Three Peaks Fell Race

[Leeds Rhino]

My slowest Three Peaks out of 9 races. Got round trouble free and with no cramp problems, it must be the Nuun tablets,they really do seem to work

[dominion]

But then if it was correctly graded as a BL then the mandatory kit requirements would be different anyway??

Lights blue touch paper and walks away....

[Mark L]

I just said to the lady that I didn't have any and she said nevermind then!

I suppose the said nice lady could, and should, have disqualified you on the spot. But I don't think the fact that she didn't is grounds for complaining about the "inconsistency" of rule enforcement.

[Stolly]

But then if it was correctly graded as a BL then the mandatory kit requirements would be different anyway??

Lights blue touch paper and walks away....

Good one Dom - I prefer to think of the 3P as a nightmare AL but with an effing nightmare of a 5.5 mile run in bolted on the end!

As for the gloves and hat debate its all a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill but announcing that they wanted what might have been 900 + runners to carry hats and gloves on the morning of the race, when Pete Bland had half a dozen of each to sell, when the weather forecast was 16 degrees and sunny, albeit windy, when the previous two days weather had been the same and it had been hot (not cold) and breezy, when the definition of 'full body cover' is hardly bleeding obvious and, when queried, the officials for many runners changed their tune stating that gloves and hats were recommended rather than compulsory was lets face it a bit of a farce

[Sam Harrison]

But then if it was correctly graded as a BL then the mandatory kit requirements would be different anyway??

Lights blue touch paper and walks away....

What's the story with its rating by the way? Because as you say it's technically a BL. Is it because it's so close to being an AL that its classed as that instead? I've probably missed many a debate about this in the past so apologies for any repetition!

[Stolly]

What's the story with its rating by the way? Because as you say it's technically a BL. Is it because it's so close to being an AL that its classed as that instead? I've probably missed many a debate about this in the past so apologies for any repetition!

Any AL under the sun could be made a BL by just adding a long straight and/or downhill bit on the end

[jack_jnr]

I didn't really mind having to buy some children's gloves & a balaclava. Or having a thorough kit check at the start. I had my whistle, compass, waterproof, gels, fluid etc. What irks me slightly is people being told, upon having a kit check & having some kit missing, that it was ok to race. What's the point have kit stipulations if they're not adhered to ? One rule for one etc.

The inconsitency was what (if anything) irked me slightly. I had a mad panick when registering I was told "at the full kit check we are particularly loking for hat & gloves", because I hadn't taken any. I ended up buying a pair of socks from PB for gloves and the only hat I could find was one of the big think 3P ones, somehow I fit them in me OMM bumbag as well as the other kit, gels & water. The only kit check I had was a guy at the start asking if I had everything on his list without opening the bag & it was blatantly obvious from the size of some people's bags that they did not have everything.

However, I consider arriving without hat & gloves to be me showing my fell running inexperience & it's a lesson learned for future. I can't criticise the organisers for what was a fantastic day, my first PPP and cannot wait until next year! Hopefully by then my quads will have recovered from the ascent up Ingleborough & painful descent. I struggled on to a slightly disappointing 5:04 but just to have finished feels good, worry about times next year.

Many many thanks to all involved in organising this fantastic race, and to all the supporters out on the course, without those extra sweets dished out I'm sure I wouldn't have made it!

Really looking forward to a second go at Holme Moss now, hopefully see some of you there.

[stevefoster]

I see the first lady home is an unnatatched runner, seems like a big performance that 3:30, does anyone know if Anna has previous good form or is she just someone 'out of the blue'

Anyway, getting away from hat and gloves, this Kiwi lady is an experienced runner, she ran a slightly faster time in the 2008 3 Peaks but didn't win, think there's been an article on her in the Fellrunner mag as well, well done to Anna for winning and Tom Owens:thumbup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSD0Dka1ukI

[AndyA]

I suppose the said nice lady could, and should, have disqualified you on the spot. But I don't think the fact that she didn't is grounds for complaining about the "inconsistency" of rule enforcement.

How on earth not? Surely it's a perfect example of inconsistent rule enforcement; someone was found to be breaking a rule that had been emphasised repeatedly over the tannoy and the sanction imposed was 'oh well, never mind'?

I suspect the marshall involved (and probably all of them involved actually) had not been told what to do in the event of a kit check failure. Had there been an incident (made worse by inadequate kit) that resulted in legal action then the failure to apply effective kit checks could have caused a lot of trouble for the organisers.

Bottom Line; If you impose a rule then that rule should be fair (which it probably was) and consistently applied (which it clearly wasn't). It's a shame to dq someone from a race just for kit but perhaps it would emphasise just how important kit really can be. The FRA advice to organisers (an excellent and easy to read document btw) makes it clear that random or complte kit checks should be performed and that failure to comply should result in instant disqualification

I have no problem with the mandatory kit on this race; hat and gloves could make quite a difference to an injured, dehydrated runner stuck on whernside waiting for mountain rescue. I spoke to several spectators, dressed in fleece etc, who had given up spectating yesterday because of the windchilll. I agree that hat and gloves should be specifically mentioned in the kit requirements; to suggest that they should be inferred from the phrase 'whole body cover' is just self important pedantry (but then we're used to that; it's a forum after all!). Maybe the FRA should look at re-wording the advice that they give on the subject.

[Mike T]

How on earth not? Surely it's a perfect example of inconsistent rule enforcement; someone was found to be breaking a rule that had been emphasised repeatedly over the tannoy and the sanction imposed was 'oh well, never mind'?

I suspect the marshall involved (and probably all of them involved actually) had not been told what to do in the event of a kit check failure. Had there been an incident (made worse by inadequate kit) that resulted in legal action then the failure to apply effective kit checks could have caused a lot of trouble for the organisers.

Bottom Line; If you impose a rule then that rule should be fair (which it probably was) and consistently applied (which it clearly wasn't). It's a shame to dq someone from a race just for kit but perhaps it would emphasise just how important kit really can be. The FRA advice to organisers (an excellent and easy to read document btw) makes it clear that random or complte kit checks should be performed and that failure to comply should result in instant disqualification

I have no problem with the mandatory kit on this race; hat and gloves could make quite a difference to an injured, dehydrated runner stuck on whernside waiting for mountain rescue. I spoke to several spectators, dressed in fleece etc, who had given up spectating yesterday because of the windchilll. I agree that hat and gloves should be specifically mentioned in the kit requirements; to suggest that they should be inferred from the phrase 'whole body cover' is just self important pedantry (but then we're used to that; it's a forum after all!). Maybe the FRA should look at re-wording the advice that they give on the subject.

Well put AA.