Richard - your mailbox is full :-)
Richard - your mailbox is full :-)
Sorted
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Like many others, I suspect, I have tried very hard not to let myself get drawn into this debate since, as the final 'key safety point' on p.22 of the current Fellrunner notes, 'it's only a fell race'. The events surrounding Sailbeck 2012 however clearly demonstrate that sometimes it's actually rather more than just a fell race.
It seems to me from what I have read (not everything, I hasten to add) on this forum, on the Facebook page, and now in the Fellrunner, that the issue of personalities amongst some of the main protagonists has now become so poisonous that moving forward in the best interests of all involved with our sport has become next to impossible.
I don't like the way some correspondents on both (any) sides of the debate seek to persuade/denigrate, but I can see the genuinely held concerns of all. This thread it just one shining example of the way in which language choice and personality can so quickly derail sensible debate.
Reluctantly, I feel I will now have to pull my head out from the sand. It seems to me that the best place for me to contribute to these discussions will be via my own club's processes, probably its AGM - a club for which there are very clearly significant implications, whichever way the issues are ultimately resolved (and like many others, I think, I am deeply concerned by what, on the surface at least, does look like an increasingly entrenched position being taken by the committee in response to some more and some less reasonable concerns being raised by others).
I'd like to think this was all just a storm in a teacup, but the relatively recent incorporations of both the FRA and Dark Peak Fellrunners, alongside the rising tide of reports of inquests, lawsuits and the rest, tends to suggest otherwise.
My apologies in advance to all members of DPFR foolish enough to be regular attendees at our AGM.
Willy Kitchen (since, apparently, anonymous posting is to be frowned upon).
Experience of AI's posts has taught me the rest is going to be like the first bit. 15 miles of ankle-deep written muck (no offence AI, I'm just running with the metaphor here).Originally Posted by OB1
Bullet Points are the answer.
No, it's not supposed to be a joke. I read most of the previous epic thread and, when faced by AI's next set of extremely long posts I gave up.
I have tried to rewrite the rules to suit what I thought would be appropriate and will send them to the FRA when I have had another look so that they can either use or not use them as they see fit.
However, AI has spent so much time writing long and involved posts here, that, if he has the time to do this, why doesn't he just spend this time re-writing the rules as he sees fit and posting them here for the rest of us to criticize?
Some have moved to using the SHR for their insurance. Perhaps people should look at their safety document that has to be signed off a week before the race, available here. Whilst these might appear to be better than the FRA's, they still have some of the same issues.
For example,How is this to happen at a typical A Long with no road crossings? You have 200 runners, all of whom set off at the same time. A fast runner passes CP1 and 2 fine, but goes off course on the way to CP3. He loses 30 minutes, but carries on. Rather than being in tenth he is now 150th. What systems that we normally use are going to locate him? CP3 has runners coming through from 60' in to 180' in to the race. Marshals are taking numbers the whole time. When can they communicate back to the Race HQ about who has gone through?It is recommended that each runner is checked around the course in such a manner that if he becomes overdue at a control point the fact is known to race control.
As this is basically impossible on a fell race, why do both sets of rules suggest this?
I would love to see AI's and (particularly) Fellhound's form of Race Safety guidance as it would add considerably to the debate.
Opportunity to put this debate to bed AI - are you going to take it? Would at least provide a starting point...
On the first sentence above, it seems to me that you and AI are in complete agreement on this Lecky. What surprises me is that for the last 6 months my interpretation of your input on the Safety regs was that the committee was handling this in the right manner and you didn't know what all the fuss was about.
eg. here on 12/11
You may well see AI and Fellhounds safety guidance in the not to distant future.
I can't speak of SHR as I have no association or little knowledge of them. But my take on the current situation is that the FRA have filtered down the Rules and Safety Requirements to the Home Nations over recent years.
Those have been done through the bodies affiliated to UKA/EA but also adopted by the independent organisations such as SHR, WFRA and others.
It has taken the FRA a period of something like 12 months to complete it's review that was issued as a final piece according to Graham in September.
The FRA had to then quickly withdraw that finality and another review was undertaken.
I'm not sure whether or not it is completed because of the constant duff info we keep getting.
But it seems apparent to me that at the end of 2013 some of the associations that previously were happy to sign off on the FRA Pack, had misgivings and decided to react to that.
That involves meetings and reviews, so I'm prepared to cut them a little slack as so far they have had only 3 months to get right what the FRA took around 18 months to do badly.
Last edited by Witton Park; 30-03-2014 at 06:51 PM.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
[QUOTE=Lecky;579610] Perhaps people should look at their safety document that has to be signed off a week before the race, available here. /QUOTE]
I have taken an interest in the SHR Race Organisers Pack which still includes:
Race Monitoring and Rescue Procedures
Progress of the race must be monitored in such a way that you are always in a position to make a reasoned judgement as to the need to abandon the race or call out the rescue services.
When the FRA reviewed its Safety Requirements for 2014 it concluded that achieving "must" and "always" was virtually impossible (outside the 3 Peaks Race) and so the 2014 FRA version starts:
(10.2) "Must use reasonably practicable measures to monitor runners in Long/Medium A and Long B races... and then goes on to specifically highlight the use of "critical points" ie recognizing that all CPs are not the same in terms of runner safety.
It is the view of the FRA that its 2014 Safety Requirements are far more RO supportive/ friendly that any other version.
No doubt others will post their disagreement on here. Opinion is free.
But I would point out that the RO for the Ian Hodgson Relay, Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Kentmere, Buttermere Sailbeck and Coledale Horseshoe (up to 2013) etc sit on the FRA Committee. Most of them attended the Brian Belfield Inquest and I know they looked at the 2014 Safety Requirements from the realism of "what if I am defending myself in an Inquest in future" before they agreed them.
I bet they would do a BETTER JOB than the current attempt.
All ex and present committee appear to be sticking together like shit to a blanket.
Why not give Al a chance?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote