This would inevitably lead to one only being able to enter a fell race if one had done an approved fell running safety course or ML, which could only be taught by certified trainers, etc, etc, etc...Originally Posted by Witton Park
This would inevitably lead to one only being able to enter a fell race if one had done an approved fell running safety course or ML, which could only be taught by certified trainers, etc, etc, etc...
I disagree NMNC. We are looking at how we address the balance of responsibility between the runner, the FRA and the RO.
Most of the concern expressed on here is that the responsibility seems to be getting placed too much on the RO when I think most of us accept personal responsibility when we enter a race.
The RO should be responsible to give an overview of the race so that competitors can take a view as to whether they are up to it.
That doesn't happen often enough. Most races just have an entry in the calender with the stats and a few abbreviations.
Most of us use word of mouth or ask questions of the forum to find out info on the races.
But if that info is available, the responsibility should then be on the runner to make sure they have the requisite skills to take part.
I'm not suggesting that all runners should attend a mountain leaders course, but they should be able to read a map, particularly for races that are M or L category.
The RO can't test for that. The fact that an athlete may have completed an 2 x AL/AM for example doesn't tell an RO that the runner can navigate.
How many athletes head for these fell races knowing that they are carrying a map and compass but haven't a clue what to do with them?
I'd say a fair proportion. Let's for argument sake say it's 20%. If the sport can get that down to 5% that has surely got to be welcomed.
I agree with your desire for everyone in an M or L race to be able to navigate with a map and compass and for runners to take responsibility for their safety, but the only way an RO can assess whether anyone has the ability to navigate on their own is if they have some sort of certificate. As you say, having done a few ALs or AMs doesn't guarantee anything. I personally wouldn't want to see a situation developing where you can't enter a race without having done an approved course (and I know that isn't what you are suggesting.)
As far as waymarking routes of races goes, it's not always straightforward: http://www.justusuk.com/2013/09/hodd...ce-14-sep.html
I happened to be cycling past the show that day and it was bright clear sunshine so no excuses for nearly all the field to go the wrong way!
No disrespect Bob, but you can see the markings - these little cane sticks with a bit of tape on the top, hidden amongst all the rushes.
NMNC - why should the RO be expected to assess a runners ability to navigate?
Typically an RO puts on a race and advises "NS" because that RO feels that there may be circumstances in which the runner may need to navigate.
That should be the end of it surely?
If the RO goes a little further and advises in pre-race info(for example) "The nature of the terrain and changeable weather conditions in the area that this race covers means that runners should be competent navigators." then that underlines it.
I'm not sure that they should assess a runners ability to navigate, though I think that is what those who ask for experience of other races are trying to do. As you say there should perhaps be more emphasis on the runners need to be able to navigate competently and that fell race routes are not marked in pre-race info.
We did some coahing sessions aimed at novices this summer with a good attendance. As well as techniques for running up and downhill, we also covered the basis of safety on the hills and had an entire session on navigation (not enough, I grant you, to send people out and expect them to get round, say last year's Great Lakes, but enough that they could orient themselves, follow their route, and most importantly get safely off the hill in a sensible direction.)
The feedback on the nav and safety segments was probably the most positive in terms of their usefulness, and we intend to continue with these sessions. It's important we all help our novice and junior runners to learn these skills in a wide variety of settings, be it formal coaching, mentoring, out on the fell on a Sunday training run, or by helping someone who's f***ed it up in a race.
We're already seeing some of the guys who attended our training spreading their wings and trying new and different events further afield and we are also committed to providing opportunities for them to continue to develop with events such as our Hill Trial nav event.
Jim
So NMNC - really we are of the same position
I think this sentence from AI sums up his position nicely and it's one I agree with:
"When the RO starts managing risk for runners, he starts assuming responsibility for it, so it weakens the runners determination of/assent to/ need to manage his/her own risk."
There's been a few calls for routes to be marked and/or for runners to stay on the route if in trouble. The beauty of many of the best races is that there is no such thing as "the route"; runners have to decide for themselves what the viable options are between checkpoints and assess which route suits them best.
That worries me.. sorry but how does the LiFR qualification qualify you to do that? This is exactly what people worried about the courses, being used outside of their remit (which basically didn't exist).
I'm not saying you can't nav, but its confusing how as a walker I need to attend a 5 day training and 5 day assessment to teach walkers nav.. but as a runner its 2 days with no assessment... the potential for uninformed teaching must be high?
I don't see why informal coaching, advice on club runs is a problem, thats different to being told be a 'qualified' coach, 'oh do this, do that'.. This was many of us original issue, that its a hastily arranged process that will be abused. I've already seen 'guides' advertising these qualifications commercially..
Posting Permissions
