Safety Matters

[alwaysinjured]

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.

No They do not contradict at all - and yes you can have a rule on kit stated necessary for entry , whilst stating it is not warranted sufficient , demanding the competitor take a proactive decision on what else to take for safety. CompetItors sign up for all rules not one. Under rule 1 he signed up for, she has the power to exclude anyone in this case for failing to abide an instruction - and that is what got him sanctioned.

Regardless of that An RO demanding he Carry leggings does not make him less safe so your argument is specious on safety grounds. If you don't like that rule , don't sign up for the race. Simple. Wynn cannot have rules which contradict SHR, nor can she tell runners what is sufficient - nor can she imply a safety net. The rules are consistent with meeting those objectives.

[noel]

Can I make a plea that we do our best to limit AI to this thread and stop this metastatic spread to other unrelated threads not previously infected by this debate.

[noel]

No They do not contradict at all - and yes you can have a rule on kit stated necessary for entry , whilst stating it is not warranted sufficient , demanding the competitor take a proactive decision on what else to take for safety. CompetItors sign up for all rules not one. Under rule 1 he signed up for, she has the power to exclude anyone in this case for failing to abide an instruction - and that is what got him sanctioned.

Regardless of that An RO demanding he Carry leggings does not make him less safe so your argument is specious on safety grounds. If you don't like that rule , don't sign up for the race. Simple. Wynn cannot have rules which contradict SHR, nor can she tell runners what is sufficient - nor can she imply a safety net. The rules are consistent with meeting those objectives.

That's fascinating AI. Please expand on this.

[sbrt]

Can I make a plea that we do our best to limit AI to this thread and stop this metastatic spread to other unrelated threads not previously infected by this debate.

Too late. My fault I mentioned the S word

Originally Posted by sbrt
I pinned the number to my shirt and checked it was ok to wear my cag over the number. The RO said 'thats fine, just show it at the start and when you finnish'. Which I did.

The race number was shown at the start and finish of the race. The number stayed warm, mostly dry and safe at all times. I think it may have even enjoyed itself too. I did

AI' s reply

And todays award for honorary fellow of "order of the brown arm for stirring it", goes to sbrt!

[dominion]

That's fascinating AI. Please expand on this.

Rule 2 is also fascinating,

So I rock up at the start with my kit, dump it 100yds up the track and pick up a different bag that I dropped off a short time earlier with.. a bottle of water, but no trousers and then reverse the process on my return? Because that's how I'd best manage my personal safety.

ps, you really should fix the security issues on the AW website

[Mark G]

[QUOTE=alwaysinjured;582456]No They do not contradict at all - and yes you can have a rule on kit stated necessary for entry , whilst stating it is not warranted sufficient , demanding the competitor take a proactive decision on what else to take for safety. CompetItors sign up for all rules not one. Under rule 1 he signed up for, she has the power to exclude anyone in this case for failing to abide an instruction - and that is what got him sanctioned. /QUOTE]

I dont have a problem with that, the RO specifies a minimum level of kit (which is never below that stipulated by the governing body) but has the absolute right (and possibly a duty?) to point out that carrying that minimum is not necessarily sufficient and runners may wish to use their own judgement to take additional things. Because they also have the right to raise the requirement above that minimum if they feel it is necessary, I feel its a shame FRA introduced the requirement for waterproofs in longer races regardless of the conditions etc - I welcomed the increased clarity about what is/isn't meant by 'waterproof full body cover' but I would have much preferred individual ROs to have greater discretion over what is needed on any particular occasion. Perhaps this will change when the rules are reviewed again.

[CL]

Rule 2 is also fascinating,

So I rock up at the start with my kit, dump it 100yds up the track and pick up a different bag that I dropped off a short time earlier with.. a bottle of water, but no trousers and then reverse the process on my return? Because that's how I'd best manage my personal safety.

ps, you really should fix the security issues on the AW website

Indeed! Rule 2 states the runner is 'wholly' responsible for managing his/her safety from start to finish. But this isn't true because the organiser has stipulated minimum kit requirements. If you can't decide what stuff to take or not to take then you aren't wholly responsible for managing your own safety. So the runner who was DQ was abiding by rule 2 but not rule 5. So which rule takes precedence? No answer seems to be given.

[Wheeze]

Agreed CL. We need to move away from the idea of stipulating kit requirements. It is a minefield for RO's.

[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.

What you missed is the kit rule came from SHR as part of the RO's pack of instruction ( under review as we debate) if I wanted insurance that's what had to be done - if you want to race we need the insurance.
Simples.....
As I said before. He read the disclaimer - agreed to it then changed his mind... Hence the DQ - the life ban was for causing a miscount at all the checkpoints which in other circumstances could have been fatal for a runner and compromised both my marshals and us.
And you think that's alright????

[wynn]

ps, you really should fix the security issues on the AW website

Done a week ago