So you wouldn't advocate any advice re overheating during a race. 20oc sounds like a normal day . I was talking about heatwave conditions that we've head, similar to the day when the two soldiers were killed yomping in south wales.Originally Posted by andy k
Good Point Deek.
A race like Ennerdale with no water at the back end, certainly for a runner like me who would be circa 6 hours, could be really tricky in the current weather conditions.
I'm an experienced fell runner and I would take my backpack with bladder, but should there be some safety guideline to deal with this? After all, it can be as dangerous as cold weather.
I actually think not - but by being too prescriptive in certain areas, it may be a problem not to be as prescriptive in other areas.
A somewhat disingenuous comment as the rule changes are being led by the FRA. I was trying to keep things brief.
To expand: so the new rules will be enshrined in UKA rules, but is it even possible to permit a fell race (other than Snowdon) through EA/WA?
Having had a friend collapse during the Snowdon race due to the heat, he actually suffered a stroke, I think heat and especially humidity can be as risky as cold. It was a good ten years before he recovered properly. He was only in his mid 20s at the time and was pretty fit.
Within the UKA "family" the permitting bodies for all fell/hill/mountain races are:-
England - FRA on behalf of England Athletics
Scotland - Scottish Athletics
Wales - Welsh Athletics
Northern Ireland - Northern Ireland Mountain Running Association
Everything defers back to UKA Rules.
In UKA Rules Rule 401 - the first rule applicable to fell running refers us to the UKA General Rules 1-24
RULE 401 GENERAL
The General Rules 1-24 apply to Fell Running competitions.
Those general rules are about eligibility, club status, first claim, second claim etc but they also have a few priceless nuggets in there such as permission to broadcast events which with the internet age is a pointless rule that should be reviewed and/or scrapped.
Rule 14 (7) For twelve months following a change of name, whether by marriage
or otherwise, a competitor must include both the new and former names on
every entry.
is something I have never seen followed or enforced.
RULE 17 CLOTHING
(1) In all events competitors must wear at least vest and shorts (or
equivalent clothing) which are clean and so designed and worn as not to be
objectionable, even if wet.
which renders any of our topless friends at risk of a DQ and disciplinary action.
Not sure, but what is strange is no definition of what waterproof is... ignoring the childish bin bag comment.. we now have a huge range of waterproofs on offer.. very confusing what is suitable and what isn't.. specifying a HH seems the logical solution.. but I suspect.. as a few have suggested this previously that rules out such an approach...
By specifying a HH you make it simpler for organisers and competitors...
It's a bit like FIFA and goal line technology..
Re carrying them for longs, seems a sensible enough suggestion.
Not to be objectionable.....
And stinking vests....
Re running topless.. its tricky.. especially for championship events which contain a team element.. also a few runners now run in their sponsors vest over their clubs.. I suspect if your club lost out a club prize because a vestless runner from another club got the points for that club you'd have a valid case for some sort of appeal.. but you'd look a bit of a twat to be honest...
But then again running topless in the fells is just so preferable and it seems a petty to impact on fell running with such strict rules. There was a discussion on FB the other day when Ian Coreless (I think) was bemoaning the lack of vests in a Wasdale photo...
Yes Iain and I'm not supporting the enforcement of running with vests, just really highlighting that rules are set, and then never enforced and that can quite often lead to the sport treating all the rules with a degree of cynicism.
The ramping up of the rules and review of the safety procedures in the last 2 years are as much a result of poor knowledge of ROs and failure to follow up on rule breaches when they occurred.
In fact I'd liken it to the debate over drink driving. Assuming 2 pints is the limit, rather than take measures to catch as many people as possible that consume more than 2 pints and then drive, consideration for lowering to 1 pint are seen as an option by some.
Those that disrespect the 2 pint limit will also disrespect the 1 pint limit.
I actually think the Safety Proposals are more or less right, but I still think there is work to do on the rules.
With just a few days left on the FRA committee, I hope the following comments are seen as they are meant - a defense of people who do a lot of work and take on a lot of responsibility for little Thanks - rather than a pat on my own back!
It irks me when these debates talk of the runners and the race organisers 'against' the FRA - the FRA committee consists of nothing but fellrunners and race organisers - many very very experienced.
These runners and race organisers have to make some very difficult decisions on behalf of the FRA membership and I can assure everyone that we don't sit round the table at meetings and think up means to make the sport more complicated with ever increasing rules, just for the sake of it. All decisions are made with the best interest of the sport of fellracing in mind and are usually a direct response to something we've been forced to deal with!
Luckily there are some very capable people on the committee to take on some of these issues - it could be very scary and overwhelming otherwise!
Britta
Posting Permissions
