[QUOTE=IainR;443702]At the moment the organiser takes too much responsibilityQUOTE]
But it is a risky job, at least in theory.
There is a balance of risk that exists between RO and competitor. It is that balance that needs to be kept, with the responsibility for their own safety largely resting with the runner. That seems to be the view of most people here.
But in order for that to happen, the RO needs to keep him or herself on the right side of the risk line.
There are FRA Safety Requirements. I think it is pretty clear that if a RO complies with those, he or she will be staying on the right side of the risk line. (And will receive the full backing of the UKA insurers if anything does go badly wrong.)
There will be some elements that he or she might take a view on. Who knows how these decisions will affect the risk scales? We won't truly know until the Safety Requirememts are tested in some formal manner.
Clearly certain aspects will be viewed as more important than others; vetting for ER races and kit checking at M and L category races seem to me to fall into that category.
And how do the insurers react when ROs "depart" from the Safety Requirements? I have no idea, because the issue of looking at whether cover is in place or denied in difficult circumstances has never arisen.
Some will think it never will. I hope those people are right.
Reply With Quote