So do racers take over the Summerhaven Post Office as a normal thing? I have heard of people sleeping in the PO in Oracle but that's big enough to just take a corner. I was enjoying the video and getting past the idea that they were obviously driving to every trail head. Is this really the story the AZT bikepacking racers should be putting out. Too cheap to get a room in town, unwilling to carry warm enough gear to sleep out, you just take over a tiny towns PO?

The issue of sleeping in pit toilets was also raised in a thread last year and I'd put that in the same category as PO lobbies.  

I strongly agree with all these. They naturally extend to sleeping in kids playgrounds, shop entrances, train stations, bus shelters, etc. All these places are not meant for sleeping, encounters are awkward, and the footprint of the event is in people's faces. My guess is that if it's clearly mentioned on the website that the impact of the event on the local communities must be minimized to preserve the event, people will approach it differently (I hope so at least). Illustrating the problem with examples mentioned above would go a long way too - imo. The severity of this phenomenon goes way past the issue of emotional support from my perspective. It's existential for the event and a matter of reputation for the bikepacking community. I was long wondering (first when reading about TCR over here in Europe) if sleeping all over the city parks, benches, etc. is a good idea.

Water caches are the source of some of the biggest conflicts on the trail. Last thing anyone needs is thinking that the magic water fairies are out at all times replenishing water caches. Next thing you know someone will take her words in the video as a free pass to go out on day rides in dry areas and utilizing those like it's a tap. This message presented by her in the video is in my opinion even more troubling  than the actual FKT/supported discussion.

Agree, I also think that this is very important as it is a serious part of the event's footprint. Regarding this, what's the take on pre-stocking the water caches before your ride? It's not a great way to do an FKT from the fairness point, but technically it'd be OK if you were both a water fairy and the FKT rider. Then you could drink a lot . Not Lael's case I assume, just wondering for the sake of it.

I just wanted to note that Lael's writeup and video were released recently.  Of interest to this discussion is that both writeup and video say that AZTR does not allow media, strongly implying a blanket ban as Jakub understood it to be.

This is interesting because she knows it isn't a blanket ban.  Remember John was quite reasonable and lenient in allowing multiple media visits, stretching the 'local' part well beyond reason.  She is quoted as saying that John said what they had done to Picketpost was "fine."  And John himself was out taking pictures (though I am glad they did not dwell on that).

About this. I am glad that this will be changed to include non-neutral media crews instead of media crews. I only wanted to point out that people who are reading the rules need not be aware of previous precedents and other behind the scenes information that some know. Also, even if you know those things but have no further justification of them, it does come across as a double-standard or inconsistency. It is much more likely that the rule was bent in some cases than that it doesn't say what it should say. So writing that "Lael knew it wasn't a blanket ban" is a strong statement which I don't think follows from any information cited here. I think it's a real possibility that she believes it's a blanket media ban and that it just isn't enforced fairly -- which might explain some of the bad feelings if there are any. Luckily, it's easy to prevent this in the future by narrowing down the rule to personal media crews.

Fair question.  I'm not actually bothered by Brian's comment and reasoning.  I still see a lot of weight in the solo/self-support/bailout side of the visitation rule as well.

I know, and I am quite puzzled as to why we agree on many things and this one, which seems so clear to me, you view completely differently. What values or background do we diverge on? No idea. I think Brian's comment gives a really bad vibe and he/event gains next to nothing by it. Literally nothing in this particular case (especially because of how he phrased it).

While driving today I listened to some of the "Bikes! Bikes! Bikes!" podcast with Jefe Branham (new CTR RD).  The host asked Jefe a pretty loaded question about rules, specifically visitation and how he approaches it. 

Jefe's first several sentences were that he was responsible first and foremost to the Colorado Trail.  He described how it's not a bike trail, it's a hiking trail.  And the most important thing is trying to minimize the impact of the race and racers.  I was quite happy with this answer.  Jefe gets it and the CTR is in good hands.  He then went on to describe how the challenge is supposed to be solo and how having someone out there with you changes the nature of it.  He described very well how small infractions of this are ok and are tolerated, but don't abuse it.  It came across as very reasonable to me.

I listened to the podcast, thanks! Yes, Jefe seems absolutely reasonable. And if the rules are communicated the way he does it, I basically wouldn't have (m)any objections. Maybe I wasn't so keen on him trying to make people experience the races the way he remembered he experienced them (so remote that he was scared he'd die -- to quote him). A funny exaggeration I guess. When I want to experience something like that, I go for a long ride in northern Sweden, not line up at TTW. In the US, the races are more remote I guess, so I see how he could view it that way for e.g. CTR. But I still think that races are never going to be proper adventures. You have riders in front, behind, etc. Races are "executed", adventures are experienced. The sole fact that the route was painstakingly designed and scouted and re-checked makes me ride races differently. So trying very hard to make the races into adventures might be missing the point in my opinion (but you'll probably say that here I am missing the point of doing racing as adventure). But I definitely agree that Jefe's take is one of the most friendly ones (together with your old rules). The current AZTR rules, with bold font, exclamation marks, capslock, 0-1% statements, etc. just come across unfriendly (but maybe I'm just an entitled snowflake...).

This all sounds good.  I think the "don't like it, don't race" comes from someone who not only doesn't like the rule but also does not want to follow it.  It was some time into this conversation before you said that you're personally OK following it, you just don't like it.  Before that it was reasonable to assume you didn't want to follow it, too.  And if someone isn't going to follow a rule, they shouldn't show up, I think you'll agree.

Yes, one shouldn't race if they know they won't do it by the rules - agreed. And yes, I did notice that it's generally assumed here that whenever I object to something I have a personal stake in it.

OK, this is just your experience.  I have heard from others that had a friend following/documenting who later regretted it because people called them out for "support" and wondering what else their friend was doing for them.
I'm sure it happens both ways.

I know, and the visitation rule is based on experiences just like mine too, except opposite. They aren't more valid or more real. But we've been through this.

Yeah, I still don't see how visitation is that much different than a lot of the other things tolerated in small doses.  People get bent out of shape when accusations are made for sharing gear and trail magic, too. 

So I'm not sure what you are proposing, then, no limitations on these things?

Interestingly I believe the first version of self-support rules had nothing against sharing between racers.  The good MikeC or John Stamstad would need to enlighten us here.  My understanding was that because it's a competition you are only helping out your competitors and losing time and yet are under no obligation to do so.  So there was no reason to ban it -- it's fair.  It took Mike pointing out to me that "there's nothing saying you can't help other racers" for me to realize it.   It's possibly a fair argument when everyone is very competitive and at the pointy end.  It (maybe?) becomes an issue when riders start out to ride together and can then intentionally share gear, or when the events get big enough that one could reasonably assume the route is full of people to bail you out. 

Well, visitation is different in case of AZTR and CTR, because of the footprint argument. But the other two... I really don't care about trail magic. It seems petty, sorry. Nobody can give you a new tire and pretend it was trail magic, and some coke or candies are inconsequential. As for sharing gear, that's a different issue I think, it's not a matter of self-support. If e.g. the 1st rider shares gear with the 2nd rider and makes his/her race possible or faster, they interfered in the race between the 2nd rider and the rest. They not only helped their own competition (that's OK), they also helped other people's competition. Unless they had a permission from the rest of the field to help that 2nd rider, they shouldn't have done it. An analogy is letting someone in in front of you in the queue. It's not OK if you don't have a mandate from all the people behind you to let that person in. It will extend all their queue times so you do need that mandate. I think it's because of this that gear sharing appears in the rules.

Yes I think wording to this effect needs to go into the rules page somewhere. 

You said this before and I was glad to hear it. I do hope it'll eventually appear on the rules page. It's an objectively strong reason.

I'm glad to hear you say this.  You just sounded bitter and did not deny regretting racing TTW.  That kinda pushed it towards murder of the event for me.  I'm happy to not take it that way.

Well, even you used the argument that "people show up to the race, so clearly many don't have a problem with the rules". If it's taken that by attending I endorse the rules -- which seems to be the case, then of course I regret it to some extent. Isn't that just a corollary?

I'm trying to gently nudge you away from (what I perceive as) somewhat of a sense of entitlement here.  Showing gratitude for what other people have sacrificed for you is one way.  Contributing back is another way (and I do consider your time spent here a contribution).  Being realistic with expectations is another (this is not the tour de france as I've said).  Nudge, nudge.

I have thought about this a lot. I definitely don't want to be entitled. The thing is, I find the visitation rule aggressive and unfair (the way it's used and applied, respectively). We're not talking about the footprint phrasing here. The way it was applied at TD is an example. The way Brian publicly scolded that lady is another example. By aggressive I mean disproportional, in a way. For the importance of the rule (it's a lesser rule), it is used very aggressively (it voids an FKT improvement of 1d10h).

And as for the "this is not the TdF as I've said", self-support visitation rule is a typical UCI sock-length rule (sure taller socks help with aerodynamics, but enough to have it in the rules?). I am on the side of not having it as a self-support rule. The only other thing I say is that if you insist on having it (your choice), then please face the consequences -- you need to enforce it fairly and be very transparent and nuanced about it (a task which I wouldn't want). I think *you* a're on the UCI side, except you don't like that you're then held responsible for the consequences (I wouldn't like it either). However, I think the solution is to relax/rephrase the rule, not try to separate the presence of the rule from the responsibilities that follow from it.

It's pretty easy to dismiss obviously uninformed opinions, I'm sure you'll agree.  But as I was saying there is a point here in keeping the peace.  Keeping the peace is always worth considering, and what you must sacrifice in order to do that.

Sure. I think making the rules more relatable would help with this.

Huh.  OK, you're not going to take responsibility for it as the next two paragraphs show.  We'll move on.

This is what I wrote before, I'd say it amounts to taking some responsibility.

Strictly speaking, it is on the website and so it's publicly available.

I was speaking generally about TTW.  Given the private land with special permissions and what I know about DoC and the hut system down there I would be very surprised if that race is on stable grounds.  I'd say it's a fragile beautiful thing and one that the community is lucky to have for now. 

Yes, but mostly dependent on riders' behaviors. Not really related to the case I described (out of private land, out of DoC jurisdiction, huge gravel road, solo woman on the bike). I brought it up because I think it is a very clear example of the RD minding visitation from the self-support side.

But yes, this one lady's actions did not endanger it and yes Brian used self-support language to call her out.  That does not mean that preserving the event is of no concern!  All I meant is that TTW may need to keep curbing visitation even if they are convinced to drop self-support arguments.

OK, fair, let me rephrase: "This case clearly wasn't about event preservation. Moreover, if it had been, the comment should've been different." BTW, you really seem to not like that it all points to self-support extremism. Why? It is what it is. Same thing with James' event in Spain. That doesn't mean those events are bad or the organizers are bad. Not at all. Imperfect activism is very welcome and we're grateful for it. But why resist any partial suggestions/criticism? I really don't get it. And I would happily race all these events if we could have a discussion in parallel without me being called out that "if you don't like it, you have the choice to not race it".

Besides your unreasonably high expectations of a free event you also seem to be missing that many competitions have rulesets that do not include justifications for them.  I'm thinking bike races but so many things beyond that too.  Sometimes there are good reasons for rules that the organizers don't share for whatever reason, sometimes it's just limited time.  Others it's just not their obligation to. 

I thought I understood this, and it was the reason to come and discuss it here, to an event that's more open & community shaped. I am not going to be doing this for e.g. SRMR or even TTW. To be clear, the fact that we're having this discussion here is a huge plus for AZTR - maybe I should've said this explicitly before... It's amazing, and I think it sets an important example that I hope other events (even private) will copy (instead of the visitation rule ).

Another way of looking at Brian's comment is that he was trying to be helpful.  Regardless of any rules he may have been trying to head off the appearance of support in this case, to shield the rider from criticism.  He didn't threaten relegation but may have been concerned this rider would get suspicions or accusations from outside the race.  This is part of why I see it as a gentle comment.  But then I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I have also been in his shoes before.

I got multiple questions about it (e.g. "what was that about?") and it doesn't come across right even for me. My guess is that nobody from the outside of the race would accuse people in the race of these things if they weren't led to it by suggestive rules and preemptive comments like that one. The suspicious people you're talking about could maybe give more benefit of the doubt to other riders. And I think the rules like the self-support phrasing of the visitation issue only embolden such suspicions (make them seem justified).

A big problem is that people take it as cheating even when worded as gently as possible.  I wish people could take it as a small violation like a foot fault in tennis -- it does not make you a bad person.  That's where the bad energy comes from.

When I was arguing that the visitation rule is out of scale petty (lesser), this is what I meant. If they list it alongside big rules preventing cheating, then what are people supposed to think? Your argument with respect to AZTR was that you have it bundled/padded with a few other lesser rules. But that isn't the case at other events. I still think that these "lesser" rules are not strictly necessary to keep the competition ~fair and efforts ~self-supported. Yet they do invite misunderstandings and trouble with fair enforcing.

If RDs were salaried employees and all rider's livelihoods were on the line you might have a point here.

I think dropping the visitation rule (or rephrasing it as protecting the event's low footprint) would decrease the work of everyone and naturally increase compliance with the rule (because people are more likely to care about the event than extreme self-support). What you wrote is only true if you insist that visitation as self-support issue must be included in the rules. If there's no budget/time for this to be done thoroughly (that's understandable), then why not relax/rephrase it?

But let's face it, these are free events that people put on at significant risk to themselves.  They should be given gratitude, understanding and the benefit of the doubt. 

Criticizing one bad call or an odd rule does not diminish the gratitude one has for the work of an RD. But now the topic is self-support & visitation. If you want to discuss a new topic, e.g. how good the route is, or how well-oiled the organization is, or how nice & helpful Brian is to all the riders, then let's discuss that. There's plenty of praise to be given. But the topic was self-support phrasing of the visitation rule and it's implications - so I gave an example once you brought up TTW's rules. The same way you wish people don't take visitation violation as hardcore "cheating", I wish my objections/criticism/suggestions aren't taken as a murder of the event.

They have a ruleset and the final say when enforcing but I think it's ultimately the community's responsibility to self-police for a lot of the minor infractions.  What the community thinks matters.

The community is led to think things. So many rulesets send the message that visitation is a capital sin. At the same time, many people have good memories and strong emotions from these races (not because of the visitation rule, of course). So I think they'll be ready to defend anything about that event. This phenomenon is ubiquitous though, people find it hard to criticize something they like, no matter how valid that particular criticism is.

Yeah this is a good justification for the rule in general -- it removes a lot of possibility for suspicion. 

I'd say it tells people that they should've been suspicious if they weren't. And the very existence of the rule endorses "not giving the benefit of the doubt".

I'm still looking for more justification on these lines.  People have bad reactions to accusations or enforcement.  Is curbing visitation worth these bad reactions?  Hmm.

I thought your position was that people who matter don't have bad reactions to enforcement. Those who have bad reactions to enforcement are fans and other non-riders. However, it's not supposed to be a spectator sport, so all is OK. Because of this, I haven't pursued this line of argument. But I can have a think...

Fair enough, you had a new baby and were visiting the in-laws, so didn't have heaps of time.  I get that.

I'd find time to read anything that I knew I was supposed to read. Including a 60 page document, if that was the case.

It would be good to take some responsibility for that shortcoming though.  It reads as bad taste, to me, to complain about a rule that you didn't bother to read beforehand.  There are so few words on his site (vs Silk Mtn has a 60 page PDF!) that it seems negligent to not read them all and worse to complain when you're caught off guard by it.  That might make it sting more, but it's your fault it stings and that has nothing to do with the rule itself.

I do take some responsibility. But I shouldn't have to. I read the rules very carefully and there was *no* visitation clause in them -- still isn't. FAQs start with meaningless stuff like "what bike setup is best for the race?" Is that the company of questions that you put a "vital" visitation rule into? You're also missing something really important: SRMR gives you a PDF and tells you "all info you need to know is in this PDF". In TTW's case, where does it end? FAQs? Or personal blog posts? Or IG posts? When can I stop digging to be sure I've read all I need to know about the rules? I draw the line after studying the rules section. Is that really so "negligent"?

Agreed that it sets a poor or confusing example.  I'd like to hear Brian's side of this.  If he didn't advertise her to be a race official or neutral reporter, which he could do, then I'd agree this is not a good example. 

I don't think it sets a poor example. I don't think it's a problem at all. I think it only takes away the RD's right to criticise others for such conduct. BTW, you saying that the rule is there to keep footprint low in TTW is trying really hard to justify it. I really don't think that's a concern at TTW (the lady was on a huge public gravel road on her bike -- not in a car, alone). And if crowding was the problem, I'm sure it'd be communicated as "Debbie, if everyone came out to meet the riders, we'd effectively double/triple our participant pool. That's something we haven't accounted for and could be perceived badly by the local communities. Please keep this in mind so we, as an event, don't crowd the spaces. Thanks". Instead, she's borderline accused of trying to cheat by supporting her husband (who was 1/2-1d behind us at that point, nowhere near). In short, it wasn't at all about keeping the race's profile low.

