THE CORONERS LETTER
- and why the rules MUST be changed from what is proposed, and why an RO should not sign up until they are, certainly not out of expedience.
The reality of the recent event was as in the narrative verdict: that a tragic accident occurred, and whilst procedures clearly need to make sure that it is known when a runner has not returned, in this case it would have made no difference to the outcome.
But there is a louder message in the points from the coroner:
It is vital for ALL RO to understand the DIRECT connection between our rules, the misguided claims made there, and how hostile witness can use that against any RO in future.
So poor rules , however expedient MUST NOT be passed, however pressing the deadline.
Consider the following points by the coroner. And how they came to be...
Take these three for example...
4. There was no reliable means of communication between the race control and the marshals out on the fells so that each of them were aware of the number of participants in the race, those who had retired, and where they had retired.
5. Thus it was not possible to "monitor" the runners around the course as required by the FRA Safety Requirement number 13. The higher the "risk" to participants in the race, because of terrain, weather conditions, length of the race etc, the higher the need for an effective means of communication, which should be planned into the preparations for the race.
6. When the marshal at checkpoint 3 notified race control of an inaccurate number of runners who passed through checkpoint 3 there was no consideration or investigation as to the reasons for the inaccuracies.
Number 5 is a direct consequence of the "old rule 13" - "race monitoring and rescue procedures"
Specifically these words: WHICH SHOW HOW THE OLD RULES WERE VERY BADLY DRAFTED, and how that can come home to roost...
Here is the rule. That is what we say about ourselves is what we will be judged by...
13 "This means that each individual runner must be checked around the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is known to race control. Since accurate timing of a call-out is often vital (literally sometimes a matter of life and death) it is often quite inadequate to wait until the completion of long races before an alert is raised"
That very bad drafting clearly claims three things.
- First the wrongful claim that it is practical in all circumstances to track from checkpoint to checkpoint, and
- Second that the communications are good enough for race control to know with certainty, and
- Third that it is sensible to call out mountain rescue /commence searches before completion of a race.
Nowhere does it mention the "practicability" of any of the above in that drafting.
Combine that with the ill advised statement in Rule 12 on marshalls
"Strategic checkpoint marshals should be in contact with race control "
"If weather conditions prevent them carrying out the monitoring procedures efficiently, race control must be informed"
Then the ill informed outside fell running are entitled to assume that tracking is always possible, counting is always perfect, and communications can be flawless. Hence the coroners points.
Anyone who has marshalled in bad weather knows it is not that simple.
When runners are mainly wearing weatherproof tops, the course is public so other runners are passing, it is windy so people cannot hear easily, radios and phones are compromised, and even if connection can be established it is very often hard to hear what is said. Compound that with the fact that when runners can miss checkpoints, many can go off route and take hours to arrive back, and even getting back at walking pace after a minor injury can take a very long time.
So counting, monitoring, and tracking are INEVITABLY imperfect.
But that is not what the rules say. So somebody must be to blame. And blame they will.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HOSTILE WITNESS APPEARS
The above get referenced in testimony under "failures of duty of care" - which in english means they are cited as evidence of negligence. I list just a few curt phrases out of a page of UKA testimony on a section devoted to failure of duty of care.
"monitoring system responsibility of organiser per rule 13" ""communications were inadequate" - and every single discrepancy of counting cited under "failures of duty"
Coroner Item 6 is fascinating.
That particular marshall had an overcount of two, not an undercount - which UKA witness highlighted as "should have been investigated" The overwhelming likelihood from having actually marshalled in bad weather, is a couple came through the checkpoint who were not in the race, did not respond properly when asked - or said something which was not properly heard in the wind: so were ticked off as people passing just in case. What was the marshall supposed to do? Leave them off the list? how would that help? That is the reality of marshalling. Not all checkpoints will agree. It is not a failure of duty. It is a fact of life.
Had the rules noted that counting is imperfect...would that have made the "failures of duty" from an expert witness? so how would it have made the coroners report?
I do not want to drop an RO in it, so no naming of names or races, but I know of one RO relatively horrified at the current proposals, who is also considered one of the best, who admitted that in a recent lakeland race THEIR checkpoint marshalls disagreed too. If the best cannot do it, who can?
Thank heaven for the police witness who injected a sense of reality to all this.
And stated that the problems were not unusual, a fact of life of fell racing, other than needing to improve the start/finish counts - which is the clear takeaway from all this.
All three coroner points therefore, came from inadequate drafting of rules, that implied perfection can be achieved where it cannot, couple that with hostile witness highlighting every discrepancy (this case UKA) and you have a dangerous mixture
SO THE POINT IS RACE ORGANISERS.
You will be measured against what the rules SAY, and the worst interpretation of that, not against the reasonableness of them, or what you hope they mean.
If the rules say it, you will be expected to do it perfectly to the rules, unless the rules give you a let out, and anything less (most of the real world) may be treated as failure of duty.
So the nonsense as it is on course description, the fact that all weather can be dangerous, that marshalls do their best but cannot be guaranteed to be perfect,, they cannot "communicate to control" when they cannot monitor properly, not least because some of the time the communications will not work! Must all be removed for your sake.
Many of the problems were not put there by the present committee, they long predated that.
But they need to be improved the present commitee PDQ to something that can actually be done.
If nothing else read this from current rules:
"ORGANISER * has a “duty of care” to all those participating in the event to ensure that the event
complies with the conditions demanded by the FRA in providing a permit and race insurance for the
event"
So the FRA are telling you that if any of the rules are deemed broken , (or if UKA say you have) and you may not even be INSURED and by implication that could even mean "no defence costs"! You cannot trust any more favourable treatment, than the worst interpretation of the rules as written.
The rules need to clearly state that ALL courses are unconditionally dangerous, and so is ALL weather, NO communications can EVER be perfect, that marshalling is INEVITABLY flawed, that it is unlikely to ever have enough certainty to call out a search before the end of a race and so on. In short, describe the hazards to runners and say "on your head be it..."
Instead the rules mandate with a MUST, things that cannot be assured.
You have been warned...
In this case the late finding of the unfortunate casualty had no bearing on the outcome. In other circumstances it might of done, and with rules as they are the outcome might have been VERY different. As wynn says, she does not want to lose her house (or her liberty!) over a fell race.
So the rules are there to protect an RO, provided what is stated is doable in all circumstances, then they have honoured their obligations.
