"Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinksOriginally Posted by Witton Park
........... hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging"
"Just got of the phone to them and FRA attitude stinks
........... hiding behind a limited company they are OK and we are left hanging"
The position of the FRA as communicated via the Forum.
The position has gone from "agreed" on the 11/9 to "a small number of amendments ... in the light of comments made on this forum..." a month later.
Is anyone suggesting that the FRA committee would have responded to "5 people talking to each other about arcane matters"?
They are responding because there is a pressing need to respond.
You are an RO, you have run a race that has been widely thought of as being a shining example to other events and you feel like your event, that you have organised with a passion is under threat due to some procedural changes.
I think the response is fair enough.
Let's put it this way
and FRA attitude stinks
or
and was left feeling like my concerns did not register with them
In effect they mean the same thing and I can't see that either really do anything other than convey the feelings of an RO at the time.
Had you considered for a minute, that the description might have been a fair reflection of a reaction to a phone call from a very concerned (and exposed) race organiser ( I suspect both regret) who probably knows a great more than the one she spoke to about the practicality of organising races, yet to whom the response was in essence: "those are the rules" everyone else is signing up, even if they may not be compliant!
We have moved on- but it is indeed very true that FRA are indeed ltd, and race organisers are NOT themselves ALLOWED to be limited since they have to sign up in person, and are indeed carrying most or all of the risk.
That does not constitute bad mouthing to me. It constitutes an expression of worry (probably using too emotive words) from an RO whose concerns at the time had not been properly noted. One who has been generally lauded as exemplary in terms of management process to the point where her race was used as a an example to show new RO, yet those methods were in part outlawed by a rule change on which she was not consulted? - Worse than that any reasonable interpretation made her course non compliant using the rules as they were (at that time), and also told her that compliance was a condition of insurance! Scary stuff.
Volunteers or not, this has to be right, the road to hell is paved with good intention. There are no prizes for a good attempt. This is serious stuff.
The downside for an RO is just as wynn put it "potentially losing her house" not to mention criminal proceedings that might follow a verdict of "contributed or caused by negligence" , and recent events showed that unworkable previous rules , could have headed in that direction.
ALL THAT STATED, there is progress,much water under the bridge since!
I am encouraged by the now engagement of the committee with a process at least intended to manage RO concerns by amendments taking place. We can only wait. I look forward to seeing the outcome.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 06-11-2013 at 06:39 PM.
555 races registered for 2014 so far.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/races.php?y=2014
On some forums folk are banned from having multiple id's
I got the gist a long time ago. Post 824 sums up your attitude as well as your comments on river crossings. I don't want to see fell races substantiated with hazard appeasement.
Coroners don't have a monopoly on truth. And when they talk nonsense we have the right to take an opposite stance. Good judgement is all that is needed and since I'm not a snob I don't care from who's mouth it cometh.
They have a monopoly on deciding whether a death was caused by or contributed to by negligence, which opens pandoras box of litigation against an RO.
Nobody will ask whether you ( or we ) disagree, and in case you missed it the issue is that a part of what the coroner echoed as matters that could contribute to further deaths related directly to what we state is possible from our rules. Even when it is not really possible. That is the reason we have to take notice.
Yes but how many are compliant to a set of draft rules??
How many recalcitrant race organisers were bludgeoned into it???? as per request of a committee member
Last edited by wynn; 06-11-2013 at 08:45 PM.
Posting Permissions