And to address the "spouse as race official, neutral reporter". As I said, I'm ok with whoever's spouse following whoever else. I don't think it matters in the scale of things (assuming crowding isn't an issue). However, would a neutral media crew (RD approved) containing one rider's spouse be OK? I don't think it'd go down very well in the community... (even though I think it's fine). The two cases are basically identical.

If this rule meant that much to you, so much that you'd regret doing and winning the race -- maybe you shouldn't have raced?

No, it doesn't mean so much that I would throw away all preparation and investment I made on the night of the race briefing just before the start. If I had known about the rule ahead, I would probably have re-considered.

As others have been saying in this thread, if this issue is that important and you think we are so off-base on it, start your own event.  That's a bigger vote.  Plus you'll be contributing to the community -- regardless of the rules I'd be all for that.

I don't particularly like the consequences of the visitation rule -- how it's applied, how people are called out, etc. Is it the end of the world? Of course not. I still think it's good to discuss it. Especially since people do like to pat themselves on the back for how hard their effort was and that feeds a bit into the self-support radicalism I think. So voicing the opposite opinion might be good -- if only for the balance. And maybe it's also good to race and be outspoken against the rule in those events (except then I get "if you don't like the rule, don't race" comments). I don't know, I'm still figuring out how to approach all this.

The question, which I think you've asked, is -- is it worth it?  If we're talking about preserving the event the answer seems to be yes (and I think the answer might be yes for TTW too -- it's one that needs to keep the footprint low too).

Yes, that's basically the question. Thanks. And we know it's not about preserving the event (re:TTW), because all you can find is references to self-support, not event's footprint. It's really easy to phrase it as keeping race alive instead of almost accusing people of cheating. Yet... everyone only worries about "cheating".

It's not that it's unenforceable -- it's pretty enforceable, I'd say.  It just often isn't enforced because it can cause issues.  See the 2007 CTR thread when I raised the question.  I wasn't enforcing anything, wasn't the RD -- just trying to start a conversation.

Here I can only repeat what I wrote before. If RD introduces a rule, then it's their obligation to apply it fairly (not only when they feel like it).

People should be able to accept that there are rules and be OK with them or take responsibility when the infringe on them.  But the practical side of me does see something here for keeping the peace. 

I agree, they should. That's why I clearly tell everyone to stay away from my race -- don't want some self-support vigilantes suspecting me of unknown things. Someone said it here, I try to not only be clean, but also to not give any reason to anyone to suspect me from not being clean. However, I view it a little bit like my opinion on helmets. I think it's dumb not to wear a helmet for a training ride. But if I was making a policy, I would never make helmets mandatory. It's just not practical to make them mandatory.

Gotcha and agree that physical is a huge part of it - though I still think the wait x number of years is harsh. I scratched from the 300 version of this event (ITT) in 2021 due to knee issues prior to the final 30 miles. It would really suck to have to wait to try again, especially as I have completed other multi day routes since then. That may just be me being selfish though I think in general most people who are lining up for at least the AZTR know what they are getting into.

I also wouldn't like it if I had to wait for 1-2 years after scratching, but before the event, it would definitely make me more thorough in preparation. But it was just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea to increase the stakes for scratching (which, in itself, might not be the right goal).

It might not be a terrible idea if the event starts to attract larger numbers to maybe contemplate using some kind of qualifier... that gets real iffy though as Scott said and very subjective and opens the door to more "gatekeeping" discussions accusations. That's a no win situation for everyone.

I would imagine that a qualifier would only qualify you as "I take this seriously" person. That would allow you to enter e.g. lottery and a startlist would be drawn from there, for example. Distribution could be skewed to favor people who have been unlucky in the lottery previously (so you make sure everyone gets their ride). Also, local people (e.g. if you promise to come by train/bus) could get a lottery entry without any qualification. And this race would serve them as a qualification for their overseas entries. That sort of thing. The goal would unashamedly be cutting co2 footprint.

They are obviously not the same things, but the point I was trying to make is that the alleged "sin" of relegating the effort of a participant is far, far less then putting a barrier to prevent participation in the first place. In fact one is just a consequence of breaking the rules while the other says "we will determine if you are worthy of being in our event". The correlation I was trying to make (probably poorly as usual) was that the relegation was tied to such terms as gatekeeping/bias/etc. I am combining the two topics which may not be helpful. Sorry about that.

Thanks, I see your concern. It's hard to communicate these things well, I agree. In a way, it would indeed be determining worthiness. However, it'd be for a good cause (control event's environmental footprint) and hopefully done transparently. As soon as there are 74+ applicants, the event will have to start vetting entrants anyways - am I wrong? There are some problems with introducing such qualifications in practice though, I agree. Including that the frequent fliers will automatically qualify to fly even more. Maybe it'd be better to do something else, e.g. we can check people's names on dotwatcher.cc results page (except for races like TD...). If a person raced in South America, New Zealand and Europe in the past year, it's basically guaranteed that their "race footprint" is ~7-8t CO2e. Which is too much, given that we should all average around 3t/y by 2030 and 2t/y by 2050, iirc.  I don't know - I have no answers, but I did notice people now fly a lot for the purpose of racing. If events assume responsibility for this, it could lead to something good. Of course, if we don't want the measures to have side effects (as you mention), they'll have to be very delicately designed.

This surprises me given the depth of research you are willing to do otherwise.  You didn't read the webpage, which is not very long, for an event you were participating in?  This isn't a judgement, it's just curious.

I hadn't known how controversial these things are. I didn't even own bikepacking bags in 2018 and I only bought my mountainbike that year. I didn't know there were "politics". I am being much more careful now, I guess I learn slowly.

Who does that?  Someone who is putting on a free event for the community.  None of these events are the Tour de France with committees and meetings -- they are amateur efforts.  You seem to have unreasonably high expectations here.  You could have read the webpage and you heard it at the pre-race meeting.  That seems like he did his 'job.'

I understand that they are amateur efforts, hence my surprise at some of the rules which aren't necessary and cause extra awkward work when enforcement is needed (in TTW's case, there's no reason to keep the event hush hush - they even self-promote, as you said). BTW, hearing it at a race briefing for the first time isn't that fair -- I already invested a lot of effort into being there. Listing it in FAQs is... unfortunate. Strictly speaking, it is on the website and so it's publicly available. On the other hand, I don't look at FAQs unless I have a question and I need to check if it had been asked already. So yes, I could have stumbled on the info earlier, but then I wasn't enjoying heaps of spare time around then to read FAQs for fun.

I also note that there's no asterisk next to your name in the results.
But I see, he called out your wife, albeit gently, and that is a sore spot, and you felt tricked.  It's sore enough to make you somewhat impervious to evidence and logical argument with respect to this issue.  At least that's the way I see it -- you sound very bitter.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The person who Brian told off for being on the course is not my wife. Someone else down the field was her husband. I had never seen the lady before or after. And to be fair, it wasn't "gentle", the way he called her out. If you think my tone was off in my first post here, then I'm surprised you find his tone gentle... Especially not from the position of a racer who's wife is meeting people on the course a lot (which is fine I think, just don't scold others for it).

I honestly was not trying to dig into your motivations and biases with this line of questioning, but you have revealed them nonetheless. I don't think they are very important or relevant here (because we are talking about *ideas*), but I would be remiss if I did not point this out for the earnest reader (if there are any left at this point.    )

I am not sure what was pointed out that the earnest reader could find interesting.

Those are at least an order of magnitude less hostile than what was thrown at the RD, maybe multiple.

But I am not condoning the behavior against the RD (or not most of it at least). So I am not sure why anything up to that is acceptable when women's record holder does it.

I'm genuinely disappointed that you are annoyed that you raced there and seem to regret it?  NZ is a beautiful place and that event is one of few I have interest in participating in (and it has nothing to do with the rules).

If I disregard the rules/RD's behavior, I absolutely see how it's a race to do. I think you'll like it too. To be clear though, they're all nice people. I'm only objecting to some of their calls, which I see as bad taste. Maybe even Brian would agree now that it was a bit "unnecessary"... and maybe not . Anyway, I am surprised that you're disappointed because you also said this:

If the racers didn't like the rules, no one would show up.

