A Happy Xmas from ARC

21 to 29 of 29 messages
02/01/2009 at 19:55

Michael, I am one of those people that received no finish time for the Blackpool 10k, as you are aware. Thanks for your apology. More than I've had from your chairman at ARC. He says the race had no ARC permit & therefore won't answer my complaint about the race.

ALL my literature for this race stated it had a permit. It did not.

There were NO marshalls at this race. I was there. I know what I saw. I saw Red Cross people on route, but no marshalls, water, finish line, or anyone on the finish to take my time.

03/01/2009 at 08:20

Respect I have now managed to find a copy of a race entry form which does indeed state that the race will be permitted by ARC. In view of the situation it is clear to me that the race was insured by the ARC insurance policy. The appropriate premium will be paid to insurers at the next quarterly adjustment date which is 31st March 2009.

You were also entitled to expect that the race would comply with the ARC minimum race standards. This was not a road race since no part of it took place on a road. Dealing with your complaints and assessing the race compliance with ARC minimum standards for off road races

1 There were no marshals. This is not true there was at least one marshal. ARC minimum standard states "course marking, signing and marshalling will be such as to prevent runners from going off course." All the runners seemed to keep to the race route. I would not expect that there would be many marshals on a clearly identifiable very safe route.

2 There were no water stations. ARC minimum standard states " Drink stations will be provided in accordance with the organisers risk assessment" The organiser obviously assessed that there was no need for a drink station on a 10K race on the 26th December with a forecast temperature of just above zero.

3 There was no sweep marshal. ARC minimum standard states "Either there will be a clearly identifiable "sweep" marshal following the field, or suitable measures will be in place to ensure that the whereabouts of the last competitor is tracked by the organiser" The organiser thought that he had adequate arrangements in place to track the last competitor by inquiry from other runners and the marshal and the first aider walked a mile back down the course. Finding no more runners they closed the finish. Obviously the organiser did not have adequate arrangements in place and he has apologised to you and refunded your race entry fee. I on behalf of ARC have also apologised to you  and I have drawn this matter to the attention of the race organiser. 

03/01/2009 at 19:13

1) There were no marshalls whatsoever. There may have been for the front runners, but certainly not for me. Avril & her parner will also confirm there were no marshalls for us & no-one on finish. If you have a list of entrants, & a list of finishers, then why is it so hard to see there are several runners still on the course? The course was NOT clearly marked, & the end section extremely confusing. I had to keep asking members of the public which way the runners had gone. I took the right route by guess work & good luck.

2) It was advertised as having a water station. There wasn't one.

3) Clearly adequate measures were NOT put in place to ensure they knew the whereabout of the last competitor, or they wouldn't have left 3 people still on the course & abandoned the finish.

Why are race organisers allowed to advertise they have a permit, when they don't?

If the race WAS covered by ARC, why is your chairman saying this race has nothing to do with him, as it didn't have their permit? Which is it? Was it one of their races or not?

03/01/2009 at 20:10

Respect I have already answered your questions at length in my last post.

Regarding your suggestion in 1 since an average of 20% of race entrants do not turn up to run on the day and some others go home without finishing the race it would clearly be impossible to monitor race finishers in the manner suggested by your self.

I have already told you that this race was covered by the ARC insurance policy.

03/01/2009 at 20:56

Er.........I told the organiser on the morning of the race that I would probably be last & therefore not to go home before giving me a finish time.

You answered my questions giving some incorrect info.

You haven't said why Ron is allowed to advertise he has an ARC permit, when he doesn't. He mentioned nothing about insurance to me, he said his race had nothing to do with ARC. So does the chairman of ARC. I am being told totally different things by different people.

03/01/2009 at 22:28
Respect  If you wish to continue this conversation and to make an official complaint to ARC please write to me at the registered address of the company. We are all volunteers giving our time without charge in order to provide you with a safe, low cost and enjoyable sport.
03/01/2009 at 23:10

I have already made an official complaint to your chairman by email.

He fobs me off.

Probably because Ron is on your committee.

04/01/2009 at 17:40
Respect I have spent a great deal of time attempting to answer your complaints on this forum. Naturally I am concerned that you did not enjoy your race. I was not at the race so I do not know all the facts. I do welcome your comments some of which are very valid. They will receive attention. We do welcome unattached and slower runners at our ARC races.
04/01/2009 at 17:43
Unattached, what difference does it make if Respect is single or not...... I'm sorry i couldnt resist thought i would add some levity to this matter

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
21 to 29 of 29 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums