Yes, like this one..Originally Posted by LissaJous
Replace "counterproductive" with "compromising safety" and this sums up my feelings exactly.
Yes, like this one..
Replace "counterproductive" with "compromising safety" and this sums up my feelings exactly.
Very sad , but I am not surprised.
The committee seem to be wholly incapable of playing even basic "what if" games, and combine it with a pathogenic need to lay down the law, in places where it is far better to say nothing other than "fell racing is dangerous"
The old rules betrayed a lack of foresight, with the claim we can monitor and track perfectly, knowing we cant in reality, with the inevitable outcome of that claim now surfacing in a coroners letter and hostile expert witness. The present rules are just as bad, if not worse in (even more) places. They also interfere in places they should not, like just consecutive number rules already give Wynn a technical breach before she even starts. What is the obsession with numbering anyway? Most fatalities happen in bad weather when people are wearing weatherproofs, so nobody can see the numbers anyway.
Race organisers (and marshalls) are now explicitly responsible for the safety of runners, particularly retiring runners who have been given woeful advice to go back by the shortest route, rather than find safety first. It is hard to know what the stuff on marshalls even means with its conditional statements , other than making marshalls "responsible" for something. No doubt UKA will tell them in due course, just how "responsible they are" when they cite "failures of duty" regarding things which are facts of life.
So why did she cancel? Don't know all the exact reasons, but this is why I would have done in her place.
Take the woeful foresight in drafting of the present rules - some which apply to wynn:
We have had people get hypothermic and get lost. So far we have had no catastrophic injuries, but that is just a ticking clock. We will. The only question is who is the lucky RO who gets pilloried for this nonsense on courses and weather.
The terrain over which we race is inherently dangerous, just waiting for the first person to crack their skulls falling off bad step, slipping on the steps down dalehead in ice and breaking their backs in the fall, or dislodging a rock that kills someone coming down the scree descent from scafell pike on borrowdale, I have started a rock slide/ boulder roll there, no doubt have numerous others over the years. It is just how it is in lakeland. And that is what we love about it. Man against terrain. Just going proverbial *rse over tit on many steep and slippy descents on many of the fell races could break your neck if you were unlucky..
Wynn's race is early season, and there is quite often hidden ice, it has been almost permafrost under the surface on catbells before now. Are they telling her to cancel?
So when the inevitable happens, for example when a runner goes headlong down catbells scramble when icy in early season, so (unlucklily) breaking their necks in the process. the smart ars*s from UKA will be saying in court that wynn should have known that ice was a "severe weather condition", it was "unncessarily dangerous" to send runners that way down what is clearly a scramble or "rock climb". You can just hear them saying it: Read UKA testimony to understand their mindset. And if they do not, some lawyer on behalf of family might do the same thing. Outsiders like UKA know nothing about fell racing except what we tell them in our rules and documents and the worst interpretation of that is used to judge.
As we know, the coroner (and all outsiders) will just refer to what we say about ourselves in the rules, and can take the worst of ambiguous interpretations there.
If history repeats UKA will twist that knife, FRA will say little other than how their newer even "tougher" (even more stupid) rules with even more "musts" were "well recieved" by who? by themselves and UKA (presumably), and maybe there will not be a police witness to inject an air of reality this time.
I suspect if people want wynn to organise races, they will have to just say it how it is instead.
All weather and coruses are dangerous. Her course is no more dangerous, than anything walkers routinely do. So as regard the hazards, on your own head be it. Leave her to do (as she always does) the best she can in terms of numbering and marshalling, and accept that she has done all that is "reasonably practicable", but probably one of her marshalls wont agree with others either, since that is a fact of life. And some will not be able to communicate even after testing. Nobodies fault. It is just how it is in lakeland in bad weather.
I have already said that if you must say anything about courses (other than highlight specific hazards - clearly the best approach by far, and the method safety documents would use) then issue a directive that the courses should be "Not substantially more hazardous than routes commonly used by walkers in the area" or similar. Might not help with borrowdale scree, but at least wynns course and langdale are then OK.
And when it is icy just warn people! It is icy!
Right now in addition to ridiculous course and weather directives, she is responsible for the safety of retiring runners who are now obliged to do something stupid and even potentially fatal now, and MUST apparently send search parties out before the end of the race. Mountain rescue will love her, when they go after twenty runners who were not even lost, just slow to return having decided to bail and walk in.
Who want to be an RO with this committee's mindset?
Please. Please. Get somebody used to drafting safety documents, and with a sense of legal jeapoardy, and a mind that plays "what if" games to draft the rules, and then get a lawyer on behalf of an RO , not FRA or UKA to inspect them for risks to the RO. Endless expedient fudging of "marshall" clauses to the point they become meaningless and ambiguous is not the answer. Simple clear directives please - that just give the RO an obligation to consider factors and to come up with a reasonably practicable method, not a mandate to do. That is how safety legislation works.
Until then maybe reregistering the race under scottish rules might bypass some of the sillier directives, and allow the waltz to happen again.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 30-10-2013 at 10:03 AM.
