Rutherford Labs double sprint race, 26 Aug

[Roger]

Should the organisers, controllers or jury decide the guy has brought the sport into disrepute then the way forward is below & not a kangaroo court:

9.5.1
If the Organiser, Controller or Jury consider that the sport has been brought into
disrepute they shall bring the matter to the attention of
the Chairman of British.......

I spoke to Sean Stewart yesterday; he's asked Tony directly to take the videos down but I see that they are still up. If Sean escalates the matter then it won't be via BOF.

[Gross]

It'll be an interesting outcome if it goes further. I'm no lawyer & know even less about English Law but a quick Google indicates:

However, landowners are permitted to impose any conditions they wish upon entry to a property, such as forbidding or restricting photography.

From what has been written (and admitted) there was no restrictions on photography imposed on the competitors as a condition of entry to the area. In many countries worldwide there are signs indicating 'no photography' in sensitive areas maybe they are required in UK.

(I was completely unaware that Trafalger Square (a public place) has a restriction on commercial photograpy without permission of the Mayor.... wonder if all those press photos of the Scottish fans last month are legal?)

[andypat]

Interestingly the BOF disciplinary procedures has an entire section entitled "Gross misconduct" . Perhaps noomember will get his own paragraph soon.

[roadrunner]

Yesterday I walked through a shopping centre - the sort of place most of us would consider "public", and certainly not "sensitive" - and there were signs banning photography, albeit quite small and easily missed amongst those banning other things (smoking, skateboarding etc). Since RAL isn't normally open to the public, and it's been said that photos taken from outside were considered OK, I doubt the owners saw the need for such signs; official visitors could be told when they signed in at reception. This, so far as I recall, is how it was where I used to work.

But really all that's relevant is that the organiser has asked politely for the videos to be taken down, and I can't see any reason why anyone should not comply promptly with such a request, even if they disagree; you can always argue the point after taking them down. I unfortunately missed this event, but I'd like to run there in the future, and cannot see why anyone should wish to put future events in jeopardy.

[mharky]

People seem to confuse a place where members of the public have permission to be for a public place. They are not the same thing.

[King Penguin]

At the BOK event today the notice by the start clearly had added to it "no video headcameras allowed". I suspect this may be as a result of the RAL situation.
I am firmly of the opinion that all reasonable requests from the organisers - whether before, during or after the event - should be complied with, and I consider that the request to remove the video falls into that category. Organising permissions, access and events can be hard enough as it is, particularly for urbans.
(great event in Bristol today b.t.w.)

[mharky]

I hope we aren't going to see the automatic banning of headcams at events where the situations isn't even relevant. Headcams are an excellent analysis tool. I'd hope that the only time we see bans are when the event is actually in a sensitive area where the land owners have asked, or is already custom in that area, for photography/filming to be prohibited.

[Broken Ground]

mharky - the decision to ban headcameras today was made because the course went through a school where they aren't allowed.

[Sloop]

To me, the most disgraceful aspect of this saga is that the orienteers who were stupid/naive/generous/creative enough to put on an orienteering event around their place of work have been placed in a position which could jeopardise their nothing-to-do-with-orienteering working lives.

How anyone can think this is acceptable behaviour for a fellow orienteer I simply cannot begin to understand.

[nooomember]

You will ALL(?) be pleased to know the offending videos were removed at the earliest opportunity.
Obviously if pre-event information / final details state NO cameras / video / headcams (even though quite common in orienteering), then this would have been followed.
Apologies have been made fr any inconvenience to RAL & TVOC as necessary.
I thank you all for your supportive comments on this public forum.

[Spookster]

You will ALL(?) be pleased to know the offending videos were removed at the earliest opportunity.

Good, thanks.

Headcams (or any sort of video capture) are a useful tool in analysing orienteering races, but obviously only when landownwers, organisers, etc, allow them.

[nooomember]

Maybe as penance nooomember should offer to take some really good footage which could be used to promote future events.

As you know Graeme, I HAVE indeed offered to take some Headcam video footage for you (I sent you PM replies), to promote your 'Race The Castles' event in 2014.

[nooomember]

For heavens sake Gross. No-one has suggested that Noomember did anything wrong in taking the video.

But what principle he is standing on that prevents him from removing it as questioned is beyond me.

As you know the Videos were removed at the earliest opportunity - some people work away during the week and do not have 24 hour internet access!

[nooomember]

Given his refusal to do so, what other requests from event organisers might he choose to ignore in future ? I would therefore agree with the idea of cancelling his entry for the City of London Race and returning the entry fee.

Go down that road & you need to be very certain of what you are doing. City of London is a public race with no restrictions on entry as far as I can see. The guy has not been proven to have broken any rules.

Nothing shall be done to prejudice the goodwill of landowners, their tenants or agents. Competitors and officials shall comply with all requests made by such persons or notified to them by the organiser.

BOF Rule 1.6.1

And indeed I HAVE fully complied with that rule, as the videos WERE removed at the request of both the organising club and a representative of the Land owner (RAL).

[mikey]

Thank you.

Peace is restored.