The iPod conflict brews in racing

49 ... 122 Previous Next Go to original post

mattconigliaro

1 posts since
Oct 27, 2007

720. Jan 16, 2008 3:30 PM

in response to: Active Toby

sgray

81 posts since
Aug 8, 2007

721. Jan 16, 2008 5:45 AM

in response to: mattconigliaro

Here is a thought. Before another insult is thrown around this board, I would suggest that everyone take the time to go back to the original post and click on the link and read it. Read it all the way through.

This article makes way more sense than any post from either side. There is an element on this board that needs to be reminded that they are arguing a winless fight. Try as you may, and you will find that no matter what, you cannot remove all iPod listeners from the course. I have seen quotes and rules from the USATF taken literally to the word. However, in the original post, which links to an article, the author of the article, who I would assume has done their due diligence with research states that the official USATF stance is that the use of headphones in a race is banned. If you wind up winning or placing you will be disqualified and your results will be stricken. This has been exactly our point all along. If I am not out to win or qualify for anything, what is the harm. If I wind up getting injured, and I have an iPod on, I guess I am out of luck. Good thing I have health insurance. And, like anything else, if rational minds got together and worded a race waiver correctly, it could satisfy all involved. Something that worded like, Headphone use is Strongly Discouraged. If you cause, are involved in, or take part in an accident that the use of your headphones can be reasonably viewed as the cause for, you can be held liable. If you win any prize during the race, and you are found to have used a listening device of any kind, your prize, and result will be forfieted.

Once again, go back and read the article. Somewhere along the line, this DISCUSSION became an argument for some very controlling people. I am sure that I will now be schooled on the finer points of debating by the MASTER DEBATOR himself, but I really don't care. This is a person who began a thread to warn off potential volunteers of other races, because he felt that the directors of those races would not protect them. Please read the original article before any more postings.

parkerand susan

357 posts since
Oct 17, 2007

722. Jan 16, 2008 6:17 AM

in response to: maryt091

Just back from a run and getting a cup of ipod conflict brewing..Ok Mrs.Roberto Salazar ..excellent idea..stay away from Ipods Maryt..we certainly don't want to further slow you down..according to your recent writings you are already at the back of the pack..and you are going to get NHSENIOR upset by make him stay late at the races he voluteers for..and he has to get home to his computer...

re: your "personal" interpretation of USAT&F Competition Rule 144.3B addressing assistance given to athletes I suggest you read again ..slowly..you are coloring the actual wording and purpose to meet your purpose in the same way I suspect you color your "observations" of ipod use in races..

EXAMPLE: there's Maryt handing out water in race ZZZZ, she sees someone cross over to get water in front of two people who slow down and move over to avoid contact .she "observes" they all have an ipod..she says to herself Ah haw!! another instance of ipod abuse..they all are zoned out on music!!...Parker is standing with water..sees the same thing happen..and he says ah haw! another instance of a bonehead or a tired runner making a mistake, unlike maryt ...parker cannot read that runners mind or know his race condition, whether this is his first race and didn't know race etiquette, whether the water table was set up unsafe to begin with, or the runner suddenly made a last sec decision that he needed water, or he's just an aggressive, competitive know it all that simply disregarded the other runners completely etc. etc etc...

but Maryt knows it's the ipod..and she will bring that episode to this forum and to whomever else will listen and say "I know what I saw, just because you didn't see it does not mean it did not happen!!!.. and I will write to her and say I don't trust your 1000 yrs of running..you have a Bias ..you are already predisposed to ipods when you make an observation..you are looking FOR a problem..not AT a problem..you have a story that meets your hypothesis..but any sensible person would want unbiased facts from someone that is perhaps over stayed the sport, wornout with dealing with twits like NHsenior, lacking a present day viewpoint..you have a bias that runs in many directions and that bias only becomes more clear when you bend facts and rely entirely on what you saw..

car accident witnesses suffer the same bias..no one sees it the same way..do you concede that as a POSSIBILITY maryt? can you entertain that you may interpret an observation in a different way than myself or someone else??can you know that no matter how many times you say I know what I saw! that a person standing right next to you could or would see it differnt than you??Simple Yes or no please..no coloring your anwser with long protesting ..just Yes or no...

