AAI event permits

dna_leri

It has come up in a few different places over the last week that AAI members should not take part in events that are not sanctioned by the AAI.

If an AAI registered athlete takes part in an event which has not been sanctioned by the AAI, they risk being suspended. That happened a number of years ago in a high-profile 10M race in Cork. You will find that the number of races that are run without AAI approval are few and far between.

Some events advertise the fact that they have an AAI permit, many do not.

With the growth in events recently, how can an AAI member know if the race is sanctioned? There is no list of permitted events published on AAI website that I can find.

In reality is this a rule that is regularly flouted and a blind eye turned by the Association or is it enforced more than the one incident mentioned above?

What about Triathlon Ireland, do they rigorously enforce a similar rule?

I can see the purpose of permits - ensuring consistency, avoiding clashes, etc but I do have a problem with people being suspended for taking part in non-permitted events. It somehow smacks of a monopoly situation.

--amadeus--

In theory yes if you run a non-AAI race as an AAI member you can be suspended.

However in reality I'm not sure what that suspension would amount to? I assume you would be debarred from scoring points for your club and excluded from International selection. Beyond that I can't see what they could do - non-club member (and therefore non AAI registered) runners probably form the majority at local races and several place and so win prizes.

And I think it's a bit like the "no outside support" rule in marathons. The elites can only take aid from official aid stations and in theory that rule applies to everyone. But I can't see Joe Bloggs who ran 4:30 and finished in 5,876th being excluded from results because he was handed a banana outside UCD...!

thirtyfoot

--amadeus-- wrote: »

In theory yes if you run a non-AAI race as an AAI member you can be suspended.

However in reality I'm not sure what that suspension would amount to? I assume you would be debarred from scoring points for your club and excluded from International selection. Beyond that I can't see what they could do - non-club member (and therefore non AAI registered) runners probably form the majority at local races and several place and so win prizes.

And I think it's a bit like the "no outside support" rule in marathons. The elites can only take aid from official aid stations and in theory that rule applies to everyone. But I can't see Joe Bloggs who ran 4:30 and finished in 5,876th being excluded from results because he was handed a banana outside UCD...!

I don't know if anyone has ever been suspended, I don't know of any. For me thats not the point of permits. The purpose is to regulate the race scene. I don't know the scene enough to comment but if the permit system worked well it could be used to tell runners how good or bad races were. Add a grading system, grade 1 for good to grade whatever based on the standard of the race. Also, for me one of the big things, tell the runners where the profits are good. Into the pockets of some race entrepreneur or into the grassroots of our sport and the many clubs who try voluntarilty keep our sport thriving around the country.

As regards non club member forming the majority at races around the country, I don't know, you look at the top of any race fields and even the top 50% are mainly club athletes. Maybe not in the Great Run or races like that but your average 5 or 10k race down the country will be mainly club athletes I'd imagine.

If the permit system is the relative law of the land, any right doing runner should follow that. Its the same as any walk of life. Non permit races are like the black market, could be cheaper, could be better and you'll probably get exactly what you want but does that mean its right? You need governance. I know the permit system probably isn't strong enough at the moment to regulate it properly.

meathcountysec

The restriction on competing comes from the IAAF Rule 53

RULE 53

Ineligibility for International and Domestic Competitions

1. The following persons shall not take part in competitions, whether held under IAAF rules or the domestic rules of a Member.

Any person:

(iii) who takes part in any athletics meeting which is not sanctioned, recognised or certified by the Member in the country in which the event is held

I don't think its a matter of suspension but more that an athlete would not be eligible to compete in a given competition. They could not then score for their club/county or be awarded a title.

Never heard of it happening but in theory.....

Condo131

meathcountysec wrote: »

I don't think its a matter of suspension but more that an athlete would not be eligible to compete in a given competition. They could not then score for their club/county or be awarded a title.

Never heard of it happening but in theory.....

Leonard O'Regan (Leevale AC) winner of the Belgooly 10 (year ?) was suspended for running in the race. The race did not have a BLE (Precursor of AAI) permit. afaik, he was the only person suspended. The event normally attracted about 400-500 runners. The vast majority of BLE athletes avoided the event and only about 80 to 100 runners, mainly non-club, turned up.

As you say, the biggest issue, for an individual or club, is probably going to be the Championship exclusion.

The critical issue, however, is whether the event is insured or not. An AAI approved event will automatically be covered by the AAI policy, at very little cost to the organisers, except for a few policy exclusions (like limitation to events of less than 1,000 participants) Stand alone insurance policies for individual races are likely to cost significantly more than the AAI permit cost, so why run it independently? I think it's a no-brainer.

WRT publishing permits, National AAI are a disaster. Individual counties usually publish a calendar on their website and (one presumes) that only permitted events are listed.

RoyMcC

Condo131 wrote: »

The critical issue, however, is whether the event is insured or not. An AAI approved event will automatically be covered by the AAI policy, at very little cost to the organisers, except for a few policy exclusions (like limitation to events of less than 1,000 participants) Stand alone insurance policies for individual races are likely to cost significantly more than the AAI permit cost, so why run it independently? I think it's a no-brainer.

