DQ the cheats

[IainR]

The problem with your argument Daz, is that it can be similarly applied to a 17 year old lad that has grown up on a farm and had 20 times more driving experience (cars and tractors) than any other lad his age. It still doesn't qualify him to drive on the roads without taking and passing his test and holding a valid licence. I, again, knew such a lad who "took" (without consent) his mothers car and drove to school aged 15. We couldn't believe it....but we watched as he drove off after school having parked well away from the building. He had all the relevant experience but didn't hold the licence.....does it make it right though?

x

The driving analogy is a good one, the thing about is if something happens and you have a license you go through what you did, you had experience, the training, the qualifications, your insurance defends you.. because the driving test is such a tried, tested, questioned qualification it will stand up to scrutiny..

The old insurance for guides used to be 'I'm qualified to the necessary standard recommended by the sports governing body'.. it didn't actually mention ML, MIA, MIC, MLW, SPA etc... so you could imagine someone getting LiFR, thinking they have that box ticked and then working... yet should something go wrong, the course would be scrutinized... would it stand up to analysis... no chance.

Thing the options are either leave it as the old informal way or try to provide structured formally led runs, but then the duty of care is huge, and so a one day course would just be wholey unsuitable.. the system wasn't broken, at the club level it worked, now if clubs expect their 'leaders' to hold LiFR it is... the moment someone thinks they are being lead/guided the whole dynamic changes.. its just shiftin away from individual responsibility.. and placing more on fewer people.. I think this move increases the chance of compensation claims..

[Witton Park]

The driving analogy is a good one, the thing about is if something happens and you have a license you go through what you did, you had experience, the training, the qualifications, your insurance defends you.. because the driving test is such a tried, tested, questioned qualification it will stand up to scrutiny..

and the problem is that UKA have chopped and changed over recent years with the coaches qualifications.

AS I understand it the leaders courses are entry to coaching. UKA have gone from the old system of

1. Assistant Coach - Generic
2. Group Coach - Core + Event Specific
3.
4.

and added this leaders thing to cater for the mass of road running clubs that don't have formal coaching - to try and get someone on the pathway.

It's messy, confusing and if I had my way I'd go back to the coaching structure of a few years ago where you could add modules to climb levels or take modules n new events to broaden out.

That old system was fine.

Personally Iain, I've taken out runners young and old on recces and training runs for about 6 years now. I take what I feel are necessary precautions and the parents and adults that join seem to be happy with what I do.
I don't take on something that I'm not competent to do and I don't take athletes on these who aren't competent either.

The litigious culture that KK (welcome back ) is referring to is killing our freedom gradually - it should be resisted and fought against as the only gainers are the lawyers.

[daz h]

Kk i understand fully what your saying. As an apprentice welder in the eighties i jumped in dump trucks, excavators, fork lifts, cranes etc etc and generally learnt on the job. But the industry regulary ran over a few people a year. Now i can no longer go on site without an escort and i have not driven an item of plant for two years as i wouldnt be insured and certainly wouldnt have the correct qualifications.Your 17 year old lad example is exactly how i was.The 17 year old apprentices that i now have would never be allowed to do what i did.That simply will never happen and i see leisure activities going the same way as the workplace. We saw it in schools when teachers started to refuse to take children hiking, climbing etc etc in activities weeks etc.

[daz h]

Witton that must be what i am then an assistant coach.I remember the course well.Uka forgot to book the room at sutton school and we ended up waiting an hour for the caretaker to turn up( sat morning).We then got a lecture on coaching and the pathway. We then went outside and threw a javelin, a shot put and set out some cones.And get this , after lunch the instructor was addressing us as coaches.Now coaches i want you to tell your athletes what you want them to do.Fully agree with iain in that one day courses are laughable.

[simgreen78]

I did the Running Leadership course a couple of years ago, this was before there was the separate shiny new 'fell' version.

I considered it to be largely a waste of my time and £90, so much so that I didn't even bother doing the final bit of paperwork once I'd got home in order to receive my 'licence', although I had completed the course. It seemed a little worthless. In no way did it properly equip an individual to 'lead' a run above and beyond pointing out simple matters of common sense.

I think I have written on here before that it seemed to be part of a bigger plan to get newly 'trained' leaders to get their runners to sign up for 'Run in England'. Which went well. So well that I think it no longer exists... £20 a year for a technical t-shirt and what again?

Of course, there may be some fabulous or the very least, considered, additions and improvements to the fell version that I am unaware of. I am talking about 2009 here when I attended.

I did learn a couple of decent stretches though, and met a few very nice people that I have remained in touch with.

[Rob Furness]

It seems to me some competitors aren't willing to take primary responsibility; that's the real problem.

That's not what it's about at all, it was about people not being sure what the kit requirement actually means. I think most of us involved in this sport would prefer the kit requirement to be a bit clearer (and nobody mentioned suggesting certain brands and models which are suitable, that is ridiculous) and tightening up the kit checks so that nobody is able to be foolish and put people at risk by either not carrying kit or carrying unsuitable or inappropriate kit.