NHSenior

388 posts since
Nov 23, 2007

723. Jan 16, 2008 6:43 AM

in response to: sgray

<<<<< I would suggest that everyone take the time to go back to the original post and click on the link and read it. Read it all the way through.

By all means please do read it, but understand that it was written by a real nice guy who helps at races sometimes at mostly non-management positions and who is a very IPOD oriented.

<<<<< Try as you may, and you will find that no matter what, you cannot remove all iPod listeners from the course.

Please note that "sgray" if you read his posts, is one of those people who uses the word "ALL", meaning that if one does not do ALL or not do ALL that their efforts were worthless.

In a race where 3000 of the 5000 participants are wearing ipod, removing most of them significantly cuts down on the odds that a distracted Ipod runner will cause a distraction related problem.

<<<< I would assume has done their due diligence with research states that the official USATF stance is that the use of headphones in a race is banned. If you wind up winning or placing you will be disqualified and your results will be stricken. This has been exactly our point all along. If I am not out to win or qualify for anything, what is the harm.

You refuse to understand that for MOST races, which are not and never will be a USATF competitive races that the issue is insurance oriented safety avoidance.

<<<< This is a person who began a thread to warn off potential volunteers of other races, because he felt that the directors of those races would not protect them.

"SGRAY" you are yet again being deliberately dishonest by saying that I warned off volunteers. You don't like me calling you stupid because you can't read and figure out what is said, so the only other explanation is that your are not stupid and can read, but choose to lie about what people say. It's your choice, pick one.

I did not warn OFF volunteers of what I see is a potential liability problem for themselves. I TOLD the volunteers to ASK the race directors about a potential liability problems for themselves as volunteers where a race might be negligent for not enforcing a known safety issue (known to lawyers and insurance companies) .

Telling people to seek information is what you have asked all to do. I know what the volunteers will find, and you know what the volunteers will find and that scares the heck out of you because I most certainly want the volunteers to put as much pressure on the RD as possbile to enforce the IPOD ban.

If this fight has the volunteers on side of RDs then the RDs will cease to be afriad of your emotional blackmail, because the race can do without you but not without the volunteers.

Regarding your comments about rational minds coming up with a truly workable waiver.

You have no idea the amount of managment and legal talent that is available to the USATF and the running associations and many of the larger races like Boston, Chicago, New York and other marathons and huge shorter distance races. They are multi million dollar entities with deep pockets. You are naive in the extreme to think they would not have thought about creating such a waiver if it was possible. You are a mouse looking at Elephant things and completely lost by what you see.

"Strongly discourage" as the wording would have my defense lawyers saying "Settle as quick as you can. You have no chance on the negligence charge"

Jay Silvio

1,653 posts since
Jul 9, 2007

724. Jan 16, 2008 6:37 AM

in response to: parkerand susan

parkerand susan wrote:England, Scotland, France, Russia , South africa, Latin America and Ireland are considered true REPUBLICS...they have presidents

England has a monarch ("God Save The Queen" and all that) so by definition it is not a republic. Also, they don't have a president; they have a prime minister (which is a different position). England is, however, a democracy. The United States is both a representative democracy (since we elect our leaders) and a republic (since we are not headed by a monarch); these are not exclusive classifications. On topic: even though we live in a representative democracy we as individuals do not get to vote on everything. Just as public elections will not be held to allow 4 strikes in baseball, they will not be held to change the USATF's stand on iPods. If you want to change these types of rules then you need to become a member of the appropriate governing body or petition them hold a referendum by providing significant reasons for change. That does not mean that you can't hold your own baseball tournament where you allow 4 strikes (or a basketball event with 9 foot rims) or races that allow iPods; they simply won't be sanctioned (which well over 99% of the runners shouldn't care about since they are not likely to set a world record).

