We can ask John if you want but I am certain he did not intend that rule to mean no neutral media.  In fact, he granted it in the 2021 event.  Jefe also granted permission for limited neutral media in 2021 CTR.  The precedent is all over, as many have pointed out: the films exist and many were given RD blessing.
I can see now that if people are led to believe (not by actually reading the rules, but by narratives and articles) that absolutely no media is allowed, then an RD is being inconsistent in going out to cover the event in any shape.  Thanks for illuminating that point for me.  Fortunately that's not at all what the rules say or have ever said.  
This also shows why one might point to other films and claim unfair treatment. Easy to do if you don't understand the differences and the nuances, and if you don't read/comprehend the rules.
To be honest I think it is the personal media crew proponents grasping at straws here.

I am 100% sure that the rule does not say anything about media crew being personal. If riders are supposed to read the rules carefully, it's only fair to assume they'd be written carefully. And if one means personal media crew, it's easy to write "personal media crews" into the rules. Instead, the rule reads:

2. No support crews, this includes pre-arranged camera/media crews. The AZTR views this as support.

Surely you can't blame the readers for misunderstanding. It's rules saying A and meaning B (assuming you're right). Even if everyone who wants to take part did have time to dig and read as much as I had to, you're saying I still read it wrong (and I read it n times). Talk about barriers to entry. If nuances are important, then rules cannot be this imprecise/misleading. And exactly because an RD is human and can unintentionally misspecify things, I would assume that there would be explicit community discussions around wordings (and other things like conceptual background for the rules). The only way to iteratively converge to the neighbourhood of something acceptable is to keep all decisions transparent and open for contributions. Yet here we are speculating about what a 3rd person thought when they wrote the rules...

I disagree.  The RD is a referee and fully within their rights to be anywhere on course for any purpose.  They rarely are, but it's their race.

If you prevent others from disturbing the self-supported nature of the event (think visitation rule), then you cannot disturb it yourself as an RD. I would agree with what you say if we were talking about level playing field. But not in the case of self-supported nature when visitation rule is in place.

It was the decent thing to do (tell TD about it) but the crucial point here is that because it was hidden from TD there was no way that Lael vs Josh could be treated differently (i.e. unfairly).  I have see that claim, that unfair "demands" were places on Lael but not Josh, be mentioned in many places now and it's simply not true.
TD does not publish results and this is a bone that I and many others have to pick.

Good to know there's some picking going on sometimes.

I do not blame you for being worried when looking at Lael vs Josh and not being able to find any indication that Josh was relegated -- or any explanation about the situation.  My understanding is that he was confronted and relegated.  That doesn't mean he can't claim to be the 6th place relegated finisher.

He doesn't claim to be the 6th place relegated finisher.

6th Tour Divide 2019

That's absolutely a boost to motivation but well outside the scope of the event.  Again, a bonus doesn't change the self-supported nature of *the event* -- that is, support that *occurs* during the event.  None of the rules deal with what happens before the event starts, so this is not a valid comparison if you're arguing for consistency or completeness.  

I was careful about that and I think it does occur during the event. There's a person/institution that set up a way to provide you with extra motivation throughout the event. It is a prearranged emotional support.

Haha, true.  Big difference in scale and intent, though.  When I think of dopers I think of calculated intentional cheating.  I do not think that way about anyone struggling with the visitation concept or being relegated for other self-support concepts.  It takes folks some time, maybe even a couple races, to get their heads around it sometimes.  That's why I've argued for clemency and for allowing small 'violations' of them.

I did sense that you're less radical - much appreciated. However, not all folks have "a couple of races" to get their heads around the rules. Going by what I've seen on this forum, very few wrapped their heads around the rules correctly and most of them must have done a few of these events already (judging by what they wrote). People from outside the US cannot do 2-3 events in the US to get used to the scene, before they make their worthy attempts. I only wanted to do 2 trips, one race = one attempt each. This "experience gaining" racing is an artificial barrier.

I would hope riders would self-relegate if trail magic saved their race in some major way.  The rules talk about only allowing small uses of these things, small enough that I think they fall under emotional support, not tangible support.

I think riders don't know what to think. Riding tubeless only provides peace of mind (that you still have 2 tubes left), and is lighter than a tube with sealant in it. Which was the go-to option if trail magic CO2 cartridge didn't happen. I don't know. It's tangible, but I'd think it falls under trail magic -- as far as the rules are explained. I would not take gummy bears or CO2 from anyone during the race. But that doesn't mean the rules should be that strict.

I think we've well covered the consistency and completeness argument.  Let's move on to discussing rationale behind visitor bans.

Consistency maybe. Completeness probably not. There are major rules missing from the set while lesser transgressions are relegating people in the meantime. I can't see that set of rules as complete (if I choose to see it as consistent like we agreed).

So you would like to see no visitation rule such that it's fully legal for a rider to have a crew of 500,000 friends/family/media all over the route?  Is there no line to be drawn?

It's a false dichotomy that you're trying to sell here. It's not either a hard ban on (personal) media or fox news all over the route. Journalists already have various standards for documenting various settings. Adopting some of those, designating accessible and off-limit places on route, regulating numbers, etc. is all strictly better than status quo. And of course, followed by education. Explaining concepts at the bottom of the old AZTR page was great. Going on podcasts and talking about this is also great. Writing blog posts about these topics is further great. Bikepacking.com and other platforms (even Radavist I think) would be happy to publish various ponderings on these issues. There are heaps of ways to make people used to thinking the right way. Talking to other race organizers and cross-analyzing each other's rules would help too. And keeping all discussions open is important as well, so people can access context to the rules if they wish.  

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 know that this won't happen "every rider has 10 visitors all over the route". The only real point that I see is what you write next. But I think these events will hit that problem soon anyways. More people ride trails, the events have been around for a while so even word of mouth gets far enough, etc. And there will have to be vetting for the spots on the startline. Blueprints are in place, e.g. Hardrock100 (for a low footprint event). So the next can of worms, of course, is whether everyone should be allowed to start at these events (huge CO2e footprint to get to the startline and spots being precious due to the event keeping a low profile). I think a lottery is a fairer mechanism than keeping the event unknown (in case of blanket media ban). And public is not regulated by the visitation rule (and can't be), so I think that problem will outgrow the little "each racer has a spouse/friend in a few places on the route)" we're concerned with now. Fiona Kolbinger had quite a bit of company from strangers towards the end of her TCR ride. 

There's also a component of 'keeping honest people honest' here.  It can be difficult for people to resist the temptation to help someone when they need help.  Helping others is a key tenet of life and I'm not a fan of anything that forces people to fight this urge: especially not for the silly rules in some silly race (yes these races are in some sense silly and the rules even sillier).  Not having visitors out on course, or only having them where services are nearby, greatly reduces this temptation and I think is overall better for everyone.

This is interesting. So in case there is a serious accident on course, you'd prefer to not have anyone spectating there (to make sure that they weren't tempted to help the other riders) over them being there when it matters? You could argue people take more risks if there's a backup. But that's like saying helmets make people take more risks. Apart from this, I see what you're saying. Your point is a preemptive one though. I don't think it's the job of the rules to assume people can't behave - someone (maybe you?) said that rules are there to put us all on the same page, not to preemptively remove temptations. I think that's a way in which the rules are overstepping.

I'm not sure there's a ban on all media crews in the current AZT rules.  The rule falls under 'support crews' which to me strongly implies it's only talking about personal crews.  I don't take it to mean that neutral reporters or personal media that adhere to the visitation rule are banned.

That would be nice, but given that 'personal support crews' is not much harder to spell out than 'support crews', I don't see why it wouldn't be written explicitly if the intention was to ban personal support crews. Ideally, John Schilling would be around to clarify (and maybe rephrase it on the rules page too - either way he meant it). If it wasn't a blanket ban though, it would be a substantial improvement over what I, and probably many others, understand the rules are now.

I would note that RD's are well within their rights to make exceptions to their own rules. It could maybe explicitly say that, but if an RD approves a neutral (or personal) reporter and trusts them, that's ok and that is what has happened in the past on TD, CTR, AZT.  This reminds me that I've seen several arguments try to prove inconsistency or unfairness by stating that the RD went out and acted as 'media' during *his own race.*  This is absurd.  The RD is an official and cannot cause a participant to be relegated or disqualified by their own actions.  You can maaaaybe argue that it sets a poor example, but is it inconsistent or hypocritical?  Hardly.