What options do I have? If I go to these events, people (e.g. you) will say: but surely you don't mind the rules so much when you still race here. And if someone else comes to you saying that the rules might need change, you'll say: nobody else minds, if they did they'd stop racing here. I can do nothing, except vote (with my presence). It is what it is.

My hope is that you would have agreed that it's a small point compared to the overall thrust and goodness and contributions of these events.  Because that would go along with my thinking that this is a small point we are quibbling over.

You mentioned this a few times: that you think the visitation topic is quite small compared to the big picture of the whole event. I'd agree if this tiny rule wasn't used to e.g. invalidate/relegate an FKT that bettered the previous time by a day and a half. Or if the race organizers didn't publicly scold enthusiasts who, let's face it, don't ruin the spirit of the event at all (TTW case). If the little rule was used in little ways, it'd be true what you're saying. But because the little rule has a disproportionally big impact, I'm not so sure. The consequences of the TD's 2019 visitation/media handling include the fact that Lael + crew had not approached the RD and the community about their intentions and weren't upfront about everything at this year at AZTR (going under the radar was the "encouraged" thing to do). And that's something she's been criticized for this year. The fact that other events are adopting the visitation rule without having the "let's keep low profile" reason also speaks volumes. I think it's unfortunate how far reaching the consequences are. And I can't blame the general public for finding it unpleasant to watch.

BTW, this is just "philosophy" now, I'm not arguing to remove or change any rules.

I don't know if this does much, the trail is open at any time for anybody. I'd also note that "being ready" aka fit or whatever has much less to do with finishing than the mental game or weather impacts. Obviously a baseline of fitness is needed but I would say it is mental/weather/equipment failure factors that cause scratches - not fitness. The number of legit riders (Lael included) who have scratched on this route is a testament to "being qualified" as being a silly barrier to entry if it is to prevent scratching.  I think there is more than enough information out there about the challenges and extremes of this route and others like it. I mean, there are blogs and pictures and stats and don't forget - videos

I don't know if that's the thing to do. It was just a thesis for discussion. The only repercussion for not following the rules is an asterisk or exclusion from the results. So this would be no different, I'd think...

BTW, in general, I suspect people underestimate how physical condition affects mental state. Especially in the race (not FKT/ITT). I think you make fewer mistakes if you're coping physically, you ride smarter (e.g. keeping momentum), you pick better lines, you're lighter on your bike, you think ahead, you have energy to cope with elements, etc. All this makes for an easier ride - mentally. It also helps you avoid mechanicals and you're left with some mental capacity to foresee trouble. I agree physical condition isn't everything, but someone here said that the game is 80% mental. I think that's far from the truth. That said, I meant overall "prepared", not just physically.

This also seems to support allowing only "qualified" people from lining up for the race. That is worse than relegating a person's fast time.

But qualified would mean that you finished local events, not necessarily won any. Why is it worse? Or how is it comparable?

One more side note: I did watch the video that was produced. I thought it was great - I did see much more interaction (speaking to the camera) than I would have anticipated given the "minimal interaction" that was discussed. I also saw some other things that would be considered "poor form" at least in my eyes especially in regards to usage of water caches. Not specifically against the rules, but the rules do state: The following are allowed, but not encouraged. Please use sparingly. (Excessive use can lead to relegation). In my opinion, Lael documented herself relying on them a bit more than I (a much slower rider btw) have been "trained" to or have been lead to believe is acceptable. One of the caches I saw was one of the more understanding ones (freeman), but the others not so much. One of them was even very close to an actual spigot near the Gila River - albeit the cache is located at a very nice place to camp with flat ground and a gazebo-ish shade structure and ample parking right next to it.

Yeah, that doesn't sound very good, re:water caches.

The thrust of your initial argument was: "Your rules don't make sense.  You haven't thought it through.  You haven't discussed it."  In summary: you don't know what you are doing. 

Apologies. My aim was to be concise, clear, and state everything as theses to be discussed (based on information I was able to dig up).

Plus you came on here in the aftermath of the race director being subject to a ridiculous amount of uninformed, illogical and flat out false vitriol -- for this very rule. 

I thought it was a good time. Everything was over, asterisk was accepted, swearing on social media calmed down. Clearly I was wrong.

That's a little dramatic -- we are talking about disagreeing on a small point of bikepack racing.  This is not a big thing.

It's not a big thing that people for whom the event is care more about the trivial self-support issue related to visitation rather than how much the event is in the face of the authorities and the surrounding communities? An event that doesn't exist cannot be self-supported (or vacuously, it can be anything, but you know what I mean). It's pretty grim if that's the case, let's hope it isn't.

I am curious if you have over-scrutinized the two events you have completed? Neither of them mentions anything about doping and one of them has a stronger form of the visitation rule than we are discussing here.

I was absolutely clueless about all this when I signed up for SRMR at the end of 2018 (that was before the TD fiasco). So that choice was made based on different information. And I haven't read FAQs of TTW - the first time I heard the visitation stuff was at the race briefing the day before the start -- and I was suitably annoyed, because the rules (called "agreements") don't say anything about it: https://www.tourtewaipounamu.co.nz/agreements. Also, read Brian Alder's comment here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/4314323705333826/permalink/4360312097401653/ (note that we met Brian's wife at many points on the course, even talked to her, and Brian himself was racing). I am definitely not pleased to have raced that event. And I feel a bit tricked, because who puts rules into FAQs when there's a proper rules section?

Another small nit pick but you agree with the main point of what I said.  You offer no counter evidence that the community disagrees or that the rules aren't working.  Saying people don't have time to complain about the rules or that as race director for 10+ years the complaints might not have reached me?  That's unbelievably weak and should not have even been mentioned.  You're disagreeing just to disagree.

I was really unsure whether to discuss this stuff publicly or not. I could have decided differently and you wouldn't have known my objections (or that I wouldn't race these events because I don't like the rules). It's by chance that I felt brave one evening and posted here . I don't see why there wouldn't be others like me.

Your initial tone explains this.  Someone that approached us differently would be treated differently. 

I guess that's fair. Although I was coming here after reading posts like these: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cctc0hAvHye/ and https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccx7EjClFjU/.

Apparently it's small enough that even you could see past it to fly down to the lovely little South Island?

https://www.tourtewaipounamu.co.nz/faq

"For the Dotwatchers out there as far as meeting riders goes, my rule is keep it between extremely limited to not at all. Racers, do not ask anyone to meet you out there, it simply isn?t fair to those that travel from afar to race and it opens the door to taking food/ water/ encouragement. Ultimately if someone is there at a trailhead without any arrangement, say hi, but don?t take advantage of the situation."

And yet, they also didn't think it necessary to mention doping!  How inconsistent!

Can I say this is cheap? I flew to NZ because we had a baby last Feb and my wife is a kiwi and her parents live there. We didn't know when restrictions would end at the time of booking MIQ spots and flights. I only did the event because I was going to be in NZ for 3 months visiting in-laws. A small side project if we even made it there (the number of uncertainties was huge). I didn't confirm my participation until late December when we got out of MIQ (without getting covid). I would not have flown there only for the event -- you could have guessed that from my previous post where I said that people fly to events too much. About the FAQs, I already explained how I am not happy about that, but hadn't known beforehand.

I still don't understand why it's "quite off-putting" to someone who doesn't want visitors or a personal media crew when racing themselves?  I disregarded the "not welcoming" comment earlier due to your misunderstanding of banning all media.  Now it comes up again.  Why is this small point, which you were able to see past in NZ, so off-putting, unwelcoming?

A visitation rule phrased as self-support issue gives ammunition to people who write posts like those I linked above. And those are hostile. Then you read the comments and get the idea that there is a number of people in the community who support such interpretation and use of the visitation rule.

I don't think I'm able to see past the visitation FAQ in NZ. It's one of the reasons I am so annoyed about the topic. And given that Brian Alder is a TD fan, we know where his ideas come from. The thing is, it's a private event -- not an underground community effort "without organization". So the scope for objections is much smaller. The only thing that I can reasonably do is not take part again. You can see how annoying it is that I already raced there -- even you, after all this discussion we had, thought that I am being inconsistent and don't mind the same thing over there. Wow.

Why do you think that hasn't happened in the triple crown events, despite them being much older?  You're missing a key difference here (beyond the visitation rule).

What am I missing?

But I'm glad you agree with not crowding the route and preserving the race.  We made it somewhere.

I've always agreed with this, but it was only brought up late in the discussion. Self-support was the issue we mostly talked about.