Quite. I wonder how many non-permit events are uninsured? But at least the non-permit event seeking insurance will be asked to carry out a risk assessment. It doesn't appear to me that AAI require one - can that be correct?

meathcountysec

<doffs county sec hat>

Most events could only state they have applied for a permit. By the time the permit application is considered and approved/unapproved a considerable period of time can elapse. I have seen permits arriving after the event has actually taken place.

<dons county sec hat>

IrishTrackFan

Condo131 wrote: »

Leonard O'Regan (Leevale AC) winner of the Belgooly 10 (year ?) was suspended for running in the race. The race did not have a BLE (Precursor of AAI) permit. afaik, he was the only person suspended. The event normally attracted about 400-500 runners. The vast majority of BLE athletes avoided the event and only about 80 to 100 runners, mainly non-club, turned up.

As you say, the biggest issue, for an individual or club, is probably going to be the Championship exclusion.

The critical issue, however, is whether the event is insured or not. An AAI approved event will automatically be covered by the AAI policy, at very little cost to the organisers, except for a few policy exclusions (like limitation to events of less than 1,000 participants) Stand alone insurance policies for individual races are likely to cost significantly more than the AAI permit cost, so why run it independently? I think it's a no-brainer.

WRT publishing permits, National AAI are a disaster. Individual counties usually publish a calendar on their website and (one presumes) that only permitted events are listed.

Permits are normally granted by the County Board - that's why the Co. Board websites list the permitted events in their jurisdiction. AAI doesn't usually have sight of all those events. AAI issues some permits directly but that's the exception.
Its a separate issue to get an event listed in the fixtures list for publicity purposes.
There might be a case for some software to integrate all permits from around the country into a single list but its not exactly the most pressing issue I'd imagine.

Condo131

IrishTrackFan wrote: »

Permits are normally granted by the County Board - that's why the Co. Board websites list the permitted events in their jurisdiction. AAI doesn't usually have sight of all those events. AAI issues some permits directly but that's the exception.
Its a separate issue to get an event listed in the fixtures list for publicity purposes.
There might be a case for some software to integrate all permits from around the country into a single list but its not exactly the most pressing issue I'd imagine.

The Co Boards approve them, but they MUST go to National for the actual permit. If National doesn't have sight, then there may be insurance issues.

For the record, my club rarely gets it's permit approved/back from National. In spite of applying 5 to 6 months before the event, it often arrives AFTER the event is over!

daymobrew

dna_leri wrote: »

I do have a problem with people being suspended for taking part in non-permitted events. It somehow smacks of a monopoly situation.

I think the GAA did this about 100 years ago, suspending those who played football. :rolleyes:

geld

daymobrew wrote: »

I think the GAA did this about 100 years ago, suspending those who played football. :rolleyes:

The "Ban" was lifted in 1969 or thereabouts, not 100 years ago.:D

Zuppy

I still think its a bit of a stupid rule (AAI "53" above). When you think about it, every BHAA race (don't think their AAI), every charity event and fun run would mean that a huge amount of their membership would be banned. Also since AR and Triathlon has components of running would they be also affected?
A rule that I think needs reform.

Triathon Ireland as far as I know doesn't enforce/ have any such rule. Like AAI permits, they provide insurance and a certain standard depending on the level of race.

umpire bat

The tone of some of these posts is very anti regulation. The permit system is to give the sport some semblance of structure and order. The suspension thing is really not an issue as far as I know. It may have been in the pre AAI era.

The permit system is primarily used to give promoting clubs a clean run at a certain date on the calendar. There is a geographical consideration from AAI hq which means that if 2 clubs within a 40/50 km radius went for a road race on the same day even if they were in different counties.....someone would have to cede. I'm sure Cycling Ireland and Tri Ireland would use the same criteria.
In my experience club road races generally give runners better value for money in terms of post race refreshments, a bit of craic and shower facilities etc...Clubs are failing to attract many of the newcomers.The challnge is How do clubs get the message across.
Some of the heavily hyped big promotions are charging "Golf Classic" prices and amazingly attracting big numbers....But as any golfer will tell you that day is gone.( And they were feeding you steak in the clubhouse)
Maybe the continued economic reality will turn runners attention back to grassroots events which spend the surplus income from road races on youth development and facilities.

Zuppy

umpire bat wrote: »

The tone of some of these posts is very anti regulation. The permit system is to give the sport some semblance of structure and order.

I never commented on the Permit system itself and for the record I think it is on the whole a good idea and the sense of having a certain standard and not clashing is good. I didn't mean my post to be anti-regulation in anyway and should have been clearer in my post.

emerald007

I believe all the BHAA races have AAI permits, and the calendar is arranged to avoid clashes with provincial and national races. I think the issue of permits is coming up again now, since organising a race is seen as an easy way to raise some funds for a local group. As i see it the main idea of the permit is to guarantee that runners are insured on the day.

In terms of race promoters advertising on here, i think they could provide details of the dates and county boards to whom they applied for permits. As for scheduling events across the country to avoid clashes, i like the idea of saying that the first weekend of any month is reserved for county/national races (cc,road,track), the second/third weekends are used for clubs/BHAA/IMRA within the county to arrange races, and the fourth weekend is available for any other groups looking to arrange a race.

