I think it's safe to say that for almost everyone who has done a US-style bikepacking race the reading of the rules is obvious (not banning all media, talking about a support crew, etc).  But we must allow for those with a different background and those that have possibly been misled, too.

Holt, I agree it is quite puzzling.  Lael invited me over to dinner a week or two before her ITT.  Her concern at the time was not getting an official record because she might need to skip singletrack on the North Rim due to snow.  I encouraged her to ride anyway and not worry about records or any possible asterisks.  She seemed keen to ride and I always try to encourage people to ride anyway.  Whether Rue was going to follow along was not mentioned, kind of the elephant in the room.  Since I'm not the RD I didn't feel it was my job to bring it up.

An index to major (and epic!) rules discussions is a decent idea, for those with too much time on their hands!

In other news, from TD 2022, in all CAPS!

IMPORTANT: SINCE 2019 EDITION OF TD, MUCH HAS BEEN DEBATED OVER THE ROLE OF MEDIA (ON COURSE) IN SELF-SUPPORTED DIVIDE RACING. WHILE TD IS NOT YET READY TO BAN ALL MEDIA, ENTIRELY, FOR GRAND DEPARTS, PERSONAL MEDIA TEAMS FOCUSING ON AN INDIVIDUAL RIDER WITH INTENT TO FOLLOW THEM ON COURSE CAN INJECT UNDUE MORAL HAZARD INTO THE EQUATION. IT HAS THE NET EFFECT OF SECURITY BLANKET FOR A RIDER ON THE EDGE, AND THUS POSES ARTIFICIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL UPLIFT.  THEREFORE, IT WILL BE DEEMED AS A FORM OF SUPPORT GOING FORWARD. TRUE ALONENESS IS PRIMARY TO THE TD CHALLENGE AND A PERSONAL MEDIA TEAM CONFLICTS WITH THIS TENET.

Edit: these are not my words.  I wouldn't write in all caps.  They were attributed to me on the TD FB group where some discussion has ensued, mostly in support.

Yeah, I agree that it's unclear whether it's worth it. But from my point of view it depends on the other rules in the ruleset - if self-support visitation rule is worth it, this is too (someone loses navigation and is given a new one by another rider... it is probably significant for their race). That said, I'm finding it hard to understand the importance of the distinction between "fairness" rules and "self-support" rules. So that might have an impact on my opinion here.

I don't know that you can weight one has being more important than the other, they're just ideals to strive towards.

I'm considering the implications of relaxing the rule about helping other racers.  The good Samaritan in me wants to never discourage anyone from helping, period.

But there's a "preservation of the event" or "preservation of the bikepacking community" argument in all of these self-support rules, I suppose.  And it's this: the more self-reliant the field is, the better.  The less people get in trouble and have to rely on others the better the event looks.  Getting help from other racers doesn't make "us" look worse, but it might result in a less prepared field?  Racers begging trail magic does make us look worse and maybe results in a less prepared field, too.  This argument also applies to visitation and only adds to the general preservation one (impact, footprint, 74 limit, etc).

Taking this further of course that means ITTs (without media crews!) are generally going to be the most prepared.  But then we've agreed we want to do a group start / race.

Hi Scott, Will there be an option to sign up for the "touring" category layer of the trackleaders page for TD22?

No, but there's a place for that.  We have a general TD tracker for folks touring.  It gets a good deal of use each season.

Details here:  https://trackleaders.com/trailtracking

Yeah thanks Scott for that! Excited to get riding in those Navajo hoodoos and Cerro drainages , arroyos

One of the best sections of the whole route!

@ScottM, any timeline when trackleaders will be up for registration/viewing?

I'll keep pestering Matthew on it!

The other thing that raised an eyebrow was the intro of the trip report where it sounded at first like Lael took a 90min nap at Manzanita rest area in the Grand Canyon.  Later in the trip report where she gets to the Grand Canyon she says she stopped there to meditate.  Don't know about any of you but by that point in the ride if I sat down and closed my eyes I was out cold pretty much instantly, so I find the meditation claim a bit dubious.   

There's some scrutinizing going on in this thread, but I guess it's fair given that she produced a video and that so many eyes are on it.