Have you ever heard the expression "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar?" 

If my tone was right, something else would have been the problem. Anyways, it doesn't matter now.

While preserving the event might be the primary reason for me personally, as former race director, I don't think many would agree with me. 

That's a very sad state of things then. I actually think (hope) it isn't true.

What you are trying to do here is to find yet another tiny inconsistency.  You like to question everything.  A bikepacking Diogenes:

I think it's more that I like to *understand* things. If I could do that by just reading the rules & explanations, I wouldn't be asking questions (I also wouldn't be asking questions if it was a private event, but TD, AZTR, and CTR seem to be viewed as community-ish events).

That's why it says self-support is a guiding principle not an absolute extreme.

I think, if visitation is viewed as a self-support rule - it's extreme. If it's viewed as a tool to keep low profile, then it's acceptable. The thing is, it's used in the former sense and therefore leaves bad taste (e.g. when someone betters the previous time by 1d10h and is relegated for "having support" based on visitation...). But I guess that's how it's going to be.

If the racers didn't like the rules, no one would show up.  Many threads like this would be started.  They are working because people show up and we haven't had a good rules debate in some time.

I think people show up even if they don't like the rules. Especially those towards the sharp end, because they may have obligations and other incentives to ride races like the TD. Also, not many people have time to come here and discuss things at length for days/weeks. I'm squeezing it between (or instead of) anything and everything. I'm sure you know how much time it takes. So I doubt your conclusion follows (although it might still be true that the rules are working for most people).

So this goes back to what I've been saying the last few posts: what the community thinks and wants matters.

I guess this leaves me with very few options. This thread might come handy later if people ever raise the topic in the future. There are a few good objections to the visitation rule on the TD page in FAQs too. One thing worries me a little though. There is a real tendency to shoot the messenger. If people from within the community voice their opinions, they're noted. If outsiders do the same, everything about them is questioned before they get any attention: did they ride events? do they know the history? do they have ulterior motives? etc. So the scene is set up in such a way that "what community thinks and wants" might be hard to interpret.

Are the rules 100% consistent?  No way.  Are they grossly inconsistent?  Also no way.  Pretty sure this thread speaks to that and you'd have to agree. 

I think this thread speaks to the fact that the rules are pretty inconsistent. Grossly? I wouldn't claim that. But enough to be confusing.

I've been thinking this whole time: even if we grant that the rules are somewhat inconsistent it's simply not a compelling enough argument to make a change. 

I have noticed that inconsistency isn't much of a worry. It surprises me a lot. I thought it was something we all agree on (regardless of our opinions about the actual topics covered by the rules). If we agree on consistency as a must (I mistakenly thought this was generally accepted), then regardless of our other differences, we can agree that the rules have problems. But that's not the case.

There has to be more than that.  Here are a few things that seem more worthy of discussion:

1 - Times have changed and sponsors now demand 'content' of their athletes
2 - If we want the sport to attract the best athletes we could cater to them
2a - If we want them to go as fast as possible we can't expect them to create their own content, i.e. self-film
3 - People do love the content created, give the people what they want, it inspires others, gets people to care about the routes, the landscape, the environment
4 - The community of riders is OK with or wants vans all over the route, people everywhere, less solitude and rugged individualism.  Having personal followers and media fits within their definition of self-support.

The topic I'd like to see discussed is the environmental impact of bikepacking racing. People fly to 4-5 events a year. That fact alone implies that they aren't in good shape for 2-3 of them. The footprint of such behavior is enormous. And we see it more and more. Wouldn't it be good to start introducing some rules about having to have qualification results from your local races to be able to apply to the key events that everyone wants to do? I'd also follow some trail running examples and demand hours of community service (whether helping with organization of races, trail maintenance, community awareness and education work, or even something completely unrelated to bikepacking). I'd also introduce rules about scratching. If you scratch, you'll have to sit out 1-2 years. The idea being that we want to prevent the scattergun approach to events (do lots of events, take risks, scratch from many, win some -- you see this approach a lot recently). It would also motivate people to DNS rather than DNF. This is good -- if you couldn't prepare well, you don't start. This should lead to smaller race footprint or the spot on the startline going to someone who feels prepared (less likely to DNF). A discussion like this would probably require a separate thread, loads of time, and some will to implement and maintain new measures. A fairly big task...

Versus: we could mention doping and sponsor bonuses and many other things, or remove the visitation rule completely, but then another Diogenes type figure can come along and find other equally small inconsistencies to point out.  It's endless.

It's supposed to be an iterative process (endless by definition). I think, as you said, a can of worms was opened when it was decided to look at visitation as support. The micro-scale of that issue is the very problem. It makes the community look fanatic, brings minimal tangible benefits (if any), and is awkward to enforce.

Anyways, my goal wasn't to change the rules for the sake of changing the rules. Many things were clarified in the process, e.g. I am glad to have found out about the event's footprint being kept low by means of the visitation rule. Of course, the general self-support rhetoric around visitation is unchanged and quite off-putting, but that's just what it is. Thanks for sacrificing loads of time to discuss this, I think it's good to have it in the open. Much appreciated. I'll keep responding to any questions/remarks/suggestions given that I started the discussion around this, that's only fair I guess.

When I re-read this it seems like you agree with the principle and the thrust of the visitation rule.  You just don't want it to be codified and put in the rules of the event?  If that's correct perhaps we can move on from many of these arguments.

Somewhat like that. I do see the point of restricting visitation to keep the footprint of the event low. But I think the visitation by "strangers"/dot stalkers will dwarf personal visitation in the near future (I gave the example of TCR where that already happened). What this implies is that our efforts should probably be redirected. Sure keep the visitation rule for the racers' families/friends. It will be a small part of the solution. In this case, of course, the rhetoric about self-support reasons for the visitation rule should go away. And we'd need to ramp up the education of the public.

I do see a point here: that it's perhaps less effective to put it on the racers rather than those doing the visiting/spectating.  Having a visitation rule without explanation as to the 'why' is indeed less effective.  What you are suggesting here: education from various platforms, may be more effective.  It's a good thing race director of AZT pays so well, because they have so much time to engage in this.     I am being facetious but the point here is that it's really the community's responsibility.  Maybe you can take this campaign up, Jakub?  That would be a great contribution to the community.

A few points here. Fair for calling me out to do it myself. I can contribute, and I should. But I am nobody -- even getting people on this forum to take me semi-seriously took a lot of back-and-forth. Most of the initial replies being in the spirit of "who are you to come and question the visitation rule". I can help but it'll have to be a community effort, as you say (de-regulated one I assume). The thing is, the first time I heard the footprint argument formulated coherently was from phatmike halfway through the discussion here. Again, explanation of self-support gets so much space on the rules page, but something that is critical to event's existence doesn't get a mention? That doesn't take much of the RD's time. And it's part of the exposure that the public (and the racers) should face. I think this was what I was getting at.

I think one reason to keep it in the rules is that the only real recourse we have is the threat of relegating riders.  If it isn't in the rules and is merely subject to an education campaign there's nothing to stop riders from having a van waiting at every intersection and at every gas station.  They can rightly argue "I heard the message but rejected it. Show me the rule that says I can't do this."

Please keep it in the rules (I say this above too). But why mask it as self-support issue? Not only is that a missed opportunity to educate everyone, it's also misleading. I cannot see why you'd like to relegate riders for "self-support" when what you're really relegating them for is setting a precedent that would lead to crowding and the event being potentially shut down. I see the latter as a *much* more compelling and objective reason. The former seems petty and controversial. Why go that way? I genuinely don't understand.

I hope I clarified what I meant. I am not in favor of crowding the race course. I think low profile/footprint is a serious reason for visitation restrictions. But all anyone talks about re:visitation is self-support. So there is some disconnect going on. And I suspect it comes from the visitation rule which is phrased and quoted/used as a self-support control tool. So I do think the issue is with the rule (to some extent at least).

I'm a little surprised you don't accept this to some extent.  Your first post here accuses the RD of not being in sync with the community.  I do think that this matters, and I think you have to admit that it does too.

I absolutely think it matters to be in sync with the community (with a wider community too). That's also why I mentioned a few times that trail running doing a 180 in 2021 on visitation/media is sad, but that it softens my position. However, I still think that rules should have solid reasons for existing. For visitation, these two things are somewhat at odds. Also, I don't see that the bikepacking community is predominantly behind the visitation rule -- how would we know this?

I think we are going too far banning riding with people (as James does) and all the emotional support that comes with it.