Enduro

Permits, I presume, also ensure standards are adhered to. Having an international system of standards and permits really is a great thing, and a big plus for athletics as a sport. It means that if you run in 10k race here in Ireland that has been properly measured and permited, you can compare your results against any other 10k race in any other part of the world that meets the same standards to recieve its permit. You can compare yourself to the best in the world, knowing that everything is standardised to an assured level. You can compare you own times accross different races in different parts of the world. And, of course, at the top level you can set verifiable records.

Thats all a fantastic thing. Unfortunately there seems to have been several races in Ireland recently where these standards are not being adhered to, which is a big disservice to the athletes who run in these races. I've read several threads here about marathons not being verified to be full marathon distance, and 5/10k road races which fall short of the advertised distance.

I reckon if the situation continues like this then AAI really do need to at least look at suspending any athletes involved in the organisation of these races, before things get any worse.

meathcountysec

daymobrew wrote: »

I think the GAA did this about 100 years ago, suspending those who played football. :rolleyes:

OT The secondary school (CBS) I went to expelled "the" Liam Brady for mitching off to play soccer:eek:

aburke

Enduro wrote: »

Permits, I presume, also ensure standards are adhered to.

Presumption is the mother of all F*** ups.
I don't have experience of other sports, but the AAI's permit system in its current form doesn't fill me with a great deal of confidence.
Even speaking as someone who has, and will continue to, apply for permits for races I am involved in, I don't see any verification of standards, independent or otherwise.
The permit application asks for a course measuring certificate, and not much else. It only seems lately that they are being more insistent of a measured course. Even this, seems to be ignored sometimes. I ran a national 1/2 marathon a few years ago that was certainly short.

Internally at our club, we put together our own race plan template that our events must follow, and it's pretty stringent.

Now understand this, I'm all for high standards, but as it currently stands, as AAI cert is no guarantee of this.
There are a number of races, that I'll never go near again, despite having AAI certification.

I reckon if the situation continues like this then AAI really do need to at least look at suspending any athletes involved in the organisation of these races, before things get any worse.

I'd take a different approach.
Have a certification system thats worth something, and that means something. Let a certificate mean that a race is up to a proper standard.
People will then start to look for races that meet that standard, and avoid the other ones.

Condo131

daymobrew wrote: »

I think the GAA did this about 100 years ago, suspending those who played football. :rolleyes:

We're not comparing like with like here. The GAA was, in the times you quote, attempting to dictate what other sport its members played. The AAI is regulating, as the National regulating sport, it's own sport.

In any case the banning of one single athlete in approx. 25 years, for running in an event that was well advertised as being without a permit and with warning of a possible ban for any participating BLE athlete, hardly constitutes draconian measures.

Enduro wrote: »

Permits, I presume, also ensure standards are adhered to.

I wish that were true. Unfortunately anybody can, through an AAI club, apply for a permit. (More and more 'non-running scene' bodies are now organising 'commercial' events through clubs and I have grave reservations about the return, if any these clubs receive). National AAI have set down very few standards for events, and these nearly all relate to their own championship events. Critically, the course is supposed to measured prior to the application.

RoyMcC wrote: »

I wonder how many non-permit events are uninsured?

Indeed!!

RoyMcC wrote: »

It doesn't appear to me that AAI require one - can that be correct?

Nope. None.
...but it would be a silly organisation that didn't do one [Unfortunately we have LOTS of silly organisations and individual around! (says he wearing cynic's hat)]. For most road races we now find that the Gardai are looking for Safety Statement, Risk Assessment, Method Statement and Emergency/First-aid services provided. These are a bit of a hassle first time, but are a very easy update after that and actually make race organisation easier. IMHO a no-brainer. ...However. I've yet to see any of these for any AAI event organised in my particular county. ..In fact I would go so far as to say that the AAI events in my county generally fall well short, imho, of the standards I expect of my own events. Sad. (In the last 5 years I ran in a 4 mile road championship - 1st mile approx. 9.5 min, 2nd, approx. 4:30, 3rd approx. 4:45, 4th approx. 5 min. It was a flat course and I ran hard throught. That was (onely) one of worst courses I've ever run!)

I am a firm supporter of minimum standards being laid down as mandatory for all races, with permitting similar to the UK and NI.

BTW, a critical element is medical cover. How many club events have defibrillator cover? In Cork, following an incident two years ago, a significant number of clubs now have them and at least 1 life has been saved as a result. Has your club got one?

emerald007 wrote: »

I believe all the BHAA races have AAI permits, and the calendar is arranged to avoid clashes with provincial and national races. ?

The AAI and BHAA, seem to have a respectful tolerance for each other, however I'm not aware if the BHAA ever had an AAI or, prior to that, BLE permit. Certainly not in Cork and I doubt in Dublin (but open to correction for Dublin). Having said that, the National Marathon for the past, what, 10 years(?) has been the BHAA organised Dublin City Marathon. As I said they seem to have a respectful tolerance for each other. Also bear in mind that a very significant number of BHAA members are also AAI members.

[I know some people are going to say that if the BHAA don't need a permit, why should anyone else (like the commercial races). The BHAA has been going for some 30 odd years and is excellently regulated, with good standards, has it's own insurance and critically, as a 'rival' organisation, does not run championships or select representative athletes for international duty]

emerald007 wrote: »

I think the issue of permits is coming up again now, since organising a race is seen as an easy way to raise some funds for a local group. ?

Touche! Especially now that numbers participating seem to be on the increase countrywide.

emerald007 wrote: »

As i see it the main idea of the permit is to guarantee that runners are insured on the day.

Yes, coupled with ensuring that the course has been measured in accordance with IAAF rules & procedures!

I think my previous post of 28/8/09 here will give an indication of what I expect in a race.

aburke wrote: »

Presumption ..........

Agree 110%!

plodder

umpire bat wrote: »

The tone of some of these posts is very anti regulation. The permit system is to give the sport some semblance of structure and order. The suspension thing is really not an issue as far as I know. It may have been in the pre AAI era.

The permit system is primarily used to give promoting clubs a clean run at a certain date on the calendar. There is a geographical consideration from AAI hq which means that if 2 clubs within a 40/50 km radius went for a road race on the same day even if they were in different counties.....someone would have to cede. I'm sure Cycling Ireland and Tri Ireland would use the same criteria.

That sounds sensible, but in my humble opinion, permits should be a kind of quality badge as well. If a race has a permit, then it should mean certain minimum standards are met, eg. course measurement. Also, the situation, where the "for profit" events get permits, by the back door, through local clubs seems wrong because you have to wonder how much (if any) involvement there is for the club, and how much they benefit from it. And ironically, they seem to be the events that get the most criticism.

In my experience club road races generally give runners better value for money in terms of post race refreshments, a bit of craic and shower facilities etc...Clubs are failing to attract many of the newcomers.The challnge is How do clubs get the message across.
Some of the heavily hyped big promotions are charging "Golf Classic" prices and amazingly attracting big numbers....But as any golfer will tell you that day is gone.( And they were feeding you steak in the clubhouse)
Maybe the continued economic reality will turn runners attention back to grassroots events which spend the surplus income from road races on youth development and facilities.

The heavily hyped promotions are getting the numbers, because they are heavily hyped (ie. advertised). Clubs need to get their races publicised better. In the other thread related to this, a lot of people say they would like to see announcements and information about races posted by race directors on this board. One RD commented that in his/her opinion relatively few would actually do that.

thirtyfoot

Enduro wrote: »

I reckon if the situation continues like this then AAI really do need to at least look at suspending any athletes involved in the organisation of these races, before things get any worse.

That would be a disaster to be honest and I can't see it happen. The permit system should not be used as a stick like this. An athlete should never be suspended for something like this and I think the vast majority of people here would agree with that.

harrymchoudi

Rules are there and should not be broken. Suspension is a fair punishment if someone knowingly breaks AAI rules. Remember the rules are there to keep the sport in order and for that reason alone. Maybe if there was a more strict approach by the AAI, these discussions would not need to take place.

harrymchoudi

I myself have been ignorant of the rules and the situation regarding another race that did not have a permit(in another thread). I now know the situation and the facts from another source apart from boards and Im glad that I have been put in the picture. I hope people are more informed now like myself as ignorance is quite harmful in this sport in general

thirtyfoot

harrymchoudi wrote: »

Rules are there and should not be broken. Suspension is a fair punishment if someone knowingly breaks AAI rules. Remember the rules are there to keep the sport in order and for that reason alone. Maybe if there was a more strict approach by the AA1, these discussions would not need to take place.

There are many grey areas in all facets of our sport. If we stuck to the rulebook and banned people for every breach of law then we would have no athletes competing as everyone would be serving a suspension and indeed many of our feeder organisations would be annulled and banned themselves as I am sure you could find that due course was not followed in all instances. With respect to your opinion I think you are out of touch with reality of the sport and missing the point of the permit system. Always remember this - THE SPORT IS ABOUT THE ATHLETES. Why ban an athlete when if you get to the root cause of an issue it has very little to do with the athletes and more to do with politics and personality.

TFBubendorfer

Two months ago I read an article about pretty much that subject, but written by an American, and about the USATF rules regarding permits.

The article is here, in case you're interested.

He talks about the difference between USATF sanctioned and USATF certified.

Certified means the course will be accurate, and other rules apply as well.
Sanctioned means that you won't get banned if you race, and there will be insurance in place. But things like accurate course measurements won't apply.

Is there a distinction like this in Ireland as well?

meathcountysec

The Rule in question is not an AAI Rule but that of the International governing body of which AAI is a member. If the Rule is an impediment either change it or opt out of membership.

Suspension is not mentioned anywhere, ineligibility to compete in AAI events/championships etc is.

AAI does not have the time/desire/resources etc. to police who is running in what race wherever.

For the most part this Rule will have no implications for the majority of back-of-pack/non-featuring athletes. Nobody is going to object to me turning up at the national 10k. (BTW, just in case AAI are watching, I have never competed in a non-permitted race). However if your club's premier athlete is competing in a national/provincial event and is objected to on the basis that they took part in a non-permited event then they won't have a leg to stand on.

thirtyfoot

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Is there a distinction like this in Ireland as well?

In reality I'd say no. If an athlete was banned for running in a race I'd imagine there would be war as something like that should never happen unless they have cheated. Red tape should never be a reason for an athlete being banned.

