TGOriginally Posted by TheGrump
Yup. I'm done.
G
TG
Yup. I'm done.
G
Graham. The insults do not help,
Small wonder you got so few replies to such a serious issue.
My disclaimers above are exactly the ones that you should be using too.
The rules betray the fact that you too should be deferring to professional opinion,
since they are not written in the language that any solicitor would use.
I certainly am a member of FRA and have been for twenty years.
I do not operate races, and sadly have spent so much time injured I have not run any in the last five years either, but I know the plight of race organisers, indeed am acquainted with several, and I know enough about the law to know the rules as they are can stack up a heap of potential trouble for them.
I was not at the inquest , but I am aware enough of the detail of what took place before and during to know the rules as I suspected can be used , indeed were used, as a rope to attempt to Hang the organiser with.
In the interests of race organisers, you should publish UKA legal view as presented there if only to prove to organizers just how vulnerable they are to your rules, and how such as UKA have no cognisance and attach no weight to the fact that our sport has risk. They will hang you just the same. I am sure that testimony and opinion would worry other organisers, were they to hear it,
But I am aware enough of my own limits to know that this is a task we both Should leave to the professionals.
These rules will be used as the yardstick to measure civil and criminal negligence with, so the words must be carefully chosen. Which sadly, they have not.
Organisers, I really do suggest you take advice from your perspective.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 06-10-2013 at 01:09 AM.
Talking to yourself isn't a good sign Graham
I have tried to air genuine concerns about the rules as they are now imposed.
I am disappointed that NONE of the points of substantive issue have been addressed by those appointed to do it, instead of which I have received a stream of thinly veiled insults and sarcasm from such sources.
For that reason I have little interest in continuing the dialogue.
My Summary
1/ The rules are NOT an innocuous document, or a private document of restricted concern to FRA and race organisers to be discussed behind closed doors only by those appointed, and the case can never be considered "closed". It would be dangerous NOT to review it, in the light of coroner remarks.
The rules can indeed be used as the backbone of a civil or criminal action against an organiser and need continous monitoring for potential problems or improvement. It is a sensitive legal document, and needs treating as such with proper definition and change control. If grahams comments on an oversimplistic document naming were true to designate age and applicability, then why does the document have a 13_ rather than 14_ prefix, since it purports to be valid next year not now? Why are there two documents with a 13_ prefix?- how do I know whether it is in force now?. If a race accident happened today, which of the rules were in force. Simply not good enough. These things need to be explicit IN THE DOCUMENT WITH THE CHANGELOG
2/ I understand that at a recent hearing even lawyers for UKA more or less used the previous rules to suggest negligence , without reference to or cognisance of the fact that we are a risk sport. I think FRA should circulate that UKA opinion because I believe it would highlight to organisers how vulnerable they are and how UKA view "the rules"
Not withstanding that.
3/ When bad things happen inevitably a number of pressure groups use 20/20 hindsight to state things as obvious, which were not so in foresight, then demand a kneejerk reaction that "rules need strengthening" My view is we need to be very careful of the unintended consequences of doing so - and certainly do what is right for us, not because of related organisations who are not familiar with the specifics of our sport such as UKA , if as I suspect they were part of the reason for change.
THE MAIN ISSUE
4/ There is clearly a difficult conflict of interests between:
a/ improving runner safety
b/ making more onerous and impractical demands of race organisers
c/ leaving organisers more exposed to legal actions should the worst happen.
In the over zealous reaction to a/ I question whether c/ has been properly thought out and THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY CRITICISM
MY CONTENTION, AND MOST OF WHAT I HAVE ARGUED ON THIS THREAD
5/ It is my contention that ambiguous , loose and careless wording will VASTLY increase c/ whilst do nothing for a/
6/ By way of example Use of words such as "compulsory sections" of courses without definition of "compulsory" is clearly inadequate legal drafting and in the category of things which will do nothing for a/ whilst certainly aggravating c/.
Here or similar is what a legal document would probably contain
***************************
Definitions
"compulsory" sections of courses are limited too:
(a) Flagged parts of a course close the start and finish of a fell race.
(b) Sections specifically designated and documented as compulsory by the race organiser
(c) Routes across private land where designated as such by the organiser
"compulsory" specifically does not include sections of courses where by reason of custom or practise, or limited route choice , or local byelaws, or because it is the shortest or only realistic route, or because it is shown on a map, whether or not produced by organisers, that all runners in practice follow the same course except and unless also falling in one of the categories specified above,
That is what legal documents generally do , before daring to use the word "compulsory"
Then at least you know what it means, and you have a cat in hells chance against claims4u of saying the corridor on Borrowdale is not "compulsory" - I will wager claims4u would try to argue that, if it helped their case, and they might even win.
************************************************** **************
For that reason legal documents (which this clearly is) do not contain loose wording, and having seen many legal documents use carefully crafted expression I am alarmed that is not reflected in these rules.I contend this document was not in essence drafted by a qualified party, and if reviewed by one, it was not significantly amended by them. For the precise reason it does not contain language or definitions like the above.
7/ I contend It needs professional drafting. At very least gaping holes like the definition of "compulsory" need inclusion otherwise the entireity of primarily fixed route course apply, particularly because other FRA statutes demand "keeping to paths", thereby preventing route choice, compulsory sections are now warranted "free from hazard" which is clearly errant nonsense of some parts of those routes. It certainly ALL needs better defining.
8/ Graham has indicated that substantive recent professional advice has been taken. I don't doubt that it hasin respect of the recent inquest. I still question how much of it has influenced the rules document.
9/ Until such redrafting has taken place , my suggestions is race organisers take advice on their position. There are a bucket load of potential problems with the rules, I have only attempted to point out a few examples to urge the powers that be to get it reviewed professionally from a race organiser liability (not FRA) standpoint
10/ People have commented on my statements that I have stated my own limitations
that I am "not competent to give advice on the matter" and inevitably in a sarcastic rather than useful way. I can say that I stated that because I knew the question would come up, as it did from at least one poster "why don't you redraft it, and send it to the committee" - and my comment is this is TOO SERIOUS AND DANGEROUS for amateurs to meddle, so get a professional to do it. I will know when it has been, by the language , structure and concepts. Like defining before using words.
Please read the definition of "straw man" falacy. My status makes no difference at all to the veracity or otherwise of what I say. Whoever raised my 10 word status as being more important than my 6000 word message is guilt of just that logical falacy.
Race organisers, Ignore at your peril.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 06-10-2013 at 11:35 AM.
At last, a long AI thread I can read all the way through!
Cogent points, well made.
Whats next?
Have we been 'getting away with' a poorly controlled situation for too long?
Or is minimal control and intrinsic element and key attraction of our sport?
My prediction:
Within 5 years only AS and some AM races will remain non-commercial and amateur.
Most AL and severe AM races will be commercially organised and the £5 race fee will be a distant memory.
Wheeze I understand your point.. but there is a reality versus idealism issue.. we would all love for no rules and races for 50p.. but these things get debated because something forces them to.. not just boredom.. and in this case a tragic event.
No chance... in North wales and the lakes the AL's will remain non-commercial..
I'm surprised Lecky. You've shown you haven't gone back over the thread properly because one committee member acknowledged being irked in a post.
I would add to that some rather prickly contributions from the Grump and Graham. One can argue the Grump might not be "establishment" but he certainly seems close to the action.
and then there's you. You are clearly a bit put out as well as anyone looking at this post will see.
You probably won't, but if you took care to read my comments on this thread you will find that I was supportive of the draft safety rules, complimentary of the committee and understanding of the difficult situation that they have to handle. I've then contributed when the debate diverted to the matter of waterproofs - I have industry experience and those contributions were not negative in anyway to anyone.
So no need to email and no points scoring on my part.
and certainly not "constantly" disagreeing as you assert.
It is at the finish that you will need your greatest number of helpers – ideally you need two people at the finish line taking times; two more at the other end of the funnel taking numbers; two people separately recording numbers to provide the second independent record; two people hiding somewhere putting the results on the board and one person acting as a runner between the six finish marshals and the results team; a total of nine people.
Gates in particular need marshalling; all too often runners leave them open behind them in the heat of a race; younger helpers are very useful as gate marshals and often love the responsibility.
Now I wouldn't put a "younger helper" anywhere in a marshalling position on their own. That's my personal choice as an RO, but I was making the point that I don't see that this particular passage needs to be in there. I know my route, my race, my landowners and my gates. I am able to make a judgement that of the 7 gates on my route, 3 do not need marshalling
That goes against the guidelines that
You should familiarise yourself with this document and ensure that you plan and manage your race in line with its requirements
- hence my question who are the FRA to advise me in such a specific way.
Those guidelines probably apply to fell races where marshalls are out on hills.
Finally, your words.
Which underlines the problem. Fell races come in all shapes and sizes and I agree that these guidelines probably don't apply to me at Witton.
But the guidelines are for all. These atren't guidelines for ROs of races of CAT AL,AM, BL....
They are guidelines for all.
I have taken on board some of the comments made by AI and I think he makes some relevant points.
Having read through the replies to the concerns raised by Witton Park and alwaysinjured recently, I'm quite shocked and worried by the disdain, disregard and immaturity shown in return, especially from Committee member(s). Instead of answers to genuine questions and concerns that have been raised, cheap digs and sarcastic replies have formed the main body of response. I hope in vein that the concerns have at least been taken on board and someone will address them.
Posting Permissions
