DQ the cheats

[Mike T]

I thought the FRA was in the process of changing it's legal status so that no RO could be - errrh - shafted.

[MorganW]

The role of the Coroner, unless I am mistaken, is to investigate the cause of death - not to portion blame.

"and to enquire about the cause of it"

Of course.

But the coroner will make all sorts of investigations to try and help them distinguish between say, an open verdict and death by misadventure.

In getting to the real cause, all sorts of supporting issues other than just medical ones will be relevant.

And as you have noted, they like to dig around the subject.

Very powerful people, few limits on their authority, and (I think, but could be wrong) no way of appealing their verdict.

[Dynamo Dan]

I've been to lots of inquests through work (I'm a reporter) at the start of each one the coroner will tell the court the purpose of an inquest is to establish who it was who has died and how they came about their death - they always stress the purpose of the inquest is NOT to find blame.

However, I've been to a couple of inquests, one where a soldier was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan and one where a chap was crushed under the wheels of a coach during a brass band competition, where the coroner told the court he would write to the parties involved with recommendations based on his findings.

It could be the case that a fell runner dies and following the inquest the coroner writes to the FRA recommending that the rules be changed in some way.

[Dynamo Dan]

Of course.

But the coroner will make all sorts of investigations to try and help them distinguish between say, an open verdict and death by misadventure.

In getting to the real cause, all sorts of supporting issues other than just medical ones will be relevant.

And as you have noted, they like to dig around the subject.

Very powerful people, few limits on their authority, and (I think, but could be wrong) no way of appealing their verdict.

You're right you can't appeal an inquest verdict but you can request a judicial review: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrig...-decision.html

[Brotherton Lad]

Surely the important point is, that by following the requirements of the race organiser (assuming these are reasonably unambiguous) you protect yourself, the RO and the sport.

Any other course of action is, at the very least, a little selfish and possibly very dangerous.

[Mark G]

Surely the important point is, that by following the requirements of the race organiser (assuming these are reasonably unambiguous) you protect yourself, the RO and the sport.

Any other course of action is, at the very least, a little selfish and possibly very dangerous.

And for me thats the reason I have commented on this thread so often - the requests are sometimes ambiguous, so lets make them clear and lets all follow them as a minimum. I dont want to highlight particular races or ROs but to generalise I dont think it would go down well in any enquiry if a RO had to say that he assumed runners would use common sense and carry full waterproofs even though he had displayed the xx years old notice at the start asking for windproofs.
I agree totally about coroners, I always understood that their role did not extend beyond identification of the deceased, where they died and the medical cause of death - but they frequently go way beyond that.
Its also really good to see recognition of the fact that our 'safety' kit, be it windproof or waterprooof or whatever isn't actually all that good and certainly isn't a magic solution to an incident. I think other things like fitness, navigation skills, sensible and timely decision making etc etc are even more vital.
Also - ROs, where conditions are reasonable and you actually specify wind or waterproof - thank you, I think most of us appreciate being able to make our own decisions on that when you are happy either way. I would be sorry if all this encouraged a total waterproofs requirement. (I nearly said a blanket waterproofs requirement but managed to avoid setting another hare off....)

[daz h]

Bloody eck you lot. At this rate the race organisers will be fleeing in droves.Keep it simple guys.Im sure the likes of selwyn, scoffer , alan greenwood, mr woodhead, roger bell and all the others that do great jobs will just keep it as it is. It works ok for me.

[Henry Porter]

Come on Daz it is a boring forum in the end. What can we talk about; "Which waterproof?" "why do shoes cost so much?" "what is the definition of waterproof?"

Inevitable really; it is a profoundly simple activity which only the participants can understand and can not articulate.

Mind you it was a bit slippy on High Rig earlier this eve and the 101s were showing their limitations. Oh, and as this thread was in my mind and it was raining I even put me bleedin waterproofs int bumbag! (still not worn the buggers mind)

[Graham Breeze]

Bloody eck you lot. At this rate the race organisers will be fleeing in droves.Keep it simple guys.Im sure the likes of selwyn, scoffer , alan greenwood, mr woodhead, roger bell and all the others that do great jobs will just keep it as it is. It works ok for me.

Fear not Daz; Selwyn and Scoffer have never ventured anywhere near the Forum and so will continue to organise their classic lakeland races unburdened by the infinite wisdom displayed here by the armchair race organisers!

[millipede]

Fear not Daz; Selwyn and Scoffer have never ventured anywhere near the Forum and so will continue to organise their classic lakeland races unburdened by the infinite wisdom displayed here by the armchair race organisers!

Did you beat me on Sunday?