ObjectivesWhile the health benefits of running are legitimately advocated, participation in running can also lead to health problems. There is a high range of reported prevalence rates especially of running-related overuse injuries in high-level athletes and during competition. Little consensus exists for acute injuries and illnesses especially in recreational runners. Therefore, the aim of this study was to record the prevalence of health problems in recreational long-distance runners preparing for an event.MethodsRecreational runners aged 18–65 years who were registered 13 weeks prior to a half-marathon running event were invited to take part in this study. Participants were prospectively monitored weekly over 13 weeks by applying a standardised surveillance system for injuries and illnesses (Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center questionnaire). From this, prevalence and severity of acute and overuse injuries, as well as illnesses, were calculated.ResultsWe received 3213 fully answered questionnaires from 327 participants (40.7% female, 40.9±11.7 years of age, 31.5±21.1 km weekly mileage, 8.3±7.8 years of running experience). At any point in time over the preparation phase, 37.3% of the participants had health problems. Overuse injuries were the major burden (18%). They were followed by illnesses (14.1%) and acute injuries (7.9%). The median weekly severity score was 56.5 (IQR 37.0–58.0).ConclusionThe high prevalence of health problems in our cohort suggests that future efforts are needed to further specify the underlying mechanism and develop adequate prevention strategies for recreational runners.
At least one surprise occurs in every arbitral hearing. One of those surprises is when a witness testifies beyond what has been submitted in his written witness statement. Often, such ‘out-of-scope’ testimony is unexpected, astonishing, and crucial for the outcome of the case. Surprisingly, the adequate handling of such unexpected testimony is unchartered territory: neither arbitral statutes, institutional rules nor the ever-expanding arbitral soft law addresses this important issue. This article reviews if and when arbitral tribunal should permit or reject such ‘out-of-scope’ testimony. The article establishes five clear-cut rules to deal with that issue.
This introduction discusses arbitration as a method for resolving disputes. It first provides an overview of the advantages of arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and a brief historical background on the development of modern international arbitration before exploring the effects of arbitration agreements, taking into account the applicable law for the question of arbitrability (objective arbitrability and subjective arbitrability). It then considers two options between which parties can choose when deciding to settle their dispute by arbitration: institutional arbitration and ad hoc arbitration. It also analyses the parties’ right to choose—based on the principle of party autonomy—the place and language of arbitration, the substantive law applicable to the merits of the dispute, and number of arbitrators. Finally, it explains the applicable rules and general structure of arbitral proceedings as well as the enforceability of arbitral awards.
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.