Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
ARC or UK:A
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
"its hard enough to find helpers let alone get people to find time to get qualifications to press a stop watch, marshal a corner or process results." What documentation have you had from UKA that says this will be the case. If such a document is on a website then please give a link.
Is this scare-mongering or do such regulations really exist?
You have to get into details of the UKA insurance cover etc to find out, but I confess I haven't been down that route. Most info has been posted on the ABAC site (they set up ARC)but most of the time they appear to put into plain English what is hidden elsewhere.
Sometimes its good not to know an organisation long enough to be disillusioned. From what I understand from listening to athletic news over the last few years there have been lots of problems with the organisation of UK athletics and many people have been disillusioned. But it does seem that the Olympic bid and poor perfomances at International Level are concentrating minds. So my understanding is that UKA is reforming, and Running Clubs through their representatives should be helping the process. Is The Road Running Leadership Group in UKA that I quoted, a toothless tiger or does it have some clout?
Just seen your comment about race officals needing to be licenced. Can you point me to the document please if it exists on the web, or give me its title so I can get it from our club secretary.
Such regulations would indeed make anyone want to throw in the towel and rejoin the ranks of the sane. However, I ask myself why have such regulations been passed and why were they not challenged? Is this UKA going mad or, perhaps more likely being forced down this route by health and safety issues, fear of litigation etc. If the latter then it is just symptomatic of the way our society is going. The ARC will not be able to escape from this insidious net either. Suppose in an ARC race a marshall at a road junction makes a mistake and an accident happens. Then a court case ensues and the marshall is found liable and has to pay a hefty fine. Will not the the ARC then require that all Marshalls in future be licenced?
I just hope that whatever happens runners do not allow themselves to be forced into competing camps.
But, one thing that won't change is the friendliness and support of runners which you have already discovered for yourself.
All we want to do is run
What actually is the purpose of a race permit? Who is entitled to grant them? If ARC can set themselves up to do it can anyone else do the same?
I can understand a local council or Police Authority insisting on seeing one when a race is being planned on public roads or parks etc, especially if road closures are required for safety of runners & public, but are they obliged to recognise a permit that’s been issued by a business that has not hierarchy that goes up to the governing body for the sport?
In any race the safety of the runners (and the public) is paramount, irrespective of which body issues the race permit.
Any race organiser will tell you that it's already very difficult to find the adequate number of marshalls and other helpers needed on race day. Increasing the amount of red tape will kill off a lot of races and we'll be left with the over subscribed, expensive events that are organised by commercial enterprises as purely money making ventures.
Re your remarks on the reforming of UKA/Olympics etc, we in the running clubs are tired of supporting Track & Field.
I don't know what the plans of the RRLG are, they haven't actually done anything yet and they've said nothing meaningful.
Shall we all just sit and wait with baited breath while the RRLG just talk for the next 12 months or shall we do something for our own sport?
risk assessments
adequate drink stations
warning signs
course is safe
police etc informed
toilets
course signage
first aid
marshals
etc etc
the police would want to know that a permit has been issued so that all of these standards are in place
Not proposing it as a way forward I should add, just interested to know.
Back to watching with interest.
However as permits are usually obtained from a body to who the race organiser is affiliated, then that is how an event is covered insurance wise, otherwise third party insurance is required.
UK:A allow non-UK:A organisers to purchase permits at £30 a go, free to UK:A affiliated clubs. I do not know if ARC will follow this approach but £10 for a permit if an affiliated club with a 60% return on unattached levies strikes me as a pretty good deal.
Exact details can be got from EA I guess
Cross Country Leagues - While there is provision for "unaffiliated" runners to compete for a £2 levy, the rules also say - 3(6) - that you can only compete like this for 12 months, then you MUST become a member of an affiliated club. Also, it looks as though only affiliated clubs are eligible to take part in open team competitions (rules 2 and 3). So on the face of it ditching UKA/EA would seem to preclude you from competing in UKA affiliated leagues.
CRC - I am aware that a number of your races form part of the county road race series. I would imagine that the county might take a dim view of your events if they were ARC ones. A event that has gone over to the Trial Runners Association has already caused problems. You would undoubtedly lose entrants if your events got scrubbed from the county series.
