Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

On enquiry, the Nine Standards RO reported no problems, so perhaps you could elaborate and provide feedback for the process qualification.

I heard that people were kept waiting because of trying to fill in the grids in real time. Also a significant problem is using grids in that context: predictably the marshalls eyes are mainly diverted to the grids not where they should be looking which is at the runners, and whether or not runners were actually missed in trying to do that, they clearly could be , which is what safety should focus on. What might happen as a result, not only what already has. Any review should focus on difficulties , not just times when systems actually broke and numbers were not recorded.

So the grids are not a real time recording method, and clearly there are limits to how fast they can be used. The generality is true. The rules make no reference to the proper use of the grids, which is as a post process on already recorded numbers.

Dont get me wrong. The grids are a fine idea, if the context is properly defined - and a specific someone is tasked to use them, and told what to do with the answer when they have it..

The main point is of my post of course, the secretary commment on planning was a non sequitur leading to a false conclusion on planning - but the failure to test operating procedures before declaring them as good practice is a serious problem too.

BTW felljunior. Well argued post on kit above. Although the duty of runners to each other is only one aspect.

What caused the main problem was not failure to carry kit : it was failure to retire when ordered and running round the course anyway, yet still calling a number which had effectively been scratched, giving potentially serious runner accounting problems. Both are a generality of the only rule that needs to exist for runners which is to obey the RO and her marshalls instructions as presented on entering, and on day.

[CL]

As I stated - Trying to tread a fine line between appropriate entry instructions, and not actually contradicting the rules of the insuring body (as inherited from FRA) and under amendment. I have to deal with the world as it is. Not as it should be.

A prime reason the waltz withdrew from FRA control was not only incompetent rule drafting , including statements of voiding of insurance, it was the disgraceful way Wynn was treated by FRA leaders subsequently for raising valid objections. No longer worthy of anyone's trust. Take Watson saying she was "deluded" and Breeze calling her "recalictrant" for not wanting to sign idiotic undertakings on paper. The first thing we need as criteria for being an RO is responsible people. And signing up for impossible undertakings (as they most certainly were at the time), is not responsible behaviour. It was loss of trust in the people that run FRA.

There is not much to choose between the rule books as they stand until SHR amend them, but there is a big chasm in attitude. SHR think they are there to serve the fell running community. FRA (or at least the leaders) think they are there to laud it over everyone. The word "permit" says it all...

However the prime rule and essential for every competitor was indeed broken - that is - deliberately breaking RO instructions.

In my proposed documentation, there are in essence only two rules.
(i) That RO write an event plan according to guidelines (which guidelines state that the plan should contain pullout documents for entry instructions and race day instructions) And that they follow that plan on raceday , and review it afterwards.
(ii) That the competitor obeys all instructions from the RO or his officials. (which by definition includes entry instructions and race day instructions)

So this guy does not belong in any fell race, anywhere ,ever. He is a liability.
He broke the only rule of the sport in my book. Deliberately disobeying the RO, his instructions or his officials.

If the RO wants to specify minimum kit, I have nothing against it: it is probably even sensible to cope with idiots who lie on the entry forms about having experience they do not have, or start races in conditions of which they do not have enough experience, and so protecting them from themselves. In this instance SHR rules demand the carrying of it, so it was a not a decision of wynn's.

That is.. Provided the competitor is told specifically in race day instructions to take a proactive decision - that is to assess for him or herself whatever else in addition to the minimum he needs to stay safe on the basis of experience (which is mandated) and prevailing and expected conditions in expectation of no support and a long wait for rescue. It is that act of assessment that keeps the runner responsible (and safer)

On your last point CL - you betcha - A PRIME reason for all the documentation and a lot of the wording used is to keep the RO out of problems. Do you have a problem with that?

You said it AI. 'I have to deal with the world as it is not as it should be.' Well maybe the FRA realised that as well.

After everything you've said about the responsibility falling on the runner you still support RO stipulating minimum kit requirements to protect people from themselves. And so we have a spectacle where a runner on the AW gets DQ for using his own judgement which is not the judgement of the RO. You see AI you can't have it both ways and if you do you contradict yourself.

One last point: when your motive is just to protect RO then I have to question whether that actually coincides with doing what is right for competitors.

[CL]

The most common justifications for not carrying kit are:
- Kit will slow me down.
- I never injure myself, so I never have to stop.
- Nobody's telling me what to do.

The most common responses by others to not carrying kit are:
- The competitor is gaining an unfair advantage.
- The competitor is not taking responsibility for himself.
- He should comply with the rules.

In other words, the debate always focuses on the individual.

