Resignation fromCommittee

[Witton Park]

And that was under safety requirements which were not as protective of race organisers as the current set.

Rather than just coming out with a statement that you assert as fact, it would be good if you could expand and outline how you come to this conclusion Madeleine.

The current RO Pack has expanded extensively. I did a count of how much for my meeting a few weeks ago, but it was accepted then that many pages have been added.

What you have made me do in order to permit with the FRA is actually do things that are not really needed for my venue and were intended for much more severe and exposed events / terrain.

I will do them, I have to. But it will not make my event safer.

Many ROs may be so focussed on meeting the longer list of musts and shoulds that they miss something more relevant to them.
So a previously good RO, and let's face it Fell Running has got lots of them, could be at risk because of the over complex requirements.
They are over complicated, keeping jumping from Competitor to RO.
They are in contradiction in part with some of the Guidelines which hasn't been revised (but I wouldn't be surprised to see a newer version knocked out soon as happened with the Check List)

I would liken it to the debate over drink driving.
The argument goes if the limit is dropped from 2 pints to 1 pint it will make a real impact on the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink drivers.

But the people creating the problem are not those drinking in moderation, they are the ones who go out and drink way over the limit. If they do that when the limit is 2 pints, then why would they change if the limit was 1 pint?

Of course the drivers operating within the law, will continue to do so and will follow the new lower limit as that is their nature.
But every now and again, someone will get caught out who's had 1.5 pints, or maybe even stuck to the one, but it took them slightly over.

So the new regime would be most likely to penalise those that had previously been within the law whilst having no effect on those that had always broken it.

[Witton Park]

Is it fair to say that a tragedy is less likely to occur due to the tightening of the rules around safety kit? And that a incident could be prevented from developing into a tragedy due to the tightening of rules around ROs and marshals counting runners more effectively?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

I'm sure you have seen the debates on Safety Kit where plenty of eloquent and experienced people come down on either side of the kit debate.
That would suggest that the change from windproof to waterproof is more symbolic than anything.
You can go and get a £20 waterproof which offers a little protection, or a £150 windproof which may offer more protection.
Runners are given a checklist of what they should carry and aim to tick off that list.
I usually have more than what I am asked to carry - I'm sure others do, but others, particularly the less experiences ones may just carry what is in the rules and think job done.
I ran at Duddon around 4-5 years ago. It was 25C, clear blue skies. June. With limited space in my bumbag would I be better off carrying a water bottle, some nuuns, factor 20 and an extra couple of gels than full body cover?
People were dropping out at Three Shires Stone affected by the heat. From there to the finish I don't remember seeing any water.

[alwaysinjured]

Mike

Thanks for your interpretation of what happened at the inquest. You are missing a few bits of background information and context (as ever) but don't let that stop you posting! We listened to Andy Walmsley and included some of his suggestions and rejected others (even though he engaged very late in the process - eg he agreed the July document!). Pete Bland has signed up this year. Are you still wishing to meet up or have you given up on that one as well?

Madeleine

Pete Bland has stated as many times as he can, you have given him a serious problem, Scoffer is not very happy either. "signing up" is inconsequential. Also is feigned unanimity.

Safety, quality, GMP, all of them think in similar fashion.

If something goes wrong or an output is flawed, you first correct the output itself, but then you also have a duty to review and study the process that created the problem to fix that too. So look at july rules and you see a clear problem. Sure something was done to amend the flaws , but then you have to look at the process.

How was it that a set of rules, clearly not fit for purpose, containing a lot of basic problems, and indeed objectively dangerous wording ever got created or accepted in the first place? To a safety or quality person, you would look at the mix and competence of people that created it, the nature and extent of proactive consultation to try to prevent a faulty output prior to approval, and consider how to approve the output in a wholly different manner. Since in the end the approval is the backstop.

It is really important. You cannot trust good practise, unless you can trust the process creating it. And we cannot.

Now Andy has gone, it is hard to see how you can address the process internally.

So at the time we wanted involvement and discussion, we were refused an audience:
We wanted to present an alternative solution before not after the solution was chosen!
We were trying to get sufficient change made for Wynn to sign up, introduce a new way of thinking, avert just the sort of response you gave to coroner, prevent the type of statement now put out, and make value of interactions with RO, rather than make the subject "compliance to rules". All those goals are past.

My requests for urgent conversation was to avert andy's resignation already on the cards. What would be the purpose now?

So I am not convinced of the value of showing up for a football match after the result is already declared: but I will still talk about the professional fouls, that achieved an improper outcome.

Now I see how Andy has been treated, and the outrageous importance given to disciplinary threats over any proper action, the lack of democratic means to allow for change, I really don't want to get involved on that basis: am busy doing similar things for other people who actually seem to want the output! so I can spend the time creating the solution not battering endlessly at getting the right to present the need for it.

Address the issue of mix and review process in that safety subcommittee, the potential to supercede the coroners letter, proper democracy within FRA and maybe we have scope to talk: since only in that way is meaningful change possible.

[Derby Tup]

Pete Bland has stated as many times as he can, you have given him a serious problem, Scoffer is not very happy either. "signing up" is inconsequential. Also is feigned unanimity.

Safety, quality, GMP, all of them think in similar fashion.

If something goes wrong or an output is flawed, you first correct the output itself, but then you also have a duty to review and study the process that created the problem to fix that too. So look at july rules and you see a clear problem. Sure something was done to amend the flaws , but then you have to look at the process.

How was it that a set of rules, clearly not fit for purpose, containing a lot of basic problems, and indeed objectively dangerous wording ever got created or accepted in the first place? To a safety or quality person, you would look at the mix and competence of people that created it, the nature and extent of proactive consultation to try to prevent a faulty output prior to approval, and consider how to approve the output in a wholly different manner. Since in the end the approval is the backstop.

It is really important. You cannot trust good practise, unless you can trust the process creating it. And we cannot.

Now Andy has gone, it is hard to see how you can address the process internally.

So at the time we wanted involvement and discussion, we were refused an audience:
We wanted to present an alternative solution before not after the solution was chosen!
We were trying to get sufficient change made for Wynn to sign up, introduce a new way of thinking, avert just the sort of response you gave to coroner, prevent the type of statement now put out, and make value of interactions with RO, rather than make the subject "compliance to rules". All those goals are past.

My requests for urgent conversation was to avert andy's resignation already on the cards. What would be the purpose now?

So I am not convinced of the value of showing up for a football match after the result is already declared: but I will still talk about the professional fouls, that achieved an improper outcome.

Now I see how Andy has been treated, and the outrageous importance given to disciplinary threats over any proper action, the lack of democratic means to allow for change, I really don't want to get involved on that basis: am busy doing similar things for other people who actually seem to want the output! so I can spend the time creating the solution not battering endlessly at getting the right to present the need for it.

Address the issue of mix and review process in that safety subcommittee, the potential to supercede the coroners letter, proper democracy within FRA and maybe we have scope to talk: since only in that way is meaningful change possible.

Is that 'yes, meeting up Mad is a good idea'?

Go on, why not pm her

[Witton Park]

It would be best DT.
Personally I think it has to be a wider group if any such meeting where to take place.

I would look to book somewhere like Marl Pits.

Invite a variety of ROs perhaps 10 - 20 and in the interests of getting a broad church there should be a range of views represented. So some for status quo, some for change and some fence-sitters.
Also representing different types of races.
All of the committee.
Others on application (as numbers have to be limited)
Allow Andy W and AI to make a presentation with an overview of what they want the FRA to consider and they could use Anniversary Waltz as an example race of how their system would be put together in practise.

Discuss.

Half a day. No kicking, scratching or gouging

[alwaysinjured]

Is it fair to say that a tragedy is less likely to occur due to the tightening of the rules around safety kit? And that a incident could be prevented from developing into a tragedy due to the tightening of rules around ROs and marshals counting runners more effectively?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

A lot of these issues already addressed Noel.
Making rules "tighter" does not make them in any way more effective, but it can give more legal exposure.
Runners have to choose their own kit, see my "safety words" thread, for why. (still a minimum enforced) That is what would make it safer.

It wasn't the rules that caused a problem, it was lack of controlled procedures.
Ask them to show you the evidence.

Good RO already have procedures that second check finish count, by a variety of means, and counting them through in a multitude of ways. If it already works why fix it? And depending on how they do that, changing rules just causes problems. It may sound small, but in Wynns case demanding all retirees report to the RO makes for a problem,..she has several races hands on managed by different people, so she is not the one to call. Big races have a team tasked with different processes. The key is making sure right hands know what left hands are doing so nothing falls down a crack, not forcing one person to do the lot.

And that means in essence quality control of a race plan.

Safety is not about what happens 99.99% of the time.
It is about managing the 0.01% often lost in poor communication or tasking, or not enough thinking about "what if"

By way of example..

Chances are if there is a fatality at a road crossing, it will not be because the RO did not think of signage for it, indeed he almost certainly already does, or even the absence of a rule saying it should be done (which is obvious to anyone with an IQ of a mothball or greater). It will be the lack of a clear written task for an identified person to do it, who has signed up to say they will, and the supervision to make sure they did. The RO will think someone is doing it because of a half remembered conversation, and a resulting misunderstanding, the road has ended up unsigned. That is why many accidents happen in practise. Mushy instructions and communications. Not the absence of rules.

[Derby Tup]

Witton, we should have a whip-round and send Breezy, Mads and your pal out to Wetherspoons in Burnley with a couple of hundred quid and tell them they're not coming home 'til they've spent up

[alwaysinjured]

Is that 'yes, meeting up Mad is a good idea'?

Go on, why not pm her

I did. Several times.
Most recently to avoid the catastrophe with Andy.
She insisted on doing that stupid thing first.

So now I cannot be bothered, in reality because of the chemistry in the exec and that subcommittee is dysfunctional and unhealthy, so there is too little chance what I say would have any effect. All the big decisions we tried to avert are already history. Me and Andy tried.

I have also suggested going out for a run, or whatever, with both at various points, in those cases just blanked. Like most of what I have sent.

It takes two to tango, and this time, tango is not the answer.
I don't believe in showing up for a football game, when told to wait till after it has finished, before I am allowed to play.

[Toreador]

It takes two to tango, and this time, tango is not the answer.
I don't believe in showing up for a football game, when told to wait till after it has finished.

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

[Witton Park]

Witton, we should have a whip-round and send Breezy, Mads and your pal out to Wetherspoons in Burnley with a couple of hundred quid and tell them they're not coming home 'til they've spent up

Maybe under threat of having to weasr Rovers shirts if they are non-compliant