Of all the things (cache reliance, sleeping in PO) what you write here is perhaps the most troubling.  The rules remind riders that you need a permit to camp in the canyon.  Why is this rule so serious?  Because the privilege of crossing the canyon with bikes is very fragile indeed.  What is at stake isn't just the race but also tourists ability to cross the canyon in this very special way.  If the park bans bikes it's not just going to shut the race down but also all thru-riders.

Is napping camping?  Meditating?  How long before it becomes camping?  I don't know, but it's best not to tempt the park into making these kind of judgements.  Best to not go there at all or bring any attention to it.

There are a whole lot of things they could have clarified to Lael's fan base that would have quelled the outrage, but they chose not to. 

Yes this was the most disappointing part of the whole fiasco, to me.

The most amusing part is not pointing out to the fanbase that they are fawning over a FKT set in an event that is only a year old that only has 15 documented finishers so far.  That's not to say it wasn't an impressive ride - it definitely was.  But if you compare it to past ATZR750 results you can tell this FKT isn't going to stand for very long, asterisk or not.

Yep, I have to agree here. 

Well stated, it's unfortunate that this would have to be made a rule but here we are.

This example brings up how nuanced the rules can be.  I don't think making a rule about this is wise, for the same reason I had to make taking motorized transport to medical facilities allowed. 

Here's what happened (I'm sure Tim knows this story).  A rider crashed hard and knocked himself out.  He woke up and continued on to the next tiny town, crawling and barely able to ride even flat ground.  Figured he'd sleep it off and get a cabin.  I start getting phone calls and messages from his friends/SO saying he thinks he needs to go to the hospital but is concerned he is breaking the race rules.

I was incredulous.  All I could think was "why are we having this conversation at all?  If he thinks he should go to the hospital, he should go to the hospital!"  Who cares about the silly rules and the silly race? 

Well, he did.

I had to get him on the phone and beg him to go to the hospital, promise he would not be relegated in any way if he was able to continue on.

As it turned out he had a major rupture of his spleen and was bleeding internally.  If he'd slept it off he may not have survived.

---

So for the same reason you can't ban sleeping in public places or structures.  Someone might take the race too seriously and make a poor decision in inclement weather or whatever.

But it can be discouraged and explaining the reasoning as Jakub is saying is the best way.  I'm definitely not too pleased when I hear people indicate they are planning to sleep in public places like out houses.

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.

Glad you agree and we understand each other here on you objection primarily being to the communication and justification.

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...).

Snowflake? Anyone who can finish TTW is not fragile! 

By the way I believe that section of the AZTR rules that sounds more friendly to you (and indeed was quoted in the Outside article) was left out of John's site by mistake.  The header for it is there but the text somehow didn't make it.  I believe he intends to restore it.

I do think it's a fair point that the first part of the rules now comes off as a little abrasive and serious with the bolds and small percentages.  Thanks for that feedback.

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.

It's a reasonable assumption: why else would anyone else care so much?  A Diogenes type person is very rare.

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.

That's a good point about affecting everyone's race and not having a mandate (as it respects to MikeC's original rules which allowed helping other racers).  Many of the same counter arguments you've given for visitation apply here: its affect is small, it's questionable self-support and bad vibes result from enforcement... so is it worth it?  That's something I'm trying to explore, trying to give your general arguments some credence.

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?

Yes I see your point but you're taking it too literally.  I was speaking generally.  Of course I will permit that some individuals will show up anyway and I never meant that showing up implies tacit endorsement of all rules.  Generally speaking if the majority of people did not agree with the rules the race would see decreasing numbers or another race would pop up in its stead.

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.

This could be helpful.  I still think there's weight to solo/self-support/bailout as I've said but changing the language on the web sites and in cases of enforcement is a really good point.

A fairly balanced reporting of the whole fiasco

Yep, I was happy to see it was pretty balanced and not designed to stir the pot.  I particularly liked that it ended with the quote from John about there being no villains here.

Making money off of bikepacking is one thing, but I might think some of the volunteers who built the trail might take issue with the idea of a for profit high speed run, and the trail angels who place water don't put it out there for people who have a friend meeting them at the same spot with a car.  

