2 questions
1) What has happened with respect to compensation etc in the recent cases of deaths in races (thinking London marathon, and the Cavalls de Vent)?
2) How dangerous does a section have to be before its non compliant? Quite a few races have at least a small section where a trip and fall would probably mean death. However this is probably no worse than driving on a motorway for risk.
I can't think of a fell race with "unnecessarily hazardous or dangerous sections" so what's all the fuss about, must be that the organisers of the 5 " lost " races believe their races have
Don't know who you are Norman hiding behind your made up name.
A few years ago the British Athletics federation was closed down as a result of the Diane Modahl court case. Diane was merely fighting an injustice and the BAF decided to take her on and in the end, both got financially wiped out and the lawyers walked away laughing all the way to the bank.
The point - the unexpected can happen and the structure now in place has more protections to avoid a similar fate in the future.
The FRA has clearly seen things in a different light by incorporating itself and now the review of the safety rules.
Where they incompetent before? No of course not. They are just responding to a significant and serious event as anyone should.
The ROs are no different. Most fell races I attend outwardly seem fairly well organised and thoroughly enjoyable experiences and that is whether I attend as an athlete, parent, coach or spectator.
Some ROs are looking at what has happened and responding.
Some are responding to the new rules now, even though some of the points they are making were in the old rules, purely because this debate has brought it to their attention.
Something I wasn't aware of Norman, until today for example.
Did you know that you could turn up at a race in the FRA calendar and it might not be a permitted race?
I just found out.
I get the feeling there will be more races merely registered in 2014 for calendar purposes.
But hopefully the matters raised can be looked at, dealt with and a satisfactory outcome can be reached.
I can think of a few. I'm not going to name them, for fear of them being stopped for safety reasons. But I would happily do some of them again.Originally Posted by Norman Bates
"Unnecessarily" is a interesting word. How does that work? "It was necessary to go down that gulley, as otherwise the race would be a lot longer" Or "It was necessary to go that way as it's been run like that for 60 years and we don't want to lose touch with historical records"
Yes, that's what (R) means. Races, such as those in Wales are included in the calendar, but cannot be permitted by FRA.
I can think of quite a few where people could possibly regard some long established sections as that, especially where a 'safer' alternative exists. Like Noel and for the same reasons I'm not going to ID them on a public forum but a 'safer' alternative would be to stay at home, so you could argue from a standpoint of claiming every trip on to the fells is unnecessarily dangerous because you dont have to go there in the first place. I suppose its about getting a proportionate and reasonable balance (which I thought we had - descent to Mickledore banned in OCT, choice of route off Long Top in Langdale for example)with amendments being made by ROs if and when something did approach an 'unreasonable' level (Borrowdale start). But the more tightly the rules are framed the harder it will be for ROs to argue that their races comply and the more likely we are to lose races as a result. Saying there are plenty more to choose from is a bit like saying we used the mona lisa to start a fire but not to worry, there are plenty of other paintings to see.
"Unnecessarily" is a ridiculous word for legal drafting, as I pointed out in a very long post.
I used simple examples ,"reductio ad absurdum" , take the race that goes through a slippy therfeore hazardous river bed rather than over an adjacent bridge. "what if questions" prove that, so why is that word still there?
I lost all respect for athletics officialdom over the Modahl affair, who I met a couple of times in local athletic circles.They were bullied into acting by IAAF , and compromised integrity in the process of allowing themselves to be used. Whilst IAAF themselves ran to monaco to escape liability after the reynolds affair, then able to excercise authority, whilst carrying no responsibility.
FRA must not allow themselves to be compromised when faced with evidence from anyone including UKA. As it was it was left to the police witness to be the voice of reason, and I for one am determined that we must not let the documents give any more scope to be used for whipping an RO by anyone.
I actually think the risk to an RO is fairly low, but only if the documentation does not screw them first.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 25-10-2013 at 05:41 PM.
I did know that WP, seems I'm better informed than you !
Like those Welsh classics The Yomp, Yetholm and Boars Head?
Honestly I didn't know. I can understand a Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish race being included, providing it has been permitted by the Home Nation but I'm amazed to find out that non FRA English races can be listed.
It is an artificially created problem by trying to proscribe rules.
The RO should describe and play up the hazards, the rules should say little. If FRA do not like the route they do not need to permit, and an RO is free to ban a route choice as often done with broad stand, and s did ydt on part of arrenig fawr.
If the rules say anything at all - a form of words like "should not contain substantially more severe hazards than encountered on normal walkers routes" would be better, clearly alliwing bad step, and outlawing broad stand. Anni waltz is on walkers routes and so are the most dangerous parts of langdale.
We should not create rods for an ROs back.
Posting Permissions
