to a greater likelihood of following its rules. The publishing of the 'Rules for Runners' posters has also been brought in to target the 'I didn't know the rules' excuse (not that it is a valid excuse, we sign the rules every time we enter a race, but how many read it?)

Travelling around fell races across the country FRA committee members have been surprised at how many people aren't even aware of what 'FRA' means, let alone what it does or its existance.
The collection of FRA member status at races is primarily a data collection exercise, but is also a bit of nudge theory to maybe encourage people to join (which seems to have worked a bit over Dec and early Jan).

Regarding championships - ROs organise the races, but the FRA organises and runs the championships. There are some championship stalwarts (unnamed!) who race in and win English/British championships, get on the guaranteed entry list, avail themselves of free FRA doo tickets provided to gold medal winners etc., but aren't actually FRA members. The free tickets and guaranteed entry list now, I believe, require FRA membership.

The FRA stated that they may allow a levy (e.g. £2) to be applied to FRA races for non-members, but that they don't want to broad brush the entire calendar. They stated that this would be at organisers' discretion and, as with most small EA races, the destination of the levy would be decided by the organiser and not sent to the FRA (we were told that for the EA levy, EA only keep it for the bigger commercial city marathons and the like)

There is some thought towards that for particularly arduous races - e.g. the ALs - FRA membership could be an entry requirement as they want people to think about their capability before entering a race willy-nilly online.
(Sort of like - Fell Running welcomes everyone but not all events are made for everyone right at this moment! It could be some way to head off people thinking 'I've done a Trunce therefore I can now enter Wasdale as they're both fell races so must be similar' or the like. I'm not sure how prevalent this mindset is but it is something I worry about!)

The Durham meeting was worthwhile attending and the organisers there were generally on the same page as the FRA for the points discussed.

Thanks Nic for pointing out the real current agenda.
I concur, safety is a growing concern. I regularly support senior and junior race registration teams, and too often see and hear entrants argue against RO kit decisions, try to avoid them, or blatantly disregard them. Even in the Junior Championship there have been instances of body cover being handed to parents immediately after the start and then collected back just before the finish in order to pass the kit check. On one occasion a culprit injured himself out on the course and having dumped his jacket at the start began to develop hypothermia. Parents of course have to take responsibility and accept any subsequent blame.

Some years ago I was sat at Honister waiting for the Borrowdale race to come through. Talking to a couple of other spectators, I was informed that their husband/son had never done anything like this before, didn't know the area, and couldn't read a map, but it was on his bucket list. Presumably in his mind that justified his participation and made it alright.

This is not just about individual safety of competitors, marshals, and rescue teams, it is also about protecting the sport from idiots and in the event of a tragedy, outside interference. You only have to consider the media interest, mis-reporting, and pontificating by ill-informed public officials surrounding the 2008 OMM to understand how quickly those, who have responsibility for an event can lose control of a situation. The sport doesn't need that.

[Dave_Mole]

I'm curious: if this is about safety, there must be data about the number of people banned for not carrying kit and if they were FRA members or not. FRA members are just as liable, I think, to not carry kit than members. Unfortunately enforcing kit regs is extremely patchy and maybe stricter enforcement might lead to better compliance, between both members and non-members.

[Witton Park]

I'm curious: if this is about safety, there must be data about the number of people banned for not carrying kit and if they were FRA members or not. FRA members are just as liable, I think, to not carry kit than members. Unfortunately enforcing kit regs is extremely patchy and maybe stricter enforcement might lead to better compliance, between both members and non-members.

It can't be about safety Dave.

for example how will preferential entry for FRA members such as a £2 discount to the entry fee stop a Tough Mudder unattached adrenalin junkie turning up at Borrowdale?

It has to be about the "Many members have told us (with justification) that they feel they are subsidising non-members."