I find it too extreme as well. But given that we ban this very thing for ITTs, the discussion is warranted (that, or declaring races "semi-supported" or "supported").

The challenges or questions about the visitation rule have been few and far between in the last decade, so I suppose that speaks volumes.

The challenges of the visitation rule maybe. And maybe they just didn't filter all the way to you. Anyways, the confusion/misunderstanding is obvious I'd say. The most compelling reason for visitation rule seems to be the low footprint of the event (to preserve it for the future). The rest just seems a disputable and "convenient" side-effect for the proponents of strict self-support. Yet when someone breaks the rule, they're relegated for "support", not for putting the event at risk of being shut down. I find that confusing if not disingenuous. Coincidentally, any discussion you can identify about such relegations or the rule itself address self-support as the key issue. Wouldn't that qualify as lack of clarity about the purpose of the rule?

Yep, those are all valid.  This is in line with the running FKT rules not accepting race efforts as self-supported.
To you.  I think most people are willing to accept that in order to have a race you have to include all these things that, yes, aren't strictly self-support.  We all agree that we want to have a race, right?

Surely that's a false dichotomy. You can have a race which is exactly the same, but don't call the times coming out of it self-supported. Semi-supported or supported come to mind. Example: the community says "Nobody takes away anything from Lael's smashing ride, it just wasn't self-supported." Why doesn't the same apply to the race?

To me the line with visitation isn't very wiggly, it makes sense from so many angles.  You do not *need* visitation to have a race.  You do need all these other things to have a race, including sometimes riding together.

You also do not *need* the race to be declared "self-supported".

I am happy that you see the point that at some point you do have to draw a line (and it must have some curvature).  Simply arguing "it's not self-support" is not enough.  Simply arguing "it's emotional support" is not enough.  Because we can always make it more extreme (you must wear blinders so you can't see the scenery and get an emotional boost from it!).

Precisely. We differ on what we consider extreme (I include emotional support in it; you don't).

I fully see your point and attempt to compare the magnitude here.  It just feels very weak and inconsistent itself: therefore not compelling.
I also doubt that adding a doping ban would change your opinion on visitation at all.  Or am I wrong?  Is that all we need to do? 

You're not wrong. I think visitation rule should go in its current form. However, I am not able to convince anyone here directly. One of the proof methods is by contradiction. You assume something that you think is invalid and explore its implications to arrive at something that's at odds with reality. If lesser things like visitation are in the rules, then more impactful forms of unfair advantage should be covered too. Medical doping is an example which contradicts this implication (mechanical doping *is* in the rules). It does not mean I think it should be part of the rules. I only think that it should be *if* visitation is. My opinion on inclusion of the doping rule independent of other rules is unknown in this discussion.

The form of argument I'm trying to employ is the following. You give me the subset of the rules, and ask me about a situation not covered by this subset. If the rules are consistent & complete, I should be able to correctly decide whether the situation is acceptable or not. So, take your rules and ask if medical doping is acceptable. I'd say no, but it is. Take your rules and ask if race setting is self-supported. I'd say it isn't, but it's taken to be self-supported. All these things are red flags about the rules. If I cannot, by means of analogy, correctly decide situations then either (a) the rules are inconsistent/incomplete or (b) the rules are unclear -- leading to misunderstandings or (c) I'm a complete idiot. I've been silently assuming that it's not (c) .

Isn't this black and white thinking -- because we can't make ITTs exactly equivalent we shouldn't even try?  I think we *should* try, because there's no reason not to. 
As an aside, we haven't mentioned the one huge advantage ITTs have over group starts: choosing a weather window.  There's a strong sense in our community that setting a record during a GD has more prestige than an ITT effort for this reason.

I don't know why they have to be equivalent. They don't seem to be if the visitation rule is kept. They would be closer to equivalent if the rule went. Having the rule has implications. Making exceptions doesn't seem great. Notice that if the visitation rule was only about the footprint, then race does not violate it. Except people insist on making it about self-support.

ITTs have many other huge advantages. You can do an ITT when you're in best shape (it's hard to race after winter, even if conditions might be best). Women can schedule an ITT for the correct week in the cycle. Etc. Heaps of advantages. But none are self-support related, and you made it very clear, that we shouldn't compare self-support issues/advantages with non-self-support ones.

I'm close to giving up (which might seem like good news around here ), because we seem to be talking past each other in the discussion.

Full agreement that objective is a higher standard and would be nice to have. ... Since we are far from that I do think there's reason to accept people's "gut" feeling here.  There is a lot of evidence that current bikepackers (even the younger generation) simply feel that excessive visitation is not self-supported and that a personal media crew is definitely not self-supported.

I think what we disagree on is contained in this quote. My position is that rules which aim to guide others' behavior in races cannot be based on gut feelings and impressions - higher standard is needed. You (and some others) claim that that's enough. BTW, I already responded to davew's post (maybe I shouldn't talk about gut feelings anymore but inconclusive research instead).

To build on this difference, I think it's good to note that such low standard for including a rule has not been applied in other cases, i.e. if this is enough for a rule to exist, then we should see *many* more rules than we do.

I guess the point here is that there doesn't need to be objective evidence for every rule.  The community can decide 'we don't want to race this way' and that's enough.  My claim is the community doesn't want excessive visitation or following of racers.

I am not sure if it should be a popularity vote. But even if we accepted that, I think we're all living in our bubbles, and our perceptions of what the mood in the community is differs. People discussing this topic in general at https://bikepacking.com/plog/self-supported-principles/#comments have no clue about our discussion over here. And so on. Many of the comments under the bikepacking.com article are to the effect that "we're taking it a bit too far by trying to regulate emotional support".

Interestingly the 'le espirit' event in Spain does exactly this -- you are supposed to ride solo.  No more than 15 min with other riders in the event, or with strangers.

That's only a fraction of what I said. There are other emotional and practical benefits of being in a race compared to riding truly solo (ITT/FKT). Chasing, being chased, seeing who's in front, who's  behind. Judging people's state when you see them, etc. They can't correct for those with any rules. Yet we're ok with declaring such race efforts self-supported as long as visitation is restricted enough. Sorry, that just seems a very wiggly line to draw.

'le espirit' also mentions excessive use of painkillers and WADA rules.  It's almost like they were written by you but with AZTR as the starting point! 

I did not help with the event or the rules at all. But I did talk with James about painkillers around the time when UTMB banned them (or some of them). His stance is similar to mine. Also, it's only fair/consistent to include doping in your rules if you're so specific about emotional support (that's the point I've been trying to make here too, unsuccessfully).

Agreed this is a concrete reason to curb visitation.  And you are right that it doesn't really apply to ITTs.  Consistency and fairness are two reasons to apply it to ITTs.  That and it fits within many people's definition of self-support.

Race setting is by its nature not self-supported (in the strict sense). So consistency and fairness with respect to ITTs go out the window I'd say. And that it fits within some people's definition of self-support... we discuss this in a point above. So I'll leave it.

Keeping it local and short decreases the footprint of the event.  Less people driving all over the place and hanging about. That makes it look like less of an event to onlookers and land agency officials.

I guess I am going to take this as it is, although there are many other ways to decrease the footprint of the event which are not being leveraged.

I personally don't think we are taking ourselves too seriously by saying 'please don't drive hundreds of miles for the sole purpose of cheering on racers.'

The rule says that even if you drive hundreds of miles for some other reason, you shouldn't cheer on the racers. It doesn't speak about sole-purpose visits. Often, out of town people might come with family, who already flew there and will drive to the finish to do a pick up. So not being able to stop in some town on the way to intercept the race is odd. I do see the idea you're pursuing, I just don't see if it matters in the scale of things.

It's an interesting point that nobody addresses the public.  It's been some years but there used to be a pop-up on Trackleaders explaining self-support concepts and suggesting those watching the race online keep their distance, etc.  Please don't dot stalk!  Basically.

Explaining concepts on tracking pages is certainly a good idea. Plus on the event site, plus on platforms like bikepacking.com etc. Maybe on youtube too. I think it's only a matter of time when public's interest is going to dwarf the interest of family and friends. I mentioned the case of TCR. The time has already come for some other races.

[Social Facilitation:]

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-social-facilitation-4800890

Social Facilitation:

"In terms of a basic definition of social facilitation, social facilitation refers to improvement in performance induced by the real, implied, or imagined presence of others.

