Thanks,

--Jeff

Jeff

I had no intention of returning to the "discussion" just wanted to remind NHSenior of whom he should really be talking with - the people we know in our USATF Association. However, since you did ask me nicely and because my response is not the same as NHSenior's, I will reply to you.

Please believe that headphone use can be way more distracting than you realize. You zone out to the beat of your favorite tune, you are not as in tune with what is going on around you, even if you can hear. It can make you slower to react if you are running to the beat of your tunes and not to the flow of the race, makes you less likely to realize the whole pack is slowing down for a sharp turn, etc. and slower to make the change in your own pace, make you slower to react to what you should easily be able to see, and that doesn't even address the hearing issue. Not going with the flow in a crowded race, being slow to react to what's going on, can interfere with and disrupt others racing way more than most headphone wearers realize.

I have had several very unpleasant experiences where headphone wearers have disrupted my race and no significant problems at all with the head-phone free. My first experience was when a headphone wearer was apparently startled by someone passing close and jumped to the side in the path of another runner who stopped short to avoid a collision, and I had to stop fast to avoid hitting him. I'd never had anything like that happen before in a race. That's not so good when you are trying to focus on doing your best (I may be slow, and in the back of the pack with the headphone wearers, but I am often trying to go for age group awards as NHsenior said) and not so good for my knees to stop so short either. Maybe minor, but unfortunately it was the first of many similar experiences since, when headphone wearers stop short, miss turns and backtrack, or slow way down because they are slow to figure out where to go - causing others to have to try to stop short themselves or alter their own course to try to avoid a collision. You don't have to actually make contact to disrupt another runner's race, and often it appears that the iPod user or headphone wearer has no clue that they have caused a backup or any problem - sort of like this week's report about cell-phone users slowing down commutes.

On the other hand, I actually have had distracted headphone wearers make contact and twice had injuries as a result. I had one headphone wearer draw blood by running across the back of my ankles - paying attention to the music and not that the pack was slowing down for a turn, just kept going at the same speed right into me from behind. The other injury was a chain collision caused by an unaware iPod user. I had been trying to stay away anyone with headphones or earbuds because I had already had some bad experiences and was quite a distance from Ms iPod and thought I was safe, but she somehow got startled by all the people at a waterstop, backed into someone and spilled water all over him and he jumped back into me - landing hard on my instep. Again, never had that kind of just plain unaware behavior from the headphone-free.

On the volunteer/organization side I've seen a lot of problems with headphone users, very few and much more minor with the headphone-free. I've never seen a headphone wearer get hit by a car, but I have seen them be really slow to get out of the way or cars or emergency vehicles, and while that won't make the news, it is a real problem and a safety issue and can get a race canceled if people complain. Not paying attention to instructions, running on the wrong side of the street, passing in finishing chutes -it's all more of a problem now with more iPod users - much less so with the headphone-free. And if the headphone-free are in the wrong place, it's easy to get their attention and get them back on track.

I'm at about 50 races per year either as a runner or an organizer/volunteer and although most headphone wearers don't cause problems, I certainly have seen problems caused by many - way more than I have ever seen caused by runners who do not wear headphones. Believe it or not, I have run with headphones myself a few times when training, never used to think headphone use by others was a problem, although I did think users were missing out on a lot of the whole race experience, and I was a proponent or live and let live , do whatever you want - so long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else's ability to race. The problem is that with the increasing numbers headphone use DOES interfere and way more than any other factor with other runners' ability to race, and with the organizers' and volunteers' ability to provide a safe and as disruption-free an environment as possible for all.

Ah, but you will have authorized it.

I have to tell you that working with you is like pushing a rope. You spend much of your time thinking about what YOU are going to do to counter things and not giving much thinking to the fact that you are bringing a knife to a gunfight as it were. The folks you will going up against once this stuff starts have got tons of tools to break you on this.

<<< It would be a very simple fix on my part, inform my bank that I never authorized the transaction, then my bank recoups the money from your credit collection service. And, your fee you would charge? Where would that figure derive from?

I would love to have you as the first test case. Let me explain.

You will be agreeing to a waiver which is a "legal and binding contract". In the waiver will be some language that will be very specific about what you are agreeing to ahead of time, including your agreement to all the steps I mentioned. By agreeing to the waiver (contract) you are "inducing" the race, by your agreement, and promise to pay via your credit card both the entry fee and a possible additional charge to allow to participate in the race. Essentially, you will have induced the race to sell you something based on the agreed method of pay. If you knowingly make any action after the fact to stop the payment without any legal basis you have entered the area that is not all that far from fraud. (I'm sure a few reading already smelled the fraud card coming)

If you read your local papers you may have noticed various articles where some local twit has gotten his butt in trouble on a fraud by check charge because he is screwing around with some merchant and not in a very different fashion that you say you will be doing.

If you think about what I just said and not necessarily dwelling on the details, it should come to you that those you will going up against realize all the silly instinctive tricks that simply minds can come up with.

<<<<< I am sure that the USATF would love to find out that some rogue RD decided to come up with a fine and go after people's credit card.

The USATF is not a race's boss and as a matter for fact, some of them think it is a pretty solid idea. It is no different than the charges that a credit card company and bank charge you for violating their rules. Paying late, bouncing checks, etc. You agree ahead of time with them what your penalty will be.

My friend, you can't imagine the thought that has gone into building the road and laying the minefield on the road you think you are going to bop down wearing your ipod.

<<<< . If you are going to fine one group of runners, who may or may not have caused any injury, then you would be bound to fine the other runners that actually do cause injury. Correct? I can tell you for certain, that when you target a specific group of your race, and damage them monetarily, and turn a blind eye to another group, you haven't even begun to see a lawsuit like you will from that tactic.

Again, you show very little management thinking. You can not work on all things at once, so a prudent manager (there's that prudent word again for you) puts his resources to best use. The best use is working on the easiest identifiable probable risk and the one which has the largest quantified payback. Most of the distractive thing you point to can't be identified ahead of time and they would take lots of physical recourses to do "what", a few runners would might be in one or two places somewhere anywhere on the course. Ipods are everywhere, everywhere is at risk. A target rich environment.

"damaged them monetarily" How is that? You agreed to the rules and you hold all the power to avoid getting fined. Don't use any banned device. It's that simple. One of tenants of law is your obligation to mitigate damages. Even though there are no damages because you will have agreed to the charge, let's pretend that there were damages for the moment. If you are the damaged party, it is your responsibility to stop or lessen continued damage if you can. Meaning if you knowingly do the action which causes or precipitates the damage, I'm essentially off the hook for that part which you could have stopped.

If you are saying "what the heck is he talking about" Here is something twits do every so often.

If something is going wrong with your car like a major oil leak covered under warrantee and you report that to the dealer and the dealer can prove somehow that you knew the oil was leaking out big time and then you, because you wanted to cost the dealer lots of money, drove the car around until the engine burned out, you are on the hook for most of damage not the dealer.

So by you using your banned device you have caused the extra charge to happen. You had the option and ability to not have that happen.

It is no different than when I fly somewhere and rent a motorhome. The contract says I can go X number of miles an X number of days for the agreed on fee. If i drive beyond the milage I get a stiff extra charge for milage and if I don't bring it back on time I have a whopping extra charge because the motorhome isn't there for the guy who thought was renting the following week. I control the extra costs, I have options and you will have options on the extra charge.

But above all, remember that this isn't about an event finding a way to get extra money. It is about stopping the majority of the banned device use. The effectiveness is the missing money from your pocket. Having the money in the event's pocket doesn't solve the problem. At some point the size of the extra charge will stop ALL such use that is identified, and technology can provide lots of ways to identify the use.

The waiver isn't that simple. The waiver contains many things, most of which had to get added over the years because some people are just unreasonable.

I never said the waiver means nothing as a blank statement not part of a discussion of a subject.

The primary purpose of the waiver was for liability issues. Even though the waiver contains language that appears to protect the race, many courts have held that even though you and the race agreed to it, the liability laws in some states control liability, not what you and race agree to. Even waivers in states that recognize waivers can be sometimes be useless given implied responsibility rulings that can overrule a waiver where you say you can't sue even if negligence is present.

So in those circumstances, yes that "portion" of the waiver may in fact be worthless or as you say "means nothing".

As I said, many things have been added to a waiver over time that are not connected with liability but are legal contracts between two parties and contracts between parties are just that, valid and enforceable under the law.

Little if anything in a waiver say that race has anything to "live up" too. What in there would you sue about?

Are saying that because the hazardous device is in the waiver that it creates a responsibility on the races part to enforce it and therefore so you can and would sue me NHSenior as RD if I don't enforce it. Is that correct?