Very profound statement, I'm sure - but there again you just have to talk. You don't have to actually deal with this issue. No, that's being done by volunteers on your behalf. It's difficult and stressful enough without idiots like you putting unnecessary, inflammatory statements on the web. Totally out of order.
I have been following this thread with interest. AI's postings have resurrected fears which I have harboured for several years now. I have been disappointed by some of the negative comments by some of the other posters who seem to be arrogant and ignorant. Ostriches and sand come to mind.
I was planner for the Mountain Trial for a period 10 years ago or so, followed by a spell as "course vetter". I remember the difficulties in trying to comply with the then FRA safety requirements in avoiding unnecessary dangers and hazards. I can't remember the exact wording in those days, pretty similar if not the same as in 2013, but I could see it was an impossible task without compromising the ethos of the race. A fell running lawyer advised that members of the committee would be jointly and severally liable which essentially meant a claimant could cherry pick any or all of the members to sue if the "organiser" was proved negligent. He painted a frightening scenario wherein a claim amounted to millions.
But we would have been covered by the UKA insurance? Ive just checked and the latest insurance letter, as printed in the calendar, is different now but then it left some doubt. I recall it specifically mentioned road races; as if they carried some special risk. To my mind fell racing was, still is, inevitably more riskier than track and field or even road and I was left wondering if the insurers appreciated that. Did they actually know what a fell race was? In particular the Mountain Trial which is more akin to orienteering.
So if the worst happened and the insurers found some excuse not to pay up, potentially the family home would have been at risk. That was a risk I could not take and I decided to call it a day.
I do hope the FRA committee take these issues seriously.
Mick Garratt
The coroners letter demonstrates that we will be judged by what we say about ourselves, and the lack of "what if" games that led to those rules being accepted.
I played the what if "somebody falls down dalehead or catbells in icy condition" to highlight the problem with present rules, and the breach of them implied if that happens.
It is such an obvious thing, at least to such as wynn, why has it not be considered as what if
And whilst I sympathise with all volunteers, what is done has to be right and protect Wynn in the process.
Your criticism of those statements is what?
The phrase "idiot" seems contradictory with your own wish to remove "inflammatory" comment - nor hardly justified by the ruthless logic in what I posted.
"Mountains heed no rules.
Reflect that!"
So you now realise your input was useless?
Thanks
That is exactly how wynn feels.
Not sure the insurance wording is helpful now either.
- the insurance as it is allows insurers to wriggle if lack of compliance is deemed a deliberate acts of ommission/commission . eg knowing a course does not comply.
- and if that were in any doubt the FRA rules as they are state that insurance is given on the basis of compliance with rules.
So in principle all an insurer needs to do is demonstrate non compliance. Scary.
At very least RO should take advice on how big that risk is.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 30-10-2013 at 10:51 AM.
I agree. Always Injured does have some very good points, and I'm sure that these are being listened to. but using words such as pathogenic is spoiling what is a very useful argument.
It isn't easy creating guidelines which will satisfy all requirements in matters such as this, and I know that there is a lot of hard work going on in the background, so please contribute constructively and try to avoid winding people up. (Difficult on a forum, I know!)
I have to deal with the issue as I have applied for a 2014 permit.
Wynn has dealt with the issue by washing her hands of it - most reluctantly it seems.
It is unlike me, but I am trying to keep a lid on this and deal with this more off forum than on forum, but I do sense that this is a huge moment for the sport and the FRA.
Most runners will not sense or appreciate this - as an athlete I just turn up at the races bring my kit and have been fortunate to complete the races I've been at and make my way home happily afterwards.
It makes very little difference to us whether it is the FRA Race at Pendle, the BOFRA race at Malham, or the random Turkey Trot at Hurst Green that my mate runs.
We just come and run and have a bit of a social before and after.
Most ROs have a gradual build up to the event and then a hugely stressful day trying to make sure all goes well.
When I do it, it seems the whole day is non-stop, often from before 7:00am in the morning until 5:00pm in the afternoon.
I often drag myself home, knackered, cold, wet, hungry but for some reason I want to do it again.
Most ROs do it purely for the love of the sport. It's voluntary. Not only do they not make anything, they are usually out of pocket.
I wouldn't dramatise and suggest this is the end of the sport, or the end of the FRA.
But those that fail to register the significance of this moment may look back in a few years time and realise how important these matters are.
We are at a hugely significant moment in the sport of fell running and the direction that the FRA takes as our NGB will greatly influence how many of it's members (and therefore ROs) it takes with them.
So in fact you disagree with the old anonymous coward.... Because AI isn't all talk.. he's made some great points. OK in a long statements but he's talked a lot of sense and been sniped at by many with unnecessary contributions which have added nothing.
As Wynn has demonstrated there are real consequences to the new rules. I do see why they have been brought in but the debate has been healthy. Too accuse someone who disagrees as 'winding people up' is unhealthy in the extreme.
Posting Permissions
