Got a feeling that my FRA number was, sent mine off now so cannot check!
Got a feeling that my FRA number was, sent mine off now so cannot check!
Please remember the views of Dave Jones before you vote....
Originally Posted by XRunner
but is it really that bloody simple x runner
looking at that list , makes me wonder
to the individual runner it seems a simple sport but dig further and what with all this saga about insurance and qualified race officials its obvious that we are heading for a more structured fell racing scene, as in most things in life its called progress
i think we could end up becoming a sport filled with more rules and regulations than we neither want or need just to please a larger organisation.
Not necessarily. If you read the objectives of SHR (http://www.shr.uk.com/WhatWeDo.aspx) they are very inclusive and promote open access. Their championship is open, the calendar is freely accessible, race organisers are given priority support. It does not have a rule book (although it has a safety code of course). This is the model to go for.
Some points you should consider before voting:
1. Does UKA affiliation help you as a race organiser?
2. Does UKA race affiliation help you, personally, as a competitor?
3. Does UKA affiliation really help your club in what it does?
4. Who does UKA affiliation really help?
5. Has the UKA PST really helped FRA, or race organisers, or you?
6. Is there real evidence of UKA changing in the busy run-in to the Olympics?
7. How many UKA professionals do you know, and when did you last see one at a fell race - - ?
8. Does UKA matter to the majority of fell runners?
9. Name a UKA publication that included something interesting on fell racing.
10. Why did the sub-committee not ask themselves these questions and list the advantages and disadvantages of affiliation (something that should have been a fundamental first priority)?
11. Why did the committee not ask for an interim progress report and give the SC a steer in the right direction?
Last edited by wkb21; 25-05-2007 at 08:58 AM. Reason: clarification
An excellent set of questions, Keith. I wish the sub-committee's report could have been based along these lines. I also think it's pertinent to ask if the sub-committee contacted WFRA and SHR when they went out on their quest for the 'facts'. Here we have two UK-based fell running organisations which split from UKA some time ago and which have doubtless gained useful knowledge in the process which could have been of benefit to the FRA in the current debate. Were WFRA and SHR consulted - there's no mention of either in the report?
Cheers, Steve
Yes! I echo those sentiments. It would be very interesting to know whether WFRA or SHR were consulted. If not, how can it be considered a comprehensive, unbiased fact finding mission?
I can confirm that the WFRA were not consulted.
Ross Powell
Chairman WFRA
I've not had my ballet paper through?
Thank you Ross, I was wondering about that.
There we go then.......
...er... but are you not Chairman of the WFRA AND on the FRA?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote