I've just asked the question of the FRA Committee
Can someone please confirm which rules I would be agreeing to if I submit my races into the calendar. This years, the ones that have since become the draft or the ones that aren't done yet....
Awaiting a reply
Just to be pinickety you surely mean fell racing don't you. I can run in the hills on my own, naked in a blizzard if I want toOriginally Posted by luath
that'd be a sight to seeJust to be pinickety you surely mean fell racing don't you. I can run in the hills on my own, naked in a blizzard if I want to
Who can we sue if you pop your clogs? The mountain? There's got to be someone.Just to be pinickety you surely mean fell racing don't you. I can run in the hills on my own, naked in a blizzard if I want to
(Just heard, Great Whernside is now Great Whernside Ltd.)
From what I've seen on facebook so far I assume your not joking.Just to be pinickety you surely mean fell racing don't you. I can run in the hills on my own, naked in a blizzard if I want to
No pictures please.
I'm just waiting for the first blizzard of the year
I will sue myself of course. That'll teach me...
finally a post I can understand....Just to be pinickety you surely mean fell racing don't you. I can run in the hills on my own, naked in a blizzard if I want to
I'm not interested in who does or doesn't know the difference. Given that our liability might be put to the test in a US court, it was a serious question. However, it would appear that we haven't missed anything, despite AI's earlier suggestions; there is no avoiding our responsibilities.
With respect, I am deliberately trying to avoid giving anyone any advice in this saga, or suggest anything other than saying only "take competent advice", which seems sadly lacking in some of the statements made in some documents I see. I simply noted what FRA had said about their own limitation - with the implied suggestion you talk to them to ask them what they hoped to achieve by it. The civil and criminal risks are clearly different.
It mattered to me more that the FRA PERCEIVE a risk to their own officers, believed to big enough for them to act on it, than whether the limitation is actually effective in reducing it. I assume (or hope) they took advice. So clearly even they perceive a risk, whether or not they try to play it down in presenting it that risk to the RO.
For that reason until provoked by unconditional ( therefore incomplete) statement of volente by Graham, into quoting (for example) one precedent that disagrees with him? grump? are they the same?, I refuse to trade legal blows with anyone. I am simply pointing out some of the more nonsensical phrases in the new rules that hint that no such advice was taken, and that the interests of the RO are clearly different than FRA, they are far more exposed.
And also noting plausibility statements that prove the obvious :that if an RO promises water in a desert, and no such water is provided, when somebody dies of thirst the RO can no longer hide behind Volente. You don't need much of a law book for that. So RO assurances matter in the determining the risk that a competitor can be assumed to be accepting in entering a race whatever he signs. That rugby precedent illustrates the point. So I am asking that advice be taken for and on behalf of RO, not the FRA.
I am encouraged by Madeleine's statement of having that process in hand, which is the first sign that the issues are being taken seriously, provided that RO opinion is actively sought before making any of it "fell running law". Marshalls should make sure understand what they are letting themselves in for before volunteering too.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 18-10-2013 at 04:49 PM.
Posting Permissions