Is everyone aware that probably the greatest bastion of democracy in our sport - that of the county associations themselves - are VERY heavily dependant upon the unattached levies as their main source of income, and would really suffer if the clubs were to keep the money for themselves - the ARC do not seem to care about the county associations!
I would urge everyone who can get to the Exeter Golf & Country club on Tuesday 27th (7pm I believe) should go along and give John a hard time - or at least find out what is going on. I don't think anything good will come of splitting our sport up.
There are many races being organised by the "athletics" clubs as opposed to the "road running" clubs. These will almost certainly have no option but to stay with UKA/EA. You will only need to do a couple per year to end up paying more that just staying with the EA scheme. If the clubs really need the extra income, why not just add £1 to your race entrance fees?!?
In fact a more simple question would be why was it necessary to form a new organisation at all when ABAC existed already.
UKA have never enforced rule 3(6) have they? I know runners that have competed for years as unattached and of those that are fast and regularly picked up prizes have only been approached by clubs asking them to join their club because they are fast and would be a good addition to the club team.
It would be a difficult rule to enforce.
With regard to the Somerset Series events. We have 2 events in that series. Yes we could lose entries, but have you thought we may not be the only club suggesting this move.
Why did the other event go over to the TRA ?.
The series does not necessary have to be organised through the County Assoc and therefore could take events from all areas, even events organised by the local Lions Club (with a UKA permit). Or I guess dare I say it by ARC. As long as the events are to a suitable standard and has a permit (UKA, TRA, ARC or such) what does it matter.
I agree the County seems to becoming more isolated and is all on a voluntary basis whilst the fat cats up the tree impose more more rules and restrictions on the clubs and hence the County.
Am I right in thing that the unattached levies are likely to go to the new Road Running Leadership Group and the Countys will have to apply for grants from EA in the future?
I would like to point out I am not strongly in favour of one or the other but it's a point that I think has been missed in the thread.
!!!
My club has no-where near that level of information, and frankly I would not want to give them all those details.
What does 'disability status' actually mean - does that mean that the club would be obliged to pass on details of stuff like asthma?
my list would cover several sides of a4..... imagine that for 160 members.... worth doing just for fun
The problem with quango's (Tessa Jowell was instrumental in setting this EA one in motion) is they need to get the money from somewhere to do a job for the sake of it.
1. I joined the ARC steering group and in doing such I could have embarrassed/damaged the WRN who are currently receiving funding from Sport England and I think the WRN do great work.
2. WRN have set 2 levels of membership fees, £15 for social membership or £18 for those that wanted to compete.
This was agreed at committee level with no discussion with members or even Group Organisers. Part of my role as an organiser was in effect 'selling' memberships.
I have pointed out to WRN that I thought it wrong that we had not even been warned about this in advance, in fact on the organiser's newsletter it stated 'to be professional and adopt this scheme' without offering any alternative. On receiving the newsletter I resigned on the spot and had to abandon my 80 strong group.
When a complete beginner joins WRN taking part in a race is the last thing on her mind and she will opt for the social membership. When that beginner progresses to the stage she is able to take part in a race she will want to run in her club colours and feel part of a team, but will she then pay her £3 and join EA, I don't think so. Just getting them to fill out their first race entry form wasn't easy.
I also objected to WRN requesting the £3 to be paid at Jan 1st when the scheme doesn't start until April 1st and clubs have 5 months grace to pay over funds to EA.
Re affiliation fees, WRN have approx 2,000 members, let's assume 25% of them race then fees to EA would be £1550, fees to ARC would be £2062. If 50% then EA £3062.
In my group the % that took part in races was more like 70% but that may have been my influence!!
Of the info that EA are requesting its the data protection release agreement that concerns me most. I'm looking into it at the moment.
But they're also asking for member's mobile phone numbers which I think is a bit OTT.
ed - I believe that for 2007 EA are not going to insist on the event details and I believe it will only be as RR/XC/etc
This coming year sees a change to the [£2] fees formerly paid to the NoEAA. The affiliation [£3] fees paid by WCAC on your behalf will now go to "England Athletics" who are acting for "UK:Athletics".
This means your NoEAA number will become redundant and you will be 'unattached' for competition purposes unless you register through an affiliated club.
Your new affiliation card will be sent to you direct by "England Athletics" when your affiliation is paid by your 1st claim club.