"I think the Grumps comments shows he is most likely a committee member or else how would he be able to speak as he did. I think that is quite worrying if I'm right, because his attitude stinks."
I'm not sure how you determine that from Grump's recent post.
BTW if people don't like how the committee does things for the FRA, all you have to do is get voted on the committee at the next AGM. Then all will be well with the world and no-one will complain, won't it?
I've determined it because he regularly seems to come up with "pearls of wisdom" that indicate some degree of inside knowledge.Originally Posted by Lecky
If I'm wrong, so be it, but he can always come out from behind his tombstone and put me right if he wants :P
BTW what makes you think people don't like how the FRA committee does things?
But that wasn't where they went wrong, Richard. It was far lower down in the fields on a level, well grazed pasture - they chose to continue on a quad track, rather than turn off along a prominent line of flags.
The "little canes with a bit of tape on the top, hidden amongst all the rushes" were followed with relish on the descent.
I blame Bob for his deceptive irony, misleading picture, and for shouting at me at the ALS - I'm still scarred
Just a comment on markings from something I learnt. I fully marked a junction at our Relays last February - it was a fast downhill section in woods and as the runners approached a T Junction at pace, I was told that some of the front end Leg 1 runners took a right turn to descend further rather than a left turn over a slight rise.
That's despite me using red / white striped marking tape to take the runners left.
So I went up to investigate whilst leg 2 was in progress thinking someone may have interfered with the markings.
But they hadn't.
So I re-arranged the tape so that instead of it being on the left, to guide the runners round to the left, it was on the right, blocking off the right turn and then around to the left, so marking the outside of the bend rather than the inside.
I was stood there discussing how the heck they could have gone wrong with a very experienced CLEM runner, when his partner appeared around the corner, headed for the junction and then stepped over the tape to head in the wrong direction!!
We called her back of course.
I'm still puzzled by it. What I did do to try and get more distance was make an outer clockwise loop of the woods, then climb back up on an inner anti clockwise route to get up to what I thought was a better race distance and more climb.
I think this dis-orientated the runners who were unfamiliar with the trails up there and lead to them just going in to auto pilot once they felt they were on the descent.
Certainly the shorter simpler loop that we had in the Summer version went without incident.
So posting information readily available in the public domain is 'insider knowledge' and means I must be a committee member? To describe that assumption as tenuous would be charitable, and since you ask, completely wrong. In practice it takes very little effort for anyone, even someone who is not a FRA member, to carry out basic research and educate themselves.
For example this is very informative on the role of inquests. You can learn a lot about companies limited by guarantee and the responsibilities of directors and officials e.g. FRA committee, here. This gives an insight into unreasonable contract terms, scrutiny which may well have to be applied to the revised rules and requirements as they form the basis of a contract for the supply of insurance.
There can be no doubt that everyone posting on this thread cares deeply about fell racing and running. However it soon becomes obvious from elementary research that professional advice is essential to bring this topic to a conclusion that is acceptable in law. The process is by no means complete, and requires a lot more work; just a layperson's (slightly informed) opinion.
It is important to recognise this thread is not about what people can and cant post
Grump.
I am not interested in picking a fight with anyone. I do not have the time for this, but the issue is too important to leave. Every time such as you fails to answer substantive points, then slurs those points as "illinformed" makes me all the more concerned.
I think you are wrong to silence opinion at such a critical time for reasons cited below. There are a lot of diverse opinions needed that balance the interests of being "seen to be doing something" and practical measures that work on a hilly run on a summers eve, and a mountain top race containing scrambling where radios do not work, runners grunt wearing cagoules , who cannot be heard because of the wind, and appear from several directions to a checkpoint , some of the runners are not even in the race. Thhose issues are not adequately addressed by one size fits all rules, that difference seems to surprise UKA judging by some of their remarks and mandates, and it is important "impractical" does not become fell law.
To an extent I percieve this as RO apathy and/or assumption that matters would be sorted adequately for them, rather than feeding back to FRA as perhaps they should have done - at least one I suspect only read the rules in the last week.
On the specific issue I made, on discussion, It seems I was right.
Before delivering narrative verdict, the coroner did appear to express that he did not consider gross negligence had taken place, and as the record shows the narrative verdict did not contain a lesser reference to the outcome such as "contributed to by negligence" which is visible on the record of other coroners cases. Whilst these verdicts, indeed the court, are not attaching blame, they can certainly be the trigger for such subsequent actions to occur - as indeed can the evidence presented. So whilst not the end of a legal process to attach blame, they can certainly be the start of one, so are not innocuous either. So your comments are playing semantics of words.
It seems to me:
(1) Race organisers need to be aware that there are problems of compliance and ambiguity /loose language with the rules already. No need to repeat some of those issues, there are many.
(2) The issue is here and now. No critical reader of the course rules using ordinary meanings of words could conclude for example that Langdale race last week was compliant with the course rules. In that situation the race should either have been pulled or the rules modified. It is dangerous to have rules that do not reflect the real world, then turn a blind eye to compliance, particularly when a few words of practicality could fix it for example "no temptation to gain advantage by rock climbing or dangerous ground OF GREATER SEVERITY THAN FOUND ON COMMON WALKERS ROUTES" would certainly go some way to allowing a race over bad step, or the (very slippy) scramble rock steps in the esk pike traverse. Someone fell headlong down in the race one year. I have no doubt in my mind this rule would have been noted in evidence, and as a failure of duty by the RO, had that person died which is entirely possible given the nature of that fall.
(3) The essence of a proper safety or quality policy is "say what you do , and do what you say". Saying "what is expedient", leaving another party to cope and be exposed to the differences between what is demanded and the practicalities of a real world is a problem that helps nobody. Nor does imprecision in phraseology. The fact that the bad step seems to one/many fell runners to be included in the provisions of either climbing or dangerous ground is a case of poor phraseology that must be changed before the next race of that type is run.
(4) RO should be aware, THE MAIN ISSUE I MADE ON ENTERING THE THREAD that any discrepancy or anomaly in what takes place, or rules, however much the result of the inevitably imperfect world and difficulties encountered in such as marshalling, will not only be cited in proceedings as potential evidence of incompetence - but sadly the same catalogue of anomalies more or less reproduced as "failures of duty" expressed by such as UKA, which gives them a far more serious tenor. I think most RO would assume or hope such bodies would be more supportive. I think race organisers might be horrified by the way such evidence is presented if they saw it.
They owe it to themselves to find out, to stimulate their apparent apathy to iron the problems out before signing up for the next race.
(5) As grump has indicated , the coroner is intending to give a report under section 43, to which the FRA is obliged to respond.
(6) Far from RO or other opinion from staying silent in this period per grumps remark, it seems to me it sets a deadline on which RO MUST express opinions and all matters must be resolved before that response takes place, on the practicality of what has already been put in rules,
AND they should also express opinons the practicality of compliance with additional harsher measures are considered in response to whatever may be called upon to do by the coroner as influenced by the opinions expressed by such as UKA.
(7)So my view - Race organisers need a forum in which to express opinions of any requests made by the coroner in respect of tighter procedures or rules before they are committed to fell running law. They also need kicking into expressing an opinion, and I think seeing UKA testimony, might just help them decide it is worthwhile. I suspect one problem FRA have is the lack of feedback.
Agreeing to a set of conditions that are viewed impractical even by a few RO is not the answer, however expedient it may appear to be in the present situation. It seems to me it could cause serious problems to later amend or weaken rules which had been presented to any court such as this.
(8) I suspect I am not the only one who appears to have noticed a discrepancy between FRA stating that fundamentally the disclaimer combined with "volenti non fit inuria" is protection from claims ( I believe any assurances made by race organisers can potentially weaken that) , whilst FRA themselves rush to a limited company, impractical for most of their organisers? Either there is a risk or there is not, and FRA I suspect are less vulnerable than the RO. Since FRA have become limited, no doubt under advice, that should send a message to RO about the potential problems.
I am not an RO.
I entered this thread only because I saw problematic language.
In a way not my problem. I just care about the sport, and the plight of the RO's a couple of which I know. I carry on because of worrying remarks and informationI have now received from others.