I ran a few unsanctioned races when I was younger. I was in BLOE and would run in the odd NACA open sports. Lets hope they don't bring in retrospective bans:eek:

Condo131

Lads, lets not lose the run of ourselves on permits and suspensions.

I’m involved with the AAI on several levels and want proper permitting, standards and regulation of races, but talk of suspension is OTT. The only suspension I’m aware of, ever, is the one I cited from approx. 15 to 20 years ago….So….. it’s not an everyday occurrence.

If and when the AAI want to impose suspensions, they WILL publicise that, for example, the Ballygobackward 10.86k, has not been issued with a race permit AND that any AAI athlete taking part may be suspended. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for something like that to happen. It won’t be anytime soon.

Even if it were to go down that route, the AAI would need to get its own house in order first. As I‘ve already posted, National AAI is a disaster at getting permits out. Our races regularly do not get the actual permits until after our events. We will have our Co. Board’s consent pretty quick and, we now take that as the consent, but in reality we often don’t have the piece of paper in our hand until after the event, so strictly speaking, we often run our races without the permit.

Btw, this is one of many areas that the AAI really peeves me off..along with registration (what’s the point in issuing 2008 registration cards (applied for in January) in December 2008, with and expiry date of 31st Dec 2008? – Waste of time and money, imho)

Enduro

Tingle wrote: »

That would be a disaster to be honest and I can't see it happen. The permit system should not be used as a stick like this. An athlete should never be suspended for something like this and I think the vast majority of people here would agree with that.

Just to re-iterate and re-emphasise...I'm personally not saying that the athletes taking part in such a race should be suspended (although the rules clearly do), what I'm saying is that any athletes involved in the organisation of such a race should be suspended. A big distinction, I'm sure you'll agree.

dna_leri

Condo131 wrote: »

Even if it were to go down that route, the AAI would need to get its own house in order first. As I‘ve already posted, National AAI is a disaster at getting permits out. Our races regularly do not get the actual permits until after our events. We will have our Co. Board’s consent pretty quick and, we now take that as the consent, but in reality we often don’t have the piece of paper in our hand until after the event, so strictly speaking, we often run our races without the permit.

Btw, this is one of many areas that the AAI really peeves me off..along with registration (what’s the point in issuing 2008 registration cards (applied for in January) in December 2008, with and expiry date of 31st Dec 2008? – Waste of time and money, imho)

AAI take in about €9000 a year for permits and while I'm sure some of that goes out again in insurance and admin fees, there is opportunity for them to increase this income if they managed the system properly.

BTW - any one know how much each permit costs, does it depend on the number of potential competitors or race distance?

I think they should target events (not individuals) that do not have race permits and point out to them that AAI members may not participate unless events have a permit. With a well managed system, they could probably increase their income quite easily in this area.

meathcountysec

Affiliated club - €32.00

Non-affiliated body - €60.00

For events up to 1,000 participants. Not sure over that amount.

thirtyfoot

Enduro wrote: »

Just to re-iterate and re-emphasise...I'm personally not saying that the athletes taking part in such a race should be suspended (although the rules clearly do), what I'm saying is that any athletes involved in the organisation of such a race should be suspended. A big distinction, I'm sure you'll agree.

It would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would investigate the root cause of the issue. A county board could be populated by a group of chancers or else they may have an issue with the race organisers or club. All these would have to be examined before you would start banning people. Banning people is a very serious step. The club or race organiser may just want to hold a race and have very good and honest motivations and the county board may be playing political shenanigans and acting the eejit. Its not black and white.

dna_leri

meathcountysec wrote: »

Affiliated club - €32.00

Non-affiliated body - €60.00

For events up to 1,000 participants. Not sure over that amount.

Based on above, if it breaks down 50:50 affiliated/non-affiliated, thats about 200 events a year, or less than 4 a week, on average.

Hard to know what % of events this would be - 50% ?

Enduro

Tingle wrote: »

It would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would investigate the root cause of the issue. A county board could be populated by a group of chancers or else they may have an issue with the race organisers or club. All these would have to be examined before you would start banning people. Banning people is a very serious step. The club or race organiser may just want to hold a race and have very good and honest motivations and the county board may be playing political shenanigans and acting the eejit. Its not black and white.

That scenario would be a whole other set of underlying problems, and TBH I've no idea about how likely that is. I agree that banning people is a very serious step. But then organising non-permited races should also be regarded as a very serious step, and doesnt seem to be regarded as such at the moment. Which is why I think drastic measured are required to change that particular mindset.

The one thing that is black and white though is the IAAF rule, which is pretty explicit and draconian. Its a bit Irish of us (we're both saying it to different extents) to try to ignore the rule just because its implications are drastic/hard to enforce.

meathcountysec

meathcountysec wrote: »

The restriction on competing comes from the IAAF Rule 53

RULE 53

Ineligibility for International and Domestic Competitions

1. The following persons shall not take part in competitions, whether held under IAAF rules or the domestic rules of a Member.

Any person:

(iii) who takes part in any athletics meeting which is not sanctioned, recognised or certified by the Member in the country in which the event is held

Can I just reiterate...

Nobody gets suspended by anybody....

By competing in a non-sanctioned, recognoised or certified event you are defacto rendered ineligible to take part in IAAF or AAI competitions. End of.

mrak

meathcountysec wrote: »

The restriction on competing comes from the IAAF Rule 53

RULE 53

Ineligibility for International and Domestic Competitions

1. The following persons shall not take part in competitions, whether held under IAAF rules or the domestic rules of a Member.

Any person:

(iii) who takes part in any athletics meeting which is not sanctioned, recognised or certified by the Member in the country in which the event is held

I don't think its a matter of suspension but more that an athlete would not be eligible to compete in a given competition. They could not then score for their club/county or be awarded a title.

Never heard of it happening but in theory.....

Sorry for coming in so late and probably getting the wrong end of the stick. I hadn't heard of this before. I'm all for permits to prevent clashes, particularly with big aai events like XC, etc.

That said - are we sure that athletics meeting above refers to road races/fun run/etc? Like someone else mentioned with tri's, gaelforce, etc it's hard to know where to draw the line. What about time trials with your friends or clubmates - are these athletics meetings?? Looks more like a rule to be used to smack down upstart organisations than unpermitted road races.

harrymchoudi

Tingle wrote: »

There are many grey areas in all facets of our sport. If we stuck to the rulebook and banned people for every breach of law then we would have no athletes competing as everyone would be serving a suspension and indeed many of our feeder organisations would be annulled and banned themselves as I am sure you could find that due course was not followed in all instances. With respect to your opinion I think you are out of touch with reality of the sport and missing the point of the permit system. Always remember this - THE SPORT IS ABOUT THE ATHLETES. Why ban an athlete when if you get to the root cause of an issue it has very little to do with the athletes and more to do with politics and personality.

Yes T, you are right, the sport is about the athletes, good point. I was coming from the same angle as Enduro, which was- the organisers and not the athletes should be penalised.
It is fair to say though, everyone can make a mistake but knowingly make a mistake and go against rules when better advised should be addressed. What Im trying to say, acting in good faith and messing up is excusable. Suspension or whatever punishment would be up to the governing body.
The real losers if these breeches of rules were common, would be the athletes, for example running a considerable large distance(as in an ultra) and then told your completion time doesn't count or believed for that matter, especially if it was a good time. I can well imagine how personally agrieved I would be if I was ever doubted of my time/performance or if the there was a question of cheating during a non supervised race.
I myself don't compete at the ultra distance, just using that as an example, but Im all in favour of rules to protect all that are involved in this sport and to uphold its integrity.

eltuerto

Can only speak about Dublin but the permit system here is truly appalling. First you are told you cannot apply for permits for 2010 . Next you see races which have permits advertising for events in 2010!! On further investigation it seems that if you are in a "click" well, then sure, no bother, here is a permit !!

The whole system of permits has to be looked at., but AAI are so inept that they are not the body to reform this system. And the sad fact is that very little can be done.

Permits should be used to make sure punters get a good value, well organised event AND that there are no two races in the same area clashing. Take the Addidas race series. Great events, well orgainsied but yet I know that even they get huge hassle from the DUblin Board re race permits.

As far as I know BHAA don't bother with permits (Dublin Board would never approve them anyway, as they are massively prejudiced against them). BHAA do their own thing and organise brilliant events. So permits are not used fairly and are applied in an unfair manner and NO there is little chance of any reform

--amadeus--

harrymchoudi wrote: »

...for example running a considerable large distance(as in an ultra) and then told your completion time doesn't count or believed for that matter, especially if it was a good time. I can well imagine how personally agrieved I would be if I was ever doubted of my time/performance or if the there was a question of cheating during a non supervised race.
I myself don't compete at the ultra distance, just using that as an example, but Im all in favour of rules to protect all that are involved in this sport and to uphold its integrity.

Please stop trying to stir up a closed debate. It comes across as trolling, which I am sure wasn't your intention.

meathcountysec

mrak wrote: »

are we sure that athletics meeting above refers to road races/fun run/etc?

As per IAAF Constitution

Rule 1

Definitions

Athletics

Track and field athletics, road running, race walking and cross country running.

thirtyfoot

eltuerto wrote: »

As far as I know BHAA don't bother with permits (Dublin Board would never approve them anyway, as they are massively prejudiced against them). BHAA do their own thing and organise brilliant events. So permits are not used fairly and are applied in an unfair manner and NO there is little chance of any reform

It would be great if the BHAA could be integrated within the AAI. Firstly people with experience of organising events could be utilised with AAI. Secondly, potential revenue from BHAA races could be pumped back into the mainstream sport and to clubs as currently revenues from BHAA races (if any) remains within a large but very narrow section of our sport as in the competing roadrunners. The BHAA model is unsustainable without the AAI (as there would be a marked reduction in athletes) while the AAI is obviously sustainable without the BHAA. A group within AAI that oversaw the BHAA type model and with that the whole road racing scene and permits etc would be a perfect situation. Unlikely to happen but I'd never say that reform or even changes like I suggest would never happen.

If there was a BHAA style section within AAI it would be the ideal situation.

Condo131

For the record (to put response into perspective):
I am not an AAI official at any level (did have peripheral officer role at CB level) but do have several AAI functions (accredited technical functions)
I have been an AAI club official for over 20 years and I am an RD.
I am an individual member of the BHAA and have been competing in BHAA events for over 25 years.

Tingle wrote: »

It would be great if the BHAA could be integrated within the AAI.

Agreed.
...But
a) It would be great for the AAI
b) Why would the BHAA bother?

Tingle wrote: »

Firstly people with experience of organising events could be utilised with AAI.

Indeed the BHAA events run like clockwork. The area they cover, primarily road races, with some XC, is pretty narrow, but the BHAA model works well.

Tingle wrote: »

Secondly, potential revenue from BHAA races could be pumped back into the mainstream sport and to clubs as currently revenues from BHAA races (if any) remains within a large but very narrow section of our sport as in the competing roadrunners.

Again, Why would the BHAA bother?

Tingle wrote: »

The BHAA model is unsustainable without the AAI (as there would be a marked reduction in athletes) while the AAI is obviously sustainable without the BHAA.

I don't think that follows. The BHAA has been functioning pretty well for over 30 years, with BLE/AAI, at worst turning a blind eye to it.
In contrast the AAI and BLE have been persistently involved in internal turmoil. Personally I think there is so much hassle and politics involved, to the detriment of the sport....and I see little hope for improvemnet in the foreseeable future.
The only way that the BHAA numbers might conceivably be reduced significantly, would be for the AAI to prohibit AAI members from participating in BHAA races. ...That ain't going to happen.

Overall, I'm quite despondent and disillusioned with the way everything seems to be going with the AAI.

Tingle wrote: »

A group within AAI that oversaw the BHAA type model and with that the whole road racing scene and permits etc would be a perfect situation. Unlikely to happen but I'd never say that reform or even changes like I suggest would never happen.

Having (unsuccessfully) put forward motions to Congress in recent years, intended to improve things wrt permits/calendars etc, I feel that there is a massive inertia and resistance to almost ANY change. Pragmatism and logic don't seem to come into it at all .

Tingle wrote: »

If there was a BHAA style section within AAI it would be the ideal situation.

Agreed.

thirtyfoot

Condo131 wrote: »

Agreed.
...But
a) It would be great for the AAI
b) Why would the BHAA bother?


.

For the betterment of the sport as a whole

Condo131 wrote: »

Indeed the BHAA events run like clockwork. The area they cover, primarily road races, with some XC, is pretty narrow, but the BHAA model works well.


Again, Why would the BHAA bother?


.

To bring that expertise to the sport. In my opinion, BHAA people are probably the best equipped people to deliver road races. It would be great if they could be brought into the wider sport.

Condo131 wrote: »

I don't think that follows. The BHAA has been functioning pretty well for over 30 years, with BLE/AAI, at worst turning a blind eye to it.
In contrast the AAI and BLE have been persistently involved in internal turmoil. Personally I think there is so much hassle and politics involved, to the detriment of the sport....and I see little hope for improvemnet in the foreseeable future.
The only way that the BHAA numbers might conceivably be reduced significantly, would be for the AAI to prohibit AAI members from participating in BHAA races. ...That ain't going to happen.

No, my point is if there is no athletics organisation there will be no athletes or at least a vast reduced number of athletes. Its not going to happen but if AAI went away and there was no organised athletics in this country, in 10-20 years there would be no or at least a vastly reduced number of athletes in BHAA. If BHAA stopped existing, it would have no effect on AAI. Thats the point.

BHAA don't do anything to promote athletics at grassroots regarding recruiting kids, promoting clubs, coaching, development, track and field, schools, universities etc etc. Its a 'race organising' organisation and very successfull at it. Thats why it would be great if that could be brought under the umbrella of the AAI and the wider sport. Leaving politics and the issues aside, its the best solution. BHAA people in AAI organising races, issuing permits, regulating and controlling the road running scene, bringing the Business House companies into the sport etc etc without having to worry about all the stuff that the current competition people in AAI have to worry about like juvenile track comps, juvenile cross comps, the huge headache of masters track/cross comps etc etc. Essentially, all the facets of the competitions that AAI run. These could still be done by existing AAI comp people but the BHAA people would solely look after road racing and all facets of it and continue to do what they do now but within the sport so that it can add value to more than the narrow area it currently adds value to.

Condo131

Hi Tingle, I think we're singing from the same hymn-sheet Maybe (very)slightly different keys though.:D

....btw, I CAN'T sing....:D:D:D

locteau

Hi harrymchoudi,

Interesting post and welcome to boards.ie. You seem to have some good knowledge of the sports, it is a pity you only join us recently.;)

The AAI permit is great idea, and I do do think we all should follow the idea of been affiliated, to promote the sports etc....

But we also have to remember that some people are not just about having pb's or setting up records etc.... Some just want to run for fun which is the first thing we should promote in the sports.

Regarding sanctioning athletes, it has been seen in many sports, such as boxing, or ITU vs Ironman Corporation etc... It never really works simply because it does bring friction and political issues.

The reason behind it is very simple, people feel trap when follow too much rules, and run away and seek freedom not claustrophobia. It is up to each individual to know the law and rules and apply them to themselves, but again it is like the guards luckily enough the one I have met or work with do have common sense. Our duties as sports people are not to blame but to help, promote the sports. Blaming and complaining does not make things moving. Constructive critics will.

The AAI promote the sports and by allowing some flexibility, I am sure some events in the future will evolve to the next level and work with them, Instead of sanctioning them and loose a local or charity race. It then benefit them an d us:p

We are not in a dictatorship after all. At the end of the day it is also up to us as runners and clubs to advise them help them in the AAI way instead of taking the easy way of giving out. We all here to learn and improve, aren’t we ?

geld

Tingle,

Like Condo I am a BHAA member and have helped to organised my company's yearly BHAA event. I am not a member of any AAI club at the moment (but hope to join one soon).

I can't see any real benefit to the BHAA to join the AAI. You have quoted some examples of benefits to AAI. Yes if the threat of a ban was carried out many club runners would have hard decision to make but relaistically I cannot see that happen.

I would make the point also that many BHAA members are active members of clubs and the AAI are already benefiting from their experience. I try to support club races as much as possible because as someone said above they provide the best value for money. I regulary see many BHAA members in the thick of things helping out at these races.

Just back from the Hibernian 1 mile. would like to elaborate a bit more but I'm out of time

BTW As far as I am aware IMRA are affiliated to AAI. Again I am not sure if this has made any difference to the IMRA community.

Enduro

BTW As far as I am aware IMRA are affiliated to AAI. Again I am not sure if this has made any difference to the IMRA community.

I presume (Yeah, I know ) it would make quite a difference to IMRA's eligibilty to send runners to compete in international championships, which is a rather major part of IMRA.

thirtyfoot

geld wrote: »

I can't see any real benefit to the BHAA to join the AAI. You have quoted some examples of benefits to AAI. Yes if the threat of a ban was carried out many club runners would have hard decision to make but relaistically I cannot see that happen.

I would make the point also that many BHAA members are active members of clubs and the AAI are already benefiting from their experience. I try to support club races as much as possible because as someone said above they provide the best value for money. I regulary see many BHAA members in the thick of things helping out at these races.

I would agree with much of this but if BHAA members feel that they would wish to continue as is and not adding anything to the sport outside of road runners between the ages of 25-65, then that would be very selfish and I would be disappointed with that.

I'd like to think that if BHAA could be brought into AAI to look after road running (in a manner like I have already pointed out in the thread, re permits, regulation etc) and there was no politics or crap involved, BHAA would jump at it as they would believe it would be the best for the sport.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not sure if this is what you think I was saying but I don't think bannings should ever take place and as meathcountysec has pointed out on the general topic, talk of bans is a little OTT. My point is that the BHAA model alone is unsustainable. It needs the AAI (or organised athletics) as in 20-30 years there would be no athletes.

To clarify I would see BHAA organisers as the perfect people to come into AAI in an official capacity and make the bridge between athletics and the recreation runner and also regulate the road running scene. There may be others who could do it but BHAA to me would be a good candidate.

Stupid_Private

Tingle wrote: »

I'd like to think that if BHAA could be brought into AAI to look after road running (in a manner like I have already pointed out in the thread, re permits, regulation etc) and there was no politics or crap involved, BHAA would jump at it as they would believe it would be the best for the sport.

Why road running? I've seen road running and BHAA mentioned side by side a few times. I certainly don't see them as a road running organisation. Of the 26 races on their calendar* for 2009 only 9 of them are on the road, and two of them races are the Adidas half marathon (not exactly BHAA organised as far as I know) and the Dublin marathon.

*Dublin BHAA

thirtyfoot

Stupid_Private wrote: »

Why road running? I've seen road running and BHAA mentioned side by side a few times. I certainly don't see them as a road running organisation. Of the 26 races on their calendar* for 2009 only 9 of them are on the road, and two of them races are the Adidas half marathon (not exactly BHAA organised as far as I know) and the Dublin marathon.

*Dublin BHAA

Because AAI aren't as good at organising road races as BHAA are. Makes sense to me that the most value they would add to the wider running community would be road races. I'm sure they could also help on cross races. They probably wouldn't add anything from a track perspective because the track races they organise are very simple - maybe a number of mile races at one meet, thats easy to do so they wouldn't know how to organise a meet that had maybe 10 age groups with 10-15 different events across track and field disciplines.

I'll rephrase - they are a Road Running and Cross Country Race Organising Organisation. I don't think you can argue its anything more than that.

plodder

Stupid_Private wrote: »

Why road running? I've seen road running and BHAA mentioned side by side a few times. I certainly don't see them as a road running organisation. Of the 26 races on their calendar* for 2009 only 9 of them are on the road, and two of them races are the Adidas half marathon (not exactly BHAA organised as far as I know) and the Dublin marathon.

*Dublin BHAA

True. BHAA Dublin is effectively a Dublin Running League. They've stretched their original "business" remit pretty far at this stage. Not that I'm complaining as they run a very effective operation. But it is a shame that it isn't integrated more into the rest of the athletics system. I've been running and competing for 5 years now, and have never come across any attempt by AAI/clubs to recruit runners like me into their system. So, it's certainly not the BHAA's fault. But then again, maybe AAI/clubs are primarily interested in bringing on youth talent. So, this would be a distraction for them. If that's the case, then maybe the split is between elite/ and non-elite athletics. Since, I haven't joined a club (yet), I don't really know.