“Appalled” By Race Organisation

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32221, 13 February 1970, Page 14

“Appalled” By Race Organisation

j) “If the Canterbury Road Runners’ Association is not ) competent to organise such lan event, the Canterbury centre should take over the running of the race. I wish to I disassociate myself from any 'responsibility in organising I the 1970 marathon championIship," the race manager (Mr , T Preece) said in his report Ito the Canterbury Athletic "i Centre last evening. II Mr Preece said that he had |not been advised of his ap-l Jpointment until 9 p.m. on the ( evening of Thursday, Febru-I 'lary 5, less than two days be- . fore the event. The president of the road runners’ associa- . tion (Mr B. Lewis) had in- , formed him that all arrange- . ments for the race had been • made and that his task would , be to assemble officials before ; the race, the report said. “Upon arriving at Rugby , Park and taking part in track) /events myself, 1 was appalled; .Ito find that very little had I been organised and in the ex-

1 tremely short time available t'it was impossible to reorganise many vital essentials,” 'said Mr Preece. He then •'listed seven specific criticisms ‘ and made three recommends-, ’ tions. ' Mi' Preece said that the' I road runners’ association had ■ not arranged for transport ’ officers to police the race, a I doctor to be in attendance -i white coats to be provided for officials nor a notice to l|be displayed on the lead car. ; In addition, Mr Lewis had been unaware of the exact '{starting position, the mile ’ marks had not been repainted on the route (resulting in the ’ competitors failing to receive ' five-mile times), and the time- ' keepers had not been pro- ' vided with boards and were [ forced to write positions and ' times on pieces of paper. , Mr Lewis, a member of the , association’s executive, said in , reply that he was able to i [; answer each of Mr Preece’s, II criticisms. He had advised Mr 1 H Preece of his appointment a ' ■ week before the race and Mr '

Preece had accepted. The posi-i tioning of marshalls and stew- 1 ards had been left to Mr Preece! and the head marshall to arrange. The Transport Department had been contacted —“I feel we were. Jot down badly"—and the driver; I of the lead car was to have displayed a notice. The persons, responsible for providing the coats and repainting the mile marks had forgotten and not been able to do them, respectively. and the doctor was not available but a St John Ambu-i lance official was in attendance. It was considered that the paper used to record placings and ' times was sufficient. Mr Lewis said. The chairman (Mr B. H. Kerr), said that the conflict of opinion on these points was not import-: ant. He considered that the| organisation was not good and; he had been forced to conduct traffic “in two or three places” : during the marathon. Mr Kerr suggested that the centre take a more direct interest in the staging of future events. Official appointments should be forwarded to the executive in January and a race manager's report be tabled before the event. Suggestions that the manager) of the race appear before the' road runners' association and that executive members meet!

-[officers of the Transport De--Ipartment before future races »| were made by Mr F. Stevens. One of Mr Preece’s recomtmendations —that future courses I entail laps of about five miles ‘.—drew a notice of motion from • I Mr W. A. Kennedy that a block - course be instituted for future . marathons. Mr Preece s report ■.said that such a course would •alleviate traffic problems by [[omitting dangerous intersections and would assist in : arranging timekeeping and refreshment stations. Mr Kennedy's motion will be ■ put to a future meeting of the I executive. i Mr Pearce also supported an 8.30 am. start, again with the [traffic congestion as his basic i reason. He said that it was . fortunate there had not been . a serious accident during the [l race. A Sunday morning start ! had been suggested. The third recommendation concerned the competence of • the road runners' association to stage the event and indicated , his preference for the centre i to take direct control In answer to this. Mr Lewis , said that he felt that his association had been let down by ithe marshalls, stewards and the I Transport Department Much had been learnt from the marathon, and “a lot more thought" would be given before the next was held.