Safety Matters

[Stick]

I
There are other wrong assertions in Keith's post, but my open question is simple: "Do people really think a representative of a Scottish fell organisation, which does not operate under English Law and which is independent of UKA, has the best interests of English fell runners and English race organisers at heart?"

Graham...why do you want to make personal issues of this matter? It undermines your case and position.

Keith's post was about the different approaches to safety management yet you seems to have missed or deliberately overlooked this.

But as you have the courage to ask the question, you presumably expect to receive answers. You know mine already.... Yes, at the moment I have more faith in SHR to manage fell running than the current FRA committee hence my earlier decision.

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...n-from-the-FRA

[Witton Park]

The person briefing the UKA/FRA lawyer was me.

You'd think and experienced lawyer would have known better

Graham - did the FRA advise the coroner that they had consulted with the other (6 I think) bodies involved in registering fell races in the UK in respect of the Safety Sub-Committees review.

By the way, SMS - bang on

[Witton Park]

Let's cut through this nonsense. It doesn't matter who's prescribes the minimum kit requirements because once they file down to competitors many will just think 'that'll do.'

You've been around long enough Chris. Much longer than me.

Nine Standards - Jan 1st - Course Record 51:44 is a BM so no mandatory kit requirement set by the FRA.

Ingleborough - July 19th - Course Record 44:15 is an AM so mandatory kit of Full Waterproof body cover, map,compass whistle required.

Of the 2 races, I know which as a competitor I would chose to take the full kit to and a little extra and that is Nine Standards.

If the rules are stupid, and illogical, then people will disrespect them.

I'm sure the 9 standards RO will apply the mandatory kit even though not compelled to and that's what makes these rules so stupid.

[Witton Park]

So how could it be better - maybe not perfect but this is how I believe it could be better (with reference to kit)

In the Rules for Competition
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
The FRA issues the rules and “The FRA Safety Requirements for Organisers of Fell Races” and “The FRA Safety Requirements for Competitors (they should be separate documents)
ROs and Competitors are expected to follow these documents as closely as possible.
The FRA believes that specific safety requirements are best left for the RO to set out and as such they must ensure that this information is in the public domain before the date of the event and posted in clear view at the event registration area.
ADDITIONAL RULES
All competitors must obey any additional rules drawn up by the RO for a particular race.

Then in the Safety Requirements for Race Organisers mandate the RO to put out Event Information as a requirement of permit/registration that outlines the kit requirements.

In the Safety Requirements for Competitors.
For Senior Events, all competitors including eligible juniors, should arrive at races prepared to carry
all of the following equipment:
• WATERPROOF whole body cover which means a jacket with hood and full length arms,
along with full length trousers.
• Other body cover appropriate for the weather conditions including, as a minimum, hat and
gloves.
• Map of the race route and compass suitable for navigating the course.
• Whistle.
• Emergency food.
• Any items specific to the individual competitor’s needs.
The minimum kit requirements for all races will be set out by the Race Organiser. The Race organiser
may go beyond the details outlined above and Competitors must follow the ROs minimum
requirements.
Responsibility for carrying the appropriate kit lies with the Competitor. Competitors not following
the ROs minimum kit requirements may be subject to disciplinary procedures

Race Organisers advisory equipment is a MINIMUM requirement. Ultimate responsibility for what Kit
is carried lies with the Competitor.

When matched up with a few backup statements to put the responsibility squarely on the competitor, who let's face it takes that responsibility every time they go out the door for a training run, the RO has less risk of a comeback.

[Witton Park]

I do wonder how, following a future death in an English fell race registered with SHR , the RO would explain to an English Coroner that he had registered his race with a Scottish organisation because he found the safety requirements demanded by the English FRA governing body (and amended in the light of his or a colleague's recommendations) too demanding? Particularly since the police would almost certainly ask the FRA/UKA to critique the race arrangements.

I do wonder how the FRA, a subsidiary cabal (a word oft used in committee circulars) of UKA/EA would react if said casualty had just turned 18 in October and was in an Autumn AL and was asked
"How come you don't define seniors?"
"How come all the other branches of the sporting body you are a sub-division of do define seniors?"
"How come this competitor would be an U18 in your Chanps races and restricted to 10km and yet you have allowed him to compete over 17 miles and 4000ft of climb in a November blizzard?"

[Graham Breeze]

Graham...why do you want to make personal issues of this matter? It undermines your case and position.