parkerand susan

357 posts since
Oct 17, 2007

725. Jan 16, 2008 6:38 AM

in response to: sgray

Ok..tk you sgray...did it..the technical aspects of USATF rule 144b were lost 40 pages back..no one has data..the rule is outdated ..pertains to an unfair advantage with coaching..has been interpreted to include Ipods..has been dismissed by many RD's as unworkable..ignored for the most part.and not even applicable in nonUSATF races and there are many..no sensible argument cannot last long with those less than concrete circumstances.I have enjoyed, perhaps too much, giving the trio a chance to see another perspective, tweak their bossy self importance ..perhaps that was self indulgent..but it was fun!!

parkerand susan

357 posts since
Oct 17, 2007

726. Jan 16, 2008 7:00 AM

in response to: Jay Silvio

Not you too Jay...what happened to ipod discussion I found your views interesting ..please restore my faith in balanced dialogue..dont make my study history again..I don't have the energy after running and arguing with the trio:)

POST SCRIPT :England is no longer a monarchy ..the Queen is a powerless all but rich figurehead....Republics have presidents..and as you point out they can have both or one.. prime ministers... as India..Pakistan... I really did not want to do research just to get Phat pat back to the issue of Ipods and off the issue of correcting me...I know your intention was to set the facts straight so tks for keeping me in line..

Jay Silvio

1,653 posts since
Jul 9, 2007

727. Jan 16, 2008 7:12 AM

in response to: parkerand susan

parkerand susan wrote:> Not you too Jay...

Sorry, I couldn't help myself (it must be the teacher in me).

Anyway, I have been wondering if anyone knows the USATF's stance on GPS watches, heart-rate monitors, etc. These are obviously useful as "pace setting" tools so I was curious if they are also banned. You certainly see and hear plenty of them at races.

sgray

81 posts since
Aug 8, 2007

728. Jan 16, 2008 7:31 AM

in response to: Jay Silvio

Well, well. I see that Old Man River, or NH as most of you know him is still at it. Try to spin it any way you want, but the reality is that you began a thread, intentionally warning off any potential volunteer from a race that did not share your point of view. Please get a hobby. You evidently have way too much time on your hands. Even after reading the article, for which this entire discussion is based on, you still feel that you know way more than anyone else. Has it occurred to you yet that, if you have to tell everybody how smart you are, you probably aren't that smart. In other words, if you were as intelligent as you make yourself out to be, others would already see it without you having to tell them. The author of this article plainly states the stance of the USATF, for which many of your arguments are based on, and says that it bans headphone use, and IF YOU WIN A PRIZE OR THE RACE, YOU WILL BE DISQUALIFIED AND YOUR TIME AND RESULTS WILL BE FORFIETED. What does that say to you about the USATF stance? It says to me that they look at this issue as a competition issue, not a safety issue. My points, during this entire thread, have been that if you want to say that this is a safety issue, then address all other safety issues as well. This is NOT a safety issue. Every runner entering a race does so after signing a waiver and assuming a certain amount of risk. This is the same for a race. There will be a certain amount of risk involved in any sport. Look around the field of a typical 3000-5000 particant marathon and I would agree with the author of the article that roughly 60-70% of the field is wearing some sort of listening device. Using your logic, NH, there would be complete disaster happening at these races. But there is not. I think what the original intent of this discussion was, for race participants to put on their grown up pants and discuss an issue that seems to be in need of talking about. There is obviously a disconnect, and reading your long disertations on them, I agree. Perhaps that is why this needs to be looked at. You have taken the time to call me and other posters disagreeing with you "Twits, Idiots and Prisoners" . Is this how grown ups discuss issues? "First I will call you names. Next, I will tell you how stupid you are because you don't agree with me. Then, I will deny anything that I have previously posted if it is not supporting my current rant. Finally, I will just make up facts that have no real substance to them, and hold them as absolute truths." Does the sum it up for you, oh great Debator?

DaveVause

620 posts since
Jul 9, 2007

729. Jan 16, 2008 7:37 AM

in response to: Jay Silvio

You're in a quagmire here, Jay. (smiles) I'm surprised you wandered in.

To answer your question, Rule 144, Assistance to Athletes, specifically allows wrist chronometers and heart rate monitors, but bans other technical devices used for pacing. It goes on to ban visible possession of video and audio players in the competition area.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on whither this constitutes an infringement on Constitutional rights, though you'll find many who firmly believe it is.

I keep my email notification in this Discussion set to off. If you reply to this post, let me know through some of the other venues where we've traded comments.

Dave Vause
08 MC Historic Half
07 Frederick Marathon
05, 06 MCM
blog: //community.active.com/blogs/DaveVause
personal web site: www.vause.name

NHSenior

388 posts since
Nov 23, 2007

730. Jan 16, 2008 8:01 AM

in response to: sgray

<<<<<Try to spin it any way you want, but the reality is that you began a thread, intentionally warning off any potential volunteer from a race that did not share your point of view.

SGRAY. I know you don't like lessons on how to go about day to day functions but you really need to learn to read and understand that a NEXT sentence or NEXT paragraph that is written normally more fully explains the point of the writer.

You like to quote (miss-quote) little selected pieces. My posts are longer because that is much fairer to the readers and the people from which I might quote.

What I said, word for word, copied from the FULL message that you mention is as follows. Itwas certainly "intentional" and was a warning to volunteers to ASK about what I was implying and thereby telling them to believe what they want to believe AFTER they ASK for and recieve INFORMATION.

===== Here is what I wrote ============================================================

Since races have either specific or implied guidelines from the USATF and the RRCA and their respective insurance companies regarding safety issues and since the majority of races seem to be caving in to emotional blackmail and not enforcing safety issues, what do you suppose YOUR own personal liability is:

Volunteers - Have you even though about that?

1) When you volunteer at races.
2) When the race and everyone within 100 miles gets sued by a scorched earth law suit.
3) When YOU fail to enforce the published rules and some gets hurt. Were you negligent?
4) Are you an agent of the event?

Does your possible personal pro-headset stance override a potential personal financial problem if you volunteer.

Perhaps you should ask the RD then next time you are considering a volunteer assignment..

Hey Race Directors

What are YOU going to do if people stop volunteering because YOU are exposing them to liability because of your negligence, and it will be negligence when some gets hurt, and you know it 's going to happen with all the headsets that are out there now.

parkerand susan

357 posts since
Oct 17, 2007

731. Jan 16, 2008 8:16 AM

in response to: sgray

Some facts not obsercations to consider..

I, for myself as well as for my heirs, executors, administrators, trustees, and assigns, hereby waive and release any and all rights and claims for any fatality injuries and/or damages, including, but not limited to, demands or actions for negligence, premises liability, emotional injury, intentional conduct, tort claims, and any other actions or demands of whatsoever nature I have or may have in connection with my participation as a volunteer in the Sarasota Marathon against all sponsors of the Sarasota Marathon and otherwise agree to hold these entities harmless. I acknowledge that I am aware of the inherent risks (physical and otherwise) involved in volunteering for the event and I voluntarily assume these risks. I further attest and certify that I am physically capable of performing the tasks required for the volunteer job(s) I have selected.

Find above the waiver signed by voluteers to the Sarasota Marathon...a USATF sanctioned race...NHsenior ..please note it is a waiver and RELEASE of all rights and claims for injuries and damages..for negligence, premises liability {color:#3366ff}(the RD screws up) emotional injury(someone sticks their tongue out at maryt ) etc etc..you read it NH...slowly.. don't skip the big words...

{color:#000000}the runners waiver is identically worded...now I know what NH will say so the following is for the normal readers...Both Runners and voluteers sign away their rights..what NH argues over and over is that signing is NOT ENOUGH...crafty lawyers can get around that..well if NH says it's , it must be ..however! NHsenior says he was a RD back "in the day" so here's what his real argument stems from.. NH might do something really boneheaded as an RD..and I'm guessing that is not far flung.... example( not have enough water in July and have runners dying or so dehydrated they pass out.).a "crafty" lawyer might have an action against NHsenior himself because he was such an egregious bonehead that the waivers don't apply..he don't want that..so he and a few like him want to make themselves liablity free for THEIR mistakes ..so they have no problem advocating a prohibition on anything (no matter what the thousands of prisoners..runners think or enjoy) its ALL ABOUT Protecting HIM and the RD's ...not runners..remember the trios chant of IAAM's..it's not a democracy..and today many opposing RD's just will not abuse runners that way..Hooray for them..Boo to the others

NHSenior

388 posts since
Nov 23, 2007

732. Jan 16, 2008 8:43 AM

in response to: parkerand susan

<<<<<so he and a few like him want to make themselves liablity free for THEIR mistakes

Start brain before engaging mouth and fingers. Life gets less embarrassing that way.

A manager is responsible for all mistakes made by himself or those that work for him. A simple concept that appears to have escaped you.

Since negligence regardless of who causes it at a race is going land on the door step of the RD and no waiver effectively covers negligence, the only defense the RD has is to A) not manage or B) manage and vigorously work at lowering the potential risks.

Is that something that is beyond your master degree to understand.? Hmmmm

You really arent very good at these zinger shots. Perhaps you need a different hobby. If this was a profession, you would regularly be out of work.

parkerand susan

357 posts since
Oct 17, 2007

733. Jan 16, 2008 8:53 AM

in response to: sgray

(color emphasis is mine) USATF article

"Delegates to the USATF convention who attended the open session of the Long Distance Running Division chaired by Fred Finke were anxious to debate the ban on headphones in road races which was imposed by USATF at last year's convention.

"We realize this issue has caused a great deal of angst," said Finke, who has received hundreds of e-mails on the subject. "It seems to be a hot button issue."

USATF enacted the ban in accordance with a rule put in place by the IAAF which banned the use of headphones in championship events. The IAAF ban was intended to prevent athletes from receiving information via radio about the whereabouts of their rivals, a practice which is permitted in the big bicycle tours, like the Tour de France.

But in practical application, it has meant that recreational runners are not allowed to wear MP3 players, like Apple's iPod, and listen to music during road races. Only a handful of U.S. races have actively enforced the ban.

Since USATF is not considering any rules changes at this year's convention (it's not a "rules year"), the ban will be in place for at least another year. Delegates voted to table the issue until next year, and Finke said a subcommitte would study the problem and make a recommendation for action, perhaps limiting the ban to just national championship events.

"It's really a no-win situation," said Finke. "I'm looking for a middle ground."

Heh NH... you looking for a Middle ground too?? the chairman Mr. Finke..he's thinking of agreeing with Team Ipod and applying the rule only to championships and probably medal winners only ..kinda of what we have been suggesting all along.. Is Chairman Finke a TWIT..does he not know as much about running as you?? I await your spoonful of goobldey goop to make these indisputable facts go away in a poof of NH smoke..

\\\\

One Response to "USATF Delegates Debate Headphones Ban"

Apple Ipod, Ipod Nano and Ipod Video News » USATF Delegates Debate Headphones Ban said:

http://... Electronics NEWS - about-electronics.eu wrote an interesting post today onHere's a quick excerpt IMG mp3 runnerwith headphones music ipodDelegates to the USATF convention who attended the open session of the Long Distance Running Division chaired by Fred Finke were anxious to debate the ban on headphones in road races which was imposed by USATF at last year's convention. "We realize this issue has caused a great deal of angst," said Finke, who has received hundreds of e-mails on the subject. "It seems to be a hot button issue." USATF enacted the ban in accordance with a rule put in pla http://...

November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Browser

Home
ColumnsColumns

One Response to "USATF Delegates Debate Headphones Ban"

Leave a Reply

Browser