Rarely if ever is it recognised that every competitor has a duty of care to every other entrant. Thus, you may have to stop, not for yourself, but to assist another injured competitor, and you need to be able to cover up. Similarly, the injured runner should not be reliant on passing runners donating kit, and thereby putting themselves at risk. IDP has pointed out that hypothermia can rapidly set in even in the most benign of conditions. Over the years, there have been several reported examples of this happening at an incident. The last thing MRT need is to have to treat ill prepared runners, who have stopped to help, when they need to concentrate on the injured runner.

There has been a great deal written in past months about the need for competitors to take more personal responsibility so as to avoid charges of RO negligence. In my opinion, aiming for individual responsibility alone achieves little, it is mutual responsibility between competitors that matters. That will require rules and education imho.

So perhaps the RO is the best placed person to act on behalf of competitors, and demand that everyone carries minimum kit in case of the above circumstance occurring. Leaving the decision to competitors, when there is a selfish minority, potentially fails those who do co-operate with the RO and each other. If the RO or governing body subsequently applies sanctions, then that too is acting on behalf of other competitors. I suggest that viewing rules associated with safety in this way removes the 'petty', 'arbitrary', 'inappropriate' basis for arguments regularly used to dismiss them.

At AW the disqualified competitor put other competitors at risk, by not being properly equipped to stop, cover up, and help. Similarly, but for the vigilance of the finish team, running through the finish funnel potentially adds one to the head count, thus giving the illusion that everyone had returned. Sound familiar?

His sin is to fail to demonstrate any responsibility towards his fellow competitors whatsoever.

Disagree. There is no such thing as duty only obligation and that is a choice.

[CL]

Each to their own.

Like it Staggs and sums up the essence of self-responsibility.

[Mark G]

.. One last point: when your motive is just to protect RO then I have to question whether that actually coincides with doing what is right for competitors.

CL - I think there's the right thing and the 'right' thing. From my perspective as a competitor the right thing would be for the RO to be able to abdicate responsibility for my own safety totally to me. As events have proved they can not - so the 'right' thing to do is for me to accept a requirement to comply with their instructions even if I dont agree with them - I accept them because they are there to protect the RO, not because I necessarily agree that they are proportionate, necessary or right all of the time, or because I believe a set of fell running waterproofs are adequate to keep me alive after an accident if I'm already soaked through and tired in bad conditions.

[FellJunior]

Disagree. There is no such thing as duty only obligation and that is a choice.

If we must be pedantic....
Oxford Dictionary:
Obligation - Binding agreement especially one enforceable under legal penalty.
Duty - Moral or legal obligation.

[wynn]

You said it AI. 'I have to deal with the world as it is not as it should be.' Well maybe the FRA realised that as well.

After everything you've said about the responsibility falling on the runner you still support RO stipulating minimum kit requirements to protect people from themselves. And so we have a spectacle where a runner on the AW gets DQ for using his own judgement which is not the judgement of the RO. You see AI you can't have it both ways and if you do you contradict yourself.

One last point: when your motive is just to protect RO then I have to question whether that actually coincides with doing what is right for competitors.

He got disqualified for not following the rules that he signed up to...... Then life banned for putting other runners and my marshals and myself at risk.
No-one forced him to enter the race but in entering he agreed to abide by the rules. SHR require as part of their rules for competitors and obligations to access their insurance, that all competitors carry wind proof full body cover - similar to the FRA but they require taped seamed waterproofs. If he didn't want to follow the rules he didn't have to enter.

[CL]

CL - I think there's the right thing and the 'right' thing. From my perspective as a competitor the right thing would be for the RO to be able to abdicate responsibility for my own safety totally to me. As events have proved they can not - so the 'right' thing to do is for me to accept a requirement to comply with their instructions even if I dont agree with them - I accept them because they are there to protect the RO, not because I necessarily agree that they are proportionate, necessary or right all of the time, or because I believe a set of fell running waterproofs are adequate to keep me alive after an accident if I'm already soaked through and tired in bad conditions.

Mark G.......I know.

[CL]

If we must be pedantic....
Oxford Dictionary:
Obligation - Binding agreement especially one enforceable under legal penalty.
Duty - Moral or legal obligation.

Oh, were you using the Oxford Dictionary definition when you made your statement? There is no moral or legal obligation for one competitor to help another. If you do choose to help someone it should always be an act of 'good will,' and not what is implied by the term 'duty.'

[CL]

He got disqualified for not following the rules that he signed up to...... Then life banned for putting other runners and my marshals and myself at risk.
No-one forced him to enter the race but in entering he agreed to abide by the rules. SHR require as part of their rules for competitors and obligations to access their insurance, that all competitors carry wind proof full body cover - similar to the FRA but they require taped seamed waterproofs. If he didn't want to follow the rules he didn't have to enter.

Did AI write the rules for the AW Wynn? Paragraph 2 and 5 are contradictory. And for that reason you are unjustified in disqualifying the stated runner. That's the problem with having minimum kit requirements. Once you take responsibility for them you cannot demand that the runner 'manage' fully their own safety.