Keith's post was about the different approaches to safety management yet you seems to have missed or deliberately overlooked this.

Stick

I know Keith and I have different views about safety management and I respect his position, although I do not accept their applicability for fell races in England in the context of deaths in English fell races and requirements placed on the FRA by different Coroners. It remains to be seen what SHR will apply going forward because at the moment, allegedly, they are reviewing their approach.

But when Keith posts "The near miss was caused by the behaviour of the UK Athletics witness and their lawyer, who was doing the thorough job his client paid him..." I will take issue with him. I think THAT is personal.

Regards,

Graham

[Witton Park]

Stick - I'd actually ask you to reconsider your membership of the FRA. It is a much more auspicious and respected organisation historically and just because the current custodians don't quite hack it, shouldn't mean the members give up on it.

Graham is priceless. He comes on the forum picking the questions or posts he feels comfortable answering. But ducks out of those that he isn't so comfortable with.

[wkb21]

I thought Keith would be along to recruit English RO to register their races with Scottish Hill Runners although as I understand things SHR races are still being run under a "cut and paste" version of the FRA "prescriptive" model?

Where was I recruiting for anything other than achievable safety? I made no reference to Scottish Hill Runners because I have no authority to speak on their behalf (although I am a proud member). I speak as me, no other. I do not believe it is healthy for English race organisers to turn to SHR for insurance, although I understand why they might do so in the short term because SHR rules have not yet changed, although they are under current review. Nor did SHR endorse the FRA changes, as FRA claims.

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;581702]Keith was required to attend for around an hour or so of the 4 days, although he chose to be present for longer. [QUOTE]

As spokesman for a group engaged by Cumbria Police, I was required by Cumbria Police to review all evidence to the inquest. This obligation could not be fulfilled without hearing all the evidence over the 4 days of the inquest, and therefore appearing as last witness. I had no choice over my brief as to whom I might criticise. I was there to review all the evidence, which I did.

Persons wishing to see evidence to the inquest in the interests of improving safety in fell racing should write to the Coroner, who is obliged to provide it for this purpose only.

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;581702] "Do people really think a representative (sic) of a Scottish fell organisation, which does not operate under English Law and which is independent of UKA, has the best interests of English fell runners and English race organisers at heart?"[QUOTE]

I am English, born in Wigan, 34 years experience of racing in England. I make no distinction between my English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish mates. I act in the best interests of all fell runners regardless of other affiliations.

We're off the subject again - prescription vs. non-prescripion; not FRA vs. any other body.

Keith Burns

[Stick]

Stick - I'd actually ask you to reconsider your membership of the FRA. It is a much more auspicious and respected organisation historically and just because the current custodians don't quite hack it, shouldn't mean the members give up on it.

Graham is priceless. He comes on the forum picking the questions or posts he feels comfortable answering. But ducks out of those that he isn't so comfortable with.

Thanks Richard. I agree. My decision to leave was taken neither lightly nor quickly, nor without tbh a sense of deep disappointment. I am certainly not petitioning others to do likewise; like religion (or even more controversial...running clubs), each of us must make our own minds up.

For me, one of my more favoured "management" sayings is...'Either Lead, Follow, or get the hell out of here'. I do not have the time due to work and other personal commitments to stand for FRA officer / committee election...so 'Lead' for me is not an option. For the reasons I've outlined earlier the 'Follow' option is not one which I'm content or prepared to continue to do...so 'get the hell out of here' is my only morally-consistent approach.

I do believe that fell running as a sport needs an organising body (let's not mention UKA though lol!) so looked at WFRA and SHR. I do, and have historically done, more Scottish than Welsh races so SHR seemed the place for me to throw my (waterproof)hat in with.

Besides...being a Yorkshireman and having now paid my SHR subs...!
Cheers
Neil

[Graham Breeze]

Nor did SHR endorse the FRA changes, as FRA claims.

Keith Burns

Keith ,

Your assertion is wrong. The FRA has never claimed this. It would not be true.

What is correct is that SHR (along with WFRA, NIMRA, BOFRA, etc), were sent copies of various drafts of the FRA Safety Requirements during 2013 through, at the time, Bruce Smith.

Given that WFRA and SHR are independent organisations of UKA/FRA the matter of "endorsement" would not arise and, as we both know, the FRA and SHR Handbooks have been different for some time .

Graham