Come on AI, even in the case in point the race organisers negligence couldn't be pinned down as the actual cause of death. A runner falls over off line and bangs his head and unfortunately dies. Yes better organisation might have alerted a search a bit earlier which might perhaps have saved the day but, either way, it was a slip and fall coupled with bad weather that directly caused the death.Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Not this time.
But as I have been at pains to point out, the coroner judges us on our own rules. If the discrepancies had been a contributory cause, the coroner would have had a duty to point it out, if our rules say we can and do do that. That would have opened the door to a minefield.
Fell races should be "on your own head be it" but every undertaking the organiser gives you are entitled to assume in assessing the risk you are taking. And some sm*rt arse lawyer (and UKA if history is anything to go by) will point that out in spades. Wynn is being asked to warrant the impossible. Her course has climbing/dangerous ground and her weather can be dangerous. Yet she is supposed to agree it is not.
Perhaps Stolly but here was an inquest.
I imagine it would be much different in an adversarial court hearing where the prosecution were on one side and on the other were RO, UKA and FRA.
I think that the point made by Wynn and AI (and now others are coming forward who seem to have knowledge on the matter )is that in the inquest it was felt that UKA/FRA adopted a position of "it was him".
If that was the case it should concern us. It must also have been very harrowing for the RO involved if that is the case, as what the RO felt was part of the support network turned out to not to be so supportive.
What some people appear to be suggesting is that, if the sh*t hits the fan, the FRA will happily throw the RO 'under the bus.' Am I interpreting these comments correctly?
All this poses the question of how the Peris Horseshoe or Welsh 1000m Peaks race, both with scrambling sections (Y Lliwedd and Y Gribin ridges respectively), will fare if the WFRA adopt a similar stance to the FRA. Or the Tryfan Downhill Dash for that matter.
On a similar note, is the Vegan's Welsh 3000s ran under the WFRA? Because that goes over Crib Goch!
Last edited by Sam Harrison; 30-10-2013 at 12:31 PM.
Potentially, yes. It's wording such as "must not contain hazardous sections" and in general the overuse of the word "must" that renders many races (e.g. Wynn's AW) non-compliant, meaning the FRA would have every option to throw the RO under the bus should something go wrong (whether they would or not is another question).
As I understand it, the issue is that the Rules, in their present form, leave ROs exposed to litigation.What some people appear to be suggesting is that, if the sh*t hits the fan, the FRA will happily throw the RO 'under the bus.' Am I interpreting these comments correctly?
ROs, having signed up to the Rules, would, effectively, have to defend that decision, if the Rules were found wanting.
This couldn't be further from the truth in terms of the support the FRA provided to the RO for this year's inquest.
But the wording gives an impression contrary to the FRA's recent acts.
Just wondering how the Nav Leg at the relays can be part of a permitted event.
<<I think that the point made by Wynn and AI (and now others are coming forward who seem to have knowledge on the matter is that in the inquest it was felt that UKA/ FRA adopted a position of "it was him".>>
Not FRA, but if readers are uncertain of the UKA position at the inquest, they should ask FRA for a copy of the UKA witness statement. This is all that a race organiser needs to make a sound judgement on the wisdom of the current version of the draft safety requirements.
FRA representatives will be eager to clear up this uncertainty so that constructive progress can now be made before it's too late and more races are lost.
KB
Posting Permissions
