I'm not just bored with it now I'm "flipping" bored with it. Lets lock the thread and throw away the key!
I'm not just bored with it now I'm "flipping" bored with it. Lets lock the thread and throw away the key!
I can't help feeing the debate might have run it's time now. Any thread where most of the posters are anonymous (and largely the same person / handful of people) is usually of little if any valueOriginally Posted by Stolly
Poacher turned game-keeper
I think the good points raised have been buried by now in the somewhat verbose posts. Brevity folks, that's the key word
Brevity and bullet points, don't forget the bullet points.
True...and of course ruthless efficiency and a fanatical devotion to the pope.
Not until the rules are finally decided - I gather there is a newer version - and a response to the coroner is finalized. Until then there is reason for change.
Likewise Stolly but wait until the final brief is published and it will all start again.
Only if it still contains nonsense -
You know three things
1/ That overcounts are inevitable occasionally because of non partipants passing - you yourself raised the issue previously on another thread,
2/ That UKA cited it as poor practise/ failures of duty, based on their lack of experience and false expectation from inadequate rules
3/ Net result is the coroner cited it as an issue for prevention of future deaths.
Yet you know such overcounts are from time to time inevitable.
If that does not concern you greatly, you are simply not taking any of it seriously enough/ have your head in the sand, demonstrable in previous posts. If you were the RO about to attend an inquest/ lawsuits you would be far less smug and you or your lawyer would be looking hard at these rules to find a defence, whilst the hostile parties already provable will look at every discrepancyto kick you with.
This thread has managed to raise awareness to kick some sense into inadequate parts of the rules, previously " approved" , let us hope it achieves similar for the rest.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 03-11-2013 at 03:27 PM.
6. When the marshal at checkpoint 3 notified race control of an inaccurate number of runners who passed through checkpoint 3 there was no consideration or investigation as to the reasons for the inaccuracies.
Both Scottish Hill Runners(SHR) and UKA, represented at the inquest by Keith Burns and John Temperton respectively, had reviewed the witness statements. Whilst much has already been said/intimated on this thread about the UKA input, the SHR input has not been mentioned. Both Keith and John appeared as witnesses towards the end of the inquest. Keith followed John and was able to inject objectivity and realism into the interpretation of the facts from the point of view of an experienced race organiser and runner. For example he pointed out that fellrunning is a dangerous sport that cannot be made risk free and that accurately monitoring people round a course is not always straightforward eg in bad weather when waterproofs are obscuring numbers and when there may be runners on the course who aren't in the race. All of us with a passion for fellrunning should be grateful to SHR and Keith for their input.
I attended the inquest as an observer because I wanted to hear first hand what had happened.
With regard to improving the content of the "FRA Safety Requirements" one thing that struck me during the inquest was a need to stress to organisers the importance of accounting individually for each and every competitor at the end as a "did not start", did not finish (retired) or as a finisher with a time and any discrepancies resolved as quickly as possible. Since this is the end stop I think it should be differentiated from the monitoring at checkpoints round the course. At Buttermere Sailbeck the organiser had relied on a headcount of finishers plus retirees. Unfortuneately one retiree had in effect been double counted.
I mentioned this requirement to Graham at the inquest but was told it was too late to make any changes to the version of the "FRA Safety Requirements" which had been referenced on the FRA website on Sept 11th and already circulated to other interested bodies. However, at the end of the inquest the Coroner announced his intention to write to the FRA re Matters of Concern (Regulation 28) at which point I assume the committee realised it was unlikely to be the final version!
Margaret Chippendale
Last edited by MargC; 03-11-2013 at 05:47 PM.
Posting Permissions