If nobody at the FRA wants that sort of thing to happen then that's fine, it was only a discussion anyway.

[Witton Park]

That's not what it's about at all, it was about people not being sure what the kit requirement actually means. I think most of us involved in this sport would prefer the kit requirement to be a bit clearer (and nobody mentioned suggesting certain brands and models which are suitable, that is ridiculous) and tightening up the kit checks so that nobody is able to be foolish and put people at risk by either not carrying kit or carrying unsuitable or inappropriate kit.

If nobody at the FRA wants that sort of thing to happen then that's fine, it was only a discussion anyway.

Rob - tightening up kit checks really isn't that feasible. It's akin to asking the police to stop and check that every car is taxed, MOTd and the driver has a valid license. It would just take so much time we couldn't do it - hence partial checks.
If you take some of these races with 300 athletes a kit check has got to be 30 secs at least. That's 150 minutes to check the whole field. You can't do it 1 hour beforehand as the kit can be dumped so there would have to be a zone that athletes were checked in to 15 minutes or so before the finish.
That may mean more people designated to check kit than marshalls out on the course - around 10 people to check a 300 runner field in the 15 minutes slot.

I think the request to have (for example) whole body cover made a bit clearer is just necessary. Take some of the other requirements - local knowledge, how do we measure that? I once had a pint at the Hill Inn?
None of these are clear - and they are unlikely to be feasible to be 100% clear, unless we are suggesting that in time we will have :-
1. Runners only permitted when they have completed a FRA Nav course to comply with races that state "NR"
2. Runners only permitted when they have participated in at least 3 officially recognised recces by a competent guide to satisfy "LK"
3. Runners are not allowed to do a "M" Race until having completed 3 x "S" races and not allowed to do a L race until having completed 3 x M races. Likewise to have demonstrated similar progression with A, B and C categories in order to demonstrate they fulfill the "ER".

The onus has to be on the athlete to make the judgement on their skills and competence and on what kit is needed for the day within the ROs guidelines BUT there is also some onus on the RO not to be pedantic and stop someone running if they lack a hat but have a hooded top.

[daz h]

I once did a saddleworth race were everyone was fully kit checked and then we went into a pen and kept there for ten mins before the start. One runner was forced out as he had no bumbag. Fleeter will tell you. Its the strictest kit check i have ever had.That was only a small field and a shortish race

[noel]

Kit checks can be done for a number of reasons.

1. If you only want to place the responsibility on the runners, not the race organiser, the race organiser can say (using a megaphone if needed) "everyone needs to carry full kit" immediately before the race. That way, you could argue that you took reasonable steps to ensure runners were aware of their responsibilities, should anything nasty happen to someone on the course.

2. If you want to provide a small deterrent for people to cheat, and show that you're taking full kit seriously, you can do spot checks before the race.

3. If you feel the need to demonstrate that every runner is carrying mandatory kit, you should check them after the race. This is what they do (or certainly did) at the Totley Exterminator race. It worked very well and only took one marshall, who checked every runner and DQd them if they didn't have kit. One year, the guy in third was DQd. I suspect more people carry kit now. This whole argument about full kit checks taking too long and being impractical is only an issue if you're checking them before the race.

Totleyites, feel free to correct any of this, if I'm misremembering.

I don't like people who cheat or bend the rules, but in my experience, doing 1 and 2 is normally enough. My issues have been with some races, where full kit is stated in the rules, and has been justified in the conditions, but it hasn't been enforced, even to a very cursory level. This means some people carry nothing at all.

[Graham Breeze]

Kit checks can be done for a number of reasons.

1. If you only want to place the responsibility on the runners, not the race organiser, the race organiser can say (using a megaphone if needed) "everyone needs to carry full kit" immediately before the race. That way, you could argue that you took reasonable steps to ensure runners were aware of their responsibilities, should anything nasty happen to someone on the course.

2. If you want to provide a small deterrent for people to cheat, and show that you're taking full kit seriously, you can do spot checks before the race.

3. If you feel the need to demonstrate that every runner is carrying mandatory kit, you should check them after the race. This is what they do (or certainly did) at the Totley Exterminator race. It worked very well and only took one marshall, who checked every runner and DQd them if they didn't have kit. One year, the guy in third was DQd. I suspect more people carry kit now. This whole argument about full kit checks taking too long and being impractical is only an issue if you're checking them before the race.

Totleyites, feel free to correct any of this, if I'm misremembering.

I don't like people who cheat or bend the rules, but in my experience, doing 1 and 2 is normally enough. My issues have been with some races, where full kit is stated in the rules, and has been justified in the conditions, but it hasn't been enforced, even to a very cursory level. This means some people carry nothing at all.

My understanding is that finish line checks were carried out at the 2011 Langdale race (on the first 200 finishers) and this led to the disqualification of Mr Crawford and subsequent disciplinary action.