Two types of social facilitation have also been defined: co-action effects and audience effects".

directly quoted from the site in the link

There are limitations with first study carried out in 1898 by Tripplet (with cycling coincidentally) and there have been 100's of research papers written since that go into a depth not warranted here except to say that this phenomenon exists. There are varied results in the studies but they do support of the idea that others being around helps 'performance'.

Might I also suggest this effect is amplified in bikepacking events such as the AZTR due to the brutality of the race, the remoteness, duration of the race, length of time away from others, and the amount of time you spend in your own head.

I was wondering if this would be brought up, because as far as I understood this is kind of in favor of the visitation rule, but not the way it's presented by the bikepacking community. It would seem that there is some kind of effect from audience: either net negative (social inhibition) or net positive (social facilitation), but hardly net neutral. So it is an interference with the race (not necessarily a boost). If we wish to remove this variable from the equation, then something like the visitation rule is probably justifiable. But again, it doesn't seem to be "support" across the board. It's been some time since I read about this (2019), so I might need a refresh if we go deeper into the topic.

Also, as far as I remember, people performing more complex tasks (where dominant response isn't entrenched) tend to be inhibited by an audience. And I think we could argue that optimizing one's run over 1-2wk race is "complex" (feeling full of beans after seeing your friend might not be ideal if it's time to sleep for the long-run performance). And without being an expert, I remember leaving the topic with an impression that everything has impact on how the audience affects performance (positive/negative) and there's no bottom to it. The field seems to be full of partial theories each of them explaining effect somewhat, but conclusions are hard to draw. Not unusual for a field like psychology.

But since you brought this up (probably good for completeness of the discussion... thank you), I do remember that competition effect on physical performance is much more clearly positive. The current discussion being whether there is evidence that people with non-competitive traits are inhibited in competitive environments. I couldn't find much to support it though (a few papers mentioning this too). The reason why I write this here is that if we restrict visitation with "emotional support"/social facilitation in mind, then we cannot consider grand depart self-supported. Listing self-supported FKT/ITT times alongside the grand depart times is wrong (provided you care about this level of self-support at all -- I suggest we shouldn't, but I seem to be alone).

Does this mean that you are gonna head over here to the states to line up for one of these jscliacan? I sincerely hope you are able to so you are able to meet and ride with some pretty amazing people. You are clearly a strong rider and it's always a treat to watch those such as yourself tackle these routes to see how slow I really am haha.

I'd probably try to do AZTR or CTR anyways. Now it might feel nicer as I can read the rules as well-intentioned (not that they were ever going to limit my ride - I'll never have visitors or media or mail stuff to myself, etc.)

I admittedly had to step out of it because I didn't feel like I was communicating well enough and I certainly don't have the extensive background or experience as other people who have been part of this discourse.

I think the communication you saw here was also not very optimal. But I'm trying hard and Scott sees the big picture so he can help (and he puts tons of time into this). Experience/background would be good to have, but I'm glad it's not required. I would have never clarified this for myself just by searching old forums and reading rules. No chance. I hope the record of the discussion will help others.

Let me post this also. It's an excerpt from the "evolution" of reasons behind the visitation rule.

Good.  On that MTBR thread it's pretty clear that emotional support and a bailout option were two of the main things we were thinking about.  That thread is eerily similar to recent discussions, with many of the same arguments being made.

Interesting thoughts on how to do a media thing, jsliacan, and I can't help but wonder if finding ways to skirt around it starts to breach upon the topic of trail/community impact. This is a topic we shouldn't ignore. The fact is, the AZT is getting much more popular. I think the primary explosion is on the thru-hiking side to be honest, but regardless of the source of additional traffic, it was a primary driver for moving the AZTR from the spring to the fall. In addition, there are rider caps in place in order to comply with forest service rules. In a grand depart scenario, the rider limit is 60 with the overall limit being 75 I believe (including shuttle drivers, other miscellaneous people being in the start location, etc) If media crews are there at the start, this potentially could cause issue with making the numbers work and actually make the number of riders allowed to participate in a GD be reduced.

What happens to the events if each rider has even 10 visitors roving all over the route?  The answer over here in the states is that the event is much more likely to get noticed, much more likely to get shut down.  Not allowing visitors, media or not, all over the route is not just about self-support but about preserving the event. 

You've missed my point so there was nothing weirdly unfair about it.  I'll try again: the number of spots available is fixed: 74 in a Grand Depart.  Visitation rule is *not* a tool to keep the number of people vying for those spots down.  It keeps the number of available spots at 74, instead of much less than that if we allow personal media crews.  If everyone shows up with a crew capable of a high quality documentary we're down to a race of maybe 15 people.

So, no, the visitation rule doesn't kick the can further down the road so that we can survive a little longer without lotteries and the like, it preserves the race for the racers, which I think is exactly what we should do.
This is a very compelling reason for it.

In short:

emotional support + bailout option   --->   footprint   --->   keeping 74 spots for the racers, not visitors.
(btw, notice that bailout option is there whether the media crew is personal or neutral; just a brief revisit of the closed topic - it was not always clear if the discussion was about personal or neutral media)

I guess all are reasons to some extent, not sure what the weights are (it seems to be leaning towards the latter ones as the discussion progresses). But if we could have a summary to refer to, it would help the discussion I think. What are the motivations to have the visitation rule included in its current form?

[Support]

Alright, so we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.  Much confusion will go away once you realize that nobody wanted to ban all media.  The arguments here on this thread have been about personal crews.  It's you that is conflating the two, and very erroneously -- much to the detriment of this discussion I will add.

The misunderstanding is acceptable, but I feel like it should not have taken this long.  I wish you would have taken people at their word and accepted it when hard evidence was presented to you.  I wish you would have given us (and especially John Schilling) the benefit of the doubt.  That would have saved us a lot of time.

I understood what you were saying and I believed your evidence. But it was at odds with what the rules said. And I did not believe any change was going to happen (you called the addition of "personal" a clarification, not a meaning-changer that it is). Therefore, I was going to hold the line pointing out that the rules are banning too much. In hindsight, of course I agree I should've given you & John the benefit of the doubt. I could have moved the discussion to updating the rule to reflect your evidence. It would be a better way to handle the stuck situation, but I didn't believe it was a viable option at the time. Lesson learned. Thanks.

Yep, I agreed that the rule could use the word personal to make it more clear.  I also think there should be something about the fact that neutral media may be encountered but that anyone who wants to 'cover' the race in this way should contact the race first.  (It's the only decent thing to do -- what journalist would cover a small, free event without asking the organizer first?  But it would help for clarity to say so).

Here, I'd only add that the TD19 situation is biting back: the journalist you're describing could easily be someone who tried the route of transparency and saw that going under the radar was way less problematic.

As for the rest, I think it's time for you to restate your position and what you want here, given the major misunderstanding about all media not being banned.  What is your ideal change to the rules, given that limited media (with guidelines much like you have suggested) is already a thing?  There's already room to make a compelling doc about any of these races -- just keep the infringement on the race small and approved by the race itself.  Maybe add in some self-filming and shots after-the fact.  Is that enough?  Or do we really need to strike the rule in order to achieve these goals?

This is what I'm getting at with "what compelling reason is there to strike the rule"?  What is the benefit here?  What is the goal?  Is there anything to be gained other than consistency, completeness and lack of pettiness in the ruleset?

Let me begin by saying that, given that the media rule isn't targeting neutral crews, I don't think there's any fundamental issue with the (updated) media rule. In that form, it also is only a little more than a clarification of the visitation rule (as you said about the old media rule). Therefore, there's only the visitation rule left -- this is a much more conceptually convoluted topic though. I quote it here for reference.

Visitation by spectators (friends, family) is OK if they are local to the route, the visit is near town/services and the visit is short. No pacers!

With my current understanding of the visitation rule (thanks for all the discussion), and going by the general idea of keeping rules to the minimum, I see the following as issues with the rule:

Support
People quote their experiences as reasons to limit/ban visitation. That's like saying "I would regret having an abortion, therefore it should be illegal (i.e. for everyone)", or "I find helmet makes me safer, they should be legally required.". Both of these are invalid conclusions. You get the idea. Also, I could list my experience from SRMR where I forgot to buy food at a checkpoint because I was distracted by the lens in my face all the time. Or how I had to go back out of the yurt 2nd time to air my sleeping bag because I forgot to do that as I arrived because I was conscious of the lens on me. Dust in the face, etc. are just petty details. My experience counts for nothing if there actually is an *objective* reason to believe riders get a boost. I'll vote for the restriction if that's the case. I don't see it though.