If I felt my comments were now being treated seriously, I would back off and let the process happen. But every time remarks are made such as grumps previous (rather than present) - and the bland unqualified repetiotion of "volenti" as though it were the be all and end all -it concerns me even more that there is a problem that needs fixing before rather than after undertakings are made in a letter back to the coroner.
At that point the rules must be practical and viable for all concerned, even if they are retrenchment on current positions, because changing undertakings made to such as a coroners court, might have real problems later.
The one thing Grump and I are in complete agreement about, it needs professional advice. The rules are they are hint they have not so far been drafted or amended by such. But even that was obfuscated when first raised as a concern, and met with ridicule.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 17-10-2013 at 12:00 PM.
Volenti is no longer a full defence, only a partial defence. I did ask earlier for clarification and it wasn't given, so I checked.
I checked with an Injury Claims Lawyer, who is a partner in a large legal firm and also happens to be an endurance runner with a a fair amount of fell experience.
As well as my legal advise, I have checked with a qualified endurance official who operates as race director and scrutineer at many road races.
It appears that there have been several cases that set precedent eg Rugby. There is a clear risk of injury and particularly in the scrum so if you get injured volenti in the past would have been assumed. However now other factors come in to play. Competence of the referee in managing the scrum, possibly intent on behalf of another player...
So any Claim Lawyer involved in a incident where Volenti may have come in to play in the past, will now look for ways to circumvent Volenti and their first port of call is to look at the Rules, Safety Requirements, Guidelines, best practise as set out and then examine if it is possible to find breaches of those guidelines.
So anything that "must" be done or "should" be done in the FRA paperwork for ROs gives such a claims lawyer measures to check on immediately.
Any RO who hasn't done the "must" is clearly going against the NGB and so on thin ice and "shoulds" would have to have very good reason why the RO had chosen now to follow strongly recommended guidelines.
My legal friend has a degree of sympathy with the FRA's position. This is the way everything is going and as a fell runner himself he finds it quite saddening.
But he also thinks that the approach taken could be improved. Generally less written prescriptive direction, more instruction, introduction of a ROs qualification and some RO scrutiny.
This more or less is echoed by my Race official friend. His roll as a scrutineer is not to beat up ROs, but to ensure that ROs who have permitted, follow the basis of that permit and if they can do anything better that he can draw their attention to it for future events.
eg. One race he scrutinised said "traffic free start" but they just held up the traffic on one side of the road on a 800m stretch of main road with none of the side roads, or on coming traffic managed.
He advised them on how to better manage it going forward in terms of what they declare and what they do.
So it looks like there's a thumbs up for the FRA's plans to have ROs courses (with possible accreditation?) and a thumbs up to the plans to scrutinise races.
But there is a thumbs down for the way that the written guidelines are put together. One very clear comment was "who are these documents for" as the reader felt they switched from athlete to RO mid document, and that there was some duplication and it might be possible to demonstrate some contradiction.
Last edited by Witton Park; 17-10-2013 at 12:18 PM.
I admire your tenacity I'll give you that.
Your concept of "time" however is vastly different to mine.
Worth reading that case, for those that have not so far looked up such things
Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union Ltd -Lord Phillips 2003
“Rugby football is an inherently dangerous sport. Some of the rules are specifically designed to minimise the inherent dangers. Players are dependant for their safety on the due enforcement of the rules. The role of the referee is to enforce the rules. Where a referee undertakes to perform that role, it seems to us manifestly fair, just and reasonable that the players should be entitled to rely upon the referee to exercise reasonable care in so doing. Rarely if ever does the law absolve from any obligation of care a person whose acts or omissions are manifestly capable of causing physical harm to others in a structured relationship into which they have entered. Mr Leighton Williams has failed to persuade us that there are good reasons for treating rugby football as an exceptional case. A referee of a game of rugby football owes a duty of care to the players.”
Note particularly the bolded.
The similarities are striking. It was also an amateur game..
Grump: Would you like to correct Lord Phillips "misunderstanding" of the law too?
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 17-10-2013 at 02:43 PM.
Posting Permissions
