DQ the cheats

[Mark G]

I think we have almost succeeded in doing the impossible and having a constructive discussion on this theme. If we were chatting about these things before or after a race I dont think it would get anything like as heated as it sometimes appears to on here.
I dont think many of us are in disagreement over most of this at all. Most of us seem to think that we should carry what the FRA rules/RO ask for, I suspect that most of us dont mind what it is (ie waterproof or windproof) as long as someone lets us know if its one or the other. Some prefer windproof, some prefer waterproof, thats no surprise and no problem either - just take both or full waterproofs only, its only a problem if someone decides waterproofs are required but doesn't tell anyone which was the root of my concern and I see one or two feel the same way.
Just to try and put a few myths to bed.....
1) In most cases if we want to take windproofs it isn't because they weigh a few grammes less than waterproofs and will save us 30 seconds over a 3 hour course or bump us up from 150th place to 149th - its because some of us prefer to run in them.
2) In most cases we are all capable of looking at the weather, the forecast, the time we are likely to be out etc, and deciding for ourselves if windproofs or waterproofs are needed.
3) In most cases we know the difference between windproof and waterproof. Asking what a RO wanted doesn't mean that we cant decide for ourselves, just that we want to know what the RO wanted!
4) In most cases it isn't a problem anyway - but sometimes it is because if the RO wants waterproofs regardless we could do with knowing that and knowing that would be better than falling out with him or her after the event.

I still think however that we are 'fudging' the issue to some extent with regards to clearly stating what level of kit is required in particular races (I dont mean generically, I mean on the actual day) - we can all use our common sense and judgement but I think there is scope for misunderstanding with potentially serious consequences.

I think that covers most of the content of the last 26 pages?

[MorganW]

I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RACE IS HELD IN ACCORDANCE WIH BOTH THE RULES AND SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FRA. I CONFIRM THAT I AM AWARE OF THE ORGANISER’S INFORMATION AND
REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RACE. I ACCEPT THE HAZARDS INVOLVED IN FELL RUNNING
AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I AM ENTERING AND RUNNING THIS RACE AT MY OWN RISK. OTHER THAN THE
ORGANISER’S LIABILITY FOR CAUSING DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY BY NEGLIGENCE, I CONFIRM THAT I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORGANISER ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO ME FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY
NATURE TO MYSELF OR MY PROPERTY ARISING OUT OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THIS RACE.

Morgan W - some really good comments.
These are on the universal entry form. I would suggest that if a race organiser has these on the form and the advertises the race accordingly as ER then the athlete is responsible in most circumstances.
He knows that experience is required and has entered the race. If it's 20 miles with 5000ft with ER I think that is clear to all that you need to have done some AM, AL or BL races.

It should not fall on the RO to check the experience as they have made it clear that experience is required.

With races that ask for "standards" such as the Three Peaks, you could argue they are making a rod for their own back, but if they risk assess that a runner should have (for example) 2 x AM or AL races behind them and the athletes put such details forward at entry, they are covered in my mind.

Witton

I'm going to go all legal on you again; seems that some of my comments have been seen as helpful anyway!

The language on the standard entry from was my creation. A while ago I spotted an invalid disclaimer on the 3Ps entry form and told Dave Hodgson it didn't work. He asked me to produce one that did. I produced the words above in capitals and they found their way to the FRA.

I don't know whether they work or not. They are my best attempt bearing in mind the issue mentioned in post # 219. No-one will know if they work and protect the RO until they have been tested in the crucible of litigation, which I strongly hope never comes to pass.

As regards your suggestion above, I am not convinced this will work in all cases if the shit hits the fan.

I have mentioned the ROs duty of care a few times, and the scope of this duty will always be at the very heart of an issue if it goes down the legal path.

The ROs duty of care to an experienced runner and his or her duty of care to an inexperienced runner will, I suggest, be different, perhaps very different. (What I mean is that a judge would see them as different.) And this might well turn out to be a key issue if we ever get in a proper pickle.

We are familiar with differing duties of care of course in the sport. This is reflected in the way we deal with junior runners.

As Iain correctly points out, there are aspects of this thorny subject that relate to a combination of information and education, especially for newcomers and more inexperienced people who decide to compete.

[MorganW]

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.

Darren

Agreed, keep it simple if possible (even though it isn't!)

"Prepare for the worst, hope for the best."

Feels like a maxim every RO might hold close to their heart.

[MorganW]

That's enough legal bollocks on this topic. Apologies for taking the thread slightly off topic.

It's beer o'clock, even if I have to travel to Leeds to partake.

[Graham Breeze]

Morgan,

Is your camper van for sale?

Because you keep putting pictures of it on the Forum!

G

[Wheeze]

Have you got all that WJB????

[Witton Park]

Witton

As regards your suggestion above, I am not convinced this will work in all cases if the shit hits the fan.

I have mentioned the ROs duty of care a few times, and the scope of this duty will always be at the very heart of an issue if it goes down the legal path.

The ROs duty of care to an experienced runner and his or her duty of care to an inexperienced runner will, I suggest, be different, perhaps very different. (What I mean is that a judge would see them as different.) And this might well turn out to be a key issue if we ever get in a proper pickle.

We are familiar with differing duties of care of course in the sport. This is reflected in the way we deal with junior runners.

As Iain correctly points out, there are aspects of this thorny subject that relate to a combination of information and education, especially for newcomers and more inexperienced people who decide to compete.

I just cannot seeing a RO held responsible if for example they advise ER and a Park Run jogger eg. Danbert :thumbup: turns up at Sedbergh Hills and gets in to difficulty.
14 Miles, 6000ft, Local Knowledge, Navigational Skills Required, Experience Required.

I think that should cover it.

Otherwise that same duty of care would have already arisen due to the occasional death in the big city jogathons.

[Mike T]

I just cannot seeing a RO held responsible if for example they advise ER and a Park Run jogger eg. Danbert :thumbup: turns up at Sedbergh Hills and gets in to difficulty.
14 Miles, 6000ft, Local Knowledge, Navigational Skills Required, Experience Required.

I think that should cover it.

Otherwise that same duty of care would have already arisen due to the occasional death in the big city jogathons.

Most jogathon deaths are due to heart disease, in other words they are "intrinsic" - people do of course sign a form taking responsibility for their own health. If there was an "extrinsic" jogathon death say due to a car impact or slipping on a wet/slippery surface there might be a problem - similarly in a fell race a weather/terrain related death might also cause problems.

[Richard Head]

A few years ago (2002?) i seem to remember the Snowdon race organiser was being taked to court by the relatives of a runner (i think he was injured in the race). Anyone else remember this or know the outcome? I think lack of a drinks station was one of the issues raised. Would it have been Ken Jones organising it then?

[mr brightside]

To get back to the original post:


If someone believes there is sufficient evidence, which can be corroborated, to make a formal complaint about rule breaking, make one using the procedures in the FRA rules. There have been a number of transgressions this year, the outcome of which have been published in The Fell Runner. If they don't get reported, then no action can be taken.

27 posts? How many have you deleted and why?