This is an interesting point that here they were with an equipped sprinter van, yet she had to take so much water from the caches which are stocked by volunteers at their own cost.  That seems like bad form but also a weird consequence of following the self-support rules while also violating self-support rules (hmm it's almost like there's a reason for the visitation rule here...!).  Restocking a cache or two would be the thing to do, should future media crew people find themselves at a cache (whether doing "AZTR" or not), since they are there.

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?

Fair points to bring up and when you have that many eyes on you, your example matters.

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.

You could be right.  It's interesting because would she think that John was bending the rules so far, in her favor, by letting several media visits be OK?  But you are correct that people have been led to think the rules are being applied unfairly to her -- and yet he was willing to let them be applied unfairly in her favor, too.  How confusing...?  (This is all assuming there was a media ban, which there never was, as we know).

Nevertheless, it's not worth speculating about because as you say, we can do something about it in the future.  We agreed that this needs to be clarified and like I said before I think there should be a statement about how films and media are allowed and here are the guidelines for how to do it (limited # of visits, few or no remote filming, whatever).  That will make it crystal clear that media itself is not banned.

Just went to v2 on the 2022 TD GPX:

adds two sections of gravel/dirt to the Gila Mountains fire rereoute through Glenwood, NM.

That's a correction that was made last year to match up with ACA's routing (I think) but definitely confirmed by locals as the best route through there.  I think that part of the rail trail is awful and open to ATVs if memory serves so it was taken out by ACA some time ago.

taprider - you are thinking of Mike's previous run.  The 2016 was on a full course.

Paul - yes good point about the highway on both sides of Silver City.  I've ridden both sides and they are OK but not the greatest.  We debated about skipping Silver completely (on the CDT, bwahaha!) but in the end the lack of 24 hour services in Glenwood or anywhere else trumped that idea.

I changed the wording to hopefully be more clear, thanks.

It's a touch confusing, I know.

Re-route for logging was introduced in 2019.  It was the route for 2019 and 2021.  But it's been removed for 2022, so we are back on the GDMBR as shown in the GPX.

Thanks Andy.  There's going to be snow, for sure.  V1 file is posted:

http://topofusion.com/divide/gps.php

Let me know if anyone notices anything amiss with it.

Changes:
1. Reroute for fire closure in Gila Mountains (FS150)
2. Reroute through Chama, NM skipping closed Carson and Santa Fe forests
3. New off-highway route north of Hartsel, CO
4. Partial inclusion of GDMBR dirt route from Cuba to Grants
5. Swan Valley logging detour reverted back to original GDMBR.

2022: Swan Valley (just south of Whitefish, MT) logging operations begin June 16th but only 1 mile is affected and remains open to the public. ACA still recommends the detour after June 16. TD will use the original GDMBR here, not the reroute, as shown in GPX file.

Sorry it is taking so long.  Here's what we have so far.  I wouldn't load this on a GPS yet though.

We are waiting for one more thing -- trying to get the route back on the original GDMBR in the Swan Valley.  It's been a reroute for heavy logging traffic that may not be relevant, finally.  So that's the only change pending.

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).

Maybe it's just an oversimplification, but in minimum it muddies the discussion.

You have it right. 

IIRC I didn't inherit anything about this from John's original GDR ITT framework.  And it took a few years for there to be enough people from outside of our little bubble of racers for it to 'come up' that people were misunderstanding the intent of the rules.

Thanks to you, Scott, for keeping both wrench and rag handy to clean up current spills and attempt to staunch the flow of future iterations.

Thanks for confirming, Mike.  I remember this one well because I got called out for sharing my inhaler with hairball_dh back in, what was that, 2009 CTR?

As for the wrenching I'm hardly doing much.  Jefe and John are doing the heavy twisting and are the ones getting drenched in shit these days.

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?

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 just do see your point that talking about preserving the event being easier, more effective and less contentious.

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.

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".

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.

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 ).

Thank you for this.

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).

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.
 

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.

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.  
 

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).

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

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

Yep, some of this is unavoidable no matter how hard we try.

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...

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.