If we're talking about visitation as support, then we cannot apply this rule to the grand depart setting where you have many friends racing side by side, people checking others' trackers, being affected by others' strategies, etc.

If we are worried about support, I think I clarified why sponsor bonuses conditional on good performances are in-event (pre-arranged) support (like arranging your friend/family meeting you somewhere). Yet they aren't banned. Also, while a "lesser" rule of visitation is included, a "major" rule of medical doping isn't. Notice that mechanical doping does get its own rule (#4).

That said, I am sad that fastestknowntime.com introduced visitation as a "rule" too in 2021. Being in sync across areas is an added value in my opinion. Whether this is a good thing in this case, I don't know. What is the stance on this?

Footprint
This is a "relatively" new concern that phatmike brought up in this thread and you used it in your last few posts. I clump this together with allocating 74 spots to riders rather than sharing them with visitors. As far as I can see, it is the most objective and serious reason to restrict visitation. But... I don't see how this is an issue for ITTs/FKTs unless there are very many happening at once (or they're happening alongside a grand depart). Moreover, the rule talks about family and friends only, not general public (this is correct in my opinion, as public didn't sign up to abide by the race rules). However, at TCR the orgnizer had to plea with the public to give Fiona Kolbinger space in her final days as she was swarmed by dotwatchers (not family and friends). No rule can prevent this and it seems a more serious issue in the near future than overloading the course with family & friends. Maybe education and endless public discussions are the way to go, rather than the rules (notice that family & friends will be affected by this too).

Given that the visitation is only allowed near towns and services (do road crossings count?), why do visitors have to be local? Surely those 74 spots are not affected by how many people show up in town or at a service station. What am I missing?

Why do we care that the visit isn't long? The longer the visit the more time the racer wasted.

"No pacers!" is a major rule #6, it needs no inclusion in the "lesser" visitation rule I think.
-----------
What about the following? "Visitation by family and friends is OK near towns and services" (we're only talking to friends & family because we can affect their behavior through the racer; we can't do that with the public).
-----------
I still think that removing it would be OK as long as we educate the public, including a section addressed to them. A rough guidance of what to mind and how to approach it - including a suggestion/plea to spectate near towns and services. Maybe explaining that it'd be nice to preserve the racers' experiences, that it'd be polite not to swarm little service stations, that the event will only continue to exist if it doesn't become a bother to the environment where it's set. I think it would be more effective than the visitation rule (in terms of minimizing the event's footprint).

I talked to John Schilling and he said adding the word personal sounds like a great addition and confirmed he never went so far as to ban all media. 

This is great. I really didn't think any changes would be made. I'm very glad to have been wrong about this. Before it's done, I'd suggest to write "media crews that aren't neutral to the race", otherwise it might seen like the rule is talking about "personal" in the sense that family/friends are on the media crew. Which is already taken care of by the visitation rule. Maybe others can also point at holes in the wording?

The great thing about this (apart from knowing for sure that it wasn't a blanket media ban) is that anyone will know to approach the RD if they want to document the race. With the current wording of the media ban, only the entitled and those looking for loopholes (or those that know behind the scenes information) would come to the RD with a request like that. And that's probably not a good filter. I really appreciate transparency. So yes, I'm glad this is going to change - thanks heaps.

I'll aim to respond to your previous post asap - I agree that it'd be good to recap and re-evaluate positions, as many goalposts have moved and with that, many objections became irrelevant while new ones (or rather confusions) showed up. Thanks for patience!

[my]

My question here is how can a neutral media crew covering the entire race be construed as a support crew?  The term 'support crew' doesn't make any sense for neutral media so the rule cannot be talking about that.

That is my question from the beginning. And the answer which I received many times is that simply knowing that there are people around the course gives you peace of mind that violates the self-supported nature. Sounds extreme? My point exactly.

The rules are for the participants, they aren't spelling out what the RD may or may not do.  None of the other rules deal with what the RD may or may not do, why would this one?

Because this rule deals with visitors (friends of participants), not participants. It's very odd that a rule tries to govern people who didn't sign up for the race, but that's what it does... And an RD falls into that category if they show up on the course (they're friends with many racers and don't live along the entire route).

There's no speculation here.  He granted neutral media access to the race in 2021.  He was out there himself during the event and during ITTs.  He clearly did not intend to ban all media. I don't know how to make that more clear. 

Here's a way to make that clear: write personal media into the rules (but I don't think he's actually willing to do that).

Nothing we are talking about changing here will have any effect on the fact that people have a hard time getting their heads around self-supported racing.  Having said that for some people it's pretty natural.

The less extreme the rules (or the less we push self-supported concept into extreme), the less error there will be among the participants on the side of support. I think that's a pretty safe conclusion (you're moving a line left in a distribution, surely more of the distribution will be on the right side of the line if you shift the line to the left).

So we should just accept that they are doomed?  Excuse me but we have made it nearly 20 years and that's remarkable.  It's in part because we have chosen to not allow spectators, visitors and media all over the route.  Just because it will get worse doesn't mean we don't try to do something about it. That's exactly a reason to do something about it!

Each spectator/visitor technically takes away one spot from a racer in the current USFS rules of 74 person limit non-commercial events.  There's plenty of justification here for keeping the visitation rule in place just for this reason alone.  The fact that visitation is not self-supported is just a nice bonus because most people find that easy to see as consistent with other rules and the spirit.

Given all your responses until now, this one is weirdly unfair by taking what I said out of context and just pretending I haven't said some things. What I said was basically this: the participation numbers will go over the limit in the future no matter how hardcore your visitation rule is. In other words, your tools don't scale well with the problem and you'll have to look for more scalable solutions anyways. Why not implement a scalable solution already and relax visitation since it's primary purpose (as you write) will disappear in the future. I gave an example of an event that faced the same problem and solved it with lottery.

This is a valid argument -- spectators in remote places does make the event 'safer' in some sense.  However I think we have all agreed that we are not looking for that kind of safety blanket here.  If we're going to argue along these lines we may as well put EMTs and aid stations all over as well.  This is not what we are looking for -- I think we can all agree on that.

This was a minor objection I made. The main one was against the preemptive use of rules.

What I was asking is if there's a compelling argument for striking the visitation rule within the existing event.  So far we've covered rule discussion, consistency, pettiness and completeness.  We've also covered that limited forms of media are allowed.  What I haven't heard is a compelling argument for why it should be stricken.

I think this is the wrong way around. We haven't heard a compelling argument for having the visitation rule in. And the onus is obviously on those who want the rule in to prove its necessity - otherwise let's include all the rules we can think of.

• discussion - we've seen some discussions about the visitation topic (and media from the point of view of visitation); we haven't seen a discussion where it was concluded or even made obvious that it was a good idea to add a new rule
• consistency - somewhat settled on the understanding that the rules are incomplete as a consequence
• completeness - there wasn't much said about this when I scroll back; and if one includes a few lesser rules, then he/she also needs to include other major and lesser rules. I rephrased sponsor bonuses in a way that makes it clear they "occur during the event".
• pettiness - I think this topic changed when, in your recent post you mentioned that keeping numbers down was the important reason to have the visitation rule. I don't even know why we were discussing self-supportedness until now...
• limited forms of media allowed - I don't know how to stress enough that this is so hidden from everyone that not one person in this thread had suggested that media is possible under some circumstances. All of them defended media ban (as a blanket ban) that they thought was in the rules. The way the media rule is written, is very unfortunate (assuming your theory is true). And there doesn't seem to be a public discussion which led to adding the rule as it is. And there definitely wasn't any discussion about wording. 
  

There are many points which were just left unchallenged. For instance, race setting is by its nature not self-supported. So it makes little sense to include some of those little self-support rules for races. Maybe for ITTs.

I took a lot of care to provide reasoning for most of my statements, many of which were left untouched. That's fine, but then concluding that topics were "covered" is a bit of a stretch. If the visitation rule wasn't there and our discussion above was about adding it, I don't see a single compelling reason for doing so. Given that the goal is to have as few rules as possible, the default should be no visitation rule and one should only be added if it's the best answer to a compelling issue. I'm surprised how I'm now being asked to show that there's a compelling reason to remove a rule (even though I provided a good few). That's a low standard for including rules -- many candidates out there meet this criterion: "if there isn't going to be a compelling reason to remove it, let's put it in". Maybe that's what I was missing this whole time, I was arguing to a different standard than I was expected to. Please tell me if that's the case, I'm afraid I can't meet that standard (nobody can).