I am not sure about this. If we're talking about a ban on personal media, then I agree -- RD can go and document the race (although we're still facing the fact that they know some racers better than others; friends vs strangers). If we're talking about a blanket media ban, then I'm less convinced that it's okay. I haven't thought about this too much so maybe I'm missing something.

Re: "The RD is an official and cannot cause a participant to be relegated or disqualified by their own actions." and exactly because a disqualification is not really possible if the RD behaves incorrectly, they should make a lot of effort to rarely be in a position where that can happen. Plus, if RD pops up at various places on the route meeting racers (or even if not), then people know that if the worst happens, there is someone to pick their pieces and take them to the hospital etc. I was told that this is one of the reasons why visitation isn't allowed -- mere knowledge that someone is lurking in the vicinity is a peace of mind that solo person wouldn't have. So while it isn't unfair across the start list, it is not self-supported. Just to be clear though, I think this is too much and borderline fanatic, but this is an important part of why visitation isn't allowed.

As an aside, this is exactly what Josh Ibbett did not do in 2019.  He chose to hide his personal film crew from Tour Divide, even though it was more limited in scope than Lael's.  Therefore there was no opportunity to discuss the extent of his crew and evaluate it or make suggestions on their modus operandi.  As a further aside, he is 100% a relegated finisher in the eyes of TD.  Dotwatcher.cc simply scrapes leaderboard times from Trackleaders but that doesn't mean everyone listed is considered a full finisher.

The fact that Josh's crew didn't announce their intentions ahead of the start makes it even worse, agreed. But I think it wasn't clear to him that it would violate self-support. And I think it wasn't clear to Lael's crew either, except they had journalistic experience to consult first. We would have to ask both crews to know for sure, but I think it's nice to assume that. Then this speaks volumes to the fact that emotional support is not an obvious form of support. Also, I know that TD isn't AZTR, but when someone breaks the rules of AZTR, the RD makes a public post making sure everyone knows it didn't count. When someone does it at TD, public doesn't know that the run was "relegated" (they might know it should be, but not that it was). In fact, any information I could find online (FB TD group, Josh's website https://www.joshibbett.com/general-1, dotwatcher.cc) mentions Josh as 6th overall (somebody at least tell Josh please?). I think this case illustrates pretty well that the visitation rule is unintuitive (people don't even know they are breaking it) and not being applied "consistently". Again, I know these are separate events. But they don't have such separate rules, and they are ideologically very close. I also see how it must be unpleasant for most RDs to have to deal with this. But that's exactly my point: let's make it easy for ourselves and let's keep only the most natural self-support rules. And if not, then that comes with the responsibility of speaking up when subtle and non-obvious rules are broken. BTW, if we drop the visitation rule and one wants to ride very pure, by all means they should and they should also give themselves an asterisk about it explaining how it was purer than default. Inverting the situation like this would prevent a lot of the noise and purity would still be acknowledged.  

OK, gotcha.  Back to your argument of doping and sponsor bonuses and the like.  Both of those aren't fair in the strictest sense, yes.  The thing with these examples is that they do not affect the self-supported nature of the event itself.  Once the event starts it's just you, your bike and the route.  These other, lesser, petty things do affect the self-supported nature and experience of the event and of other participants.  I think that's a key difference.

Thanks, I now see  "level playing field" and "self-supported nature" as two distinct reasons for having various rules. I was ignoring that distinction a bit until now. Apologies.

Keeping it in mind, I still don't see why sponsor bonuses conditioned on winning an event (not a bonus for participation, but a bonus for doing well) aren't on par with emotional support. It's like prize money, except not for everyone. Surely your motivation during the event is different if the stakes are higher (and by "surely", I mean at least as sure as the fact that seeing your spouse will give you a boost). Similarly, doping also violates the self-supported nature of the event (even painkillers do - you remove one of the problems that you'd otherwise have to solve). To put it in perspective, mechanical doping is the subject of one of the big rules, but medical doping does not even violate the self-supported nature of the event? I must be misunderstanding what you're saying, because this doesn't seem right.

If there's an example of a far less petty thing that is relevant to the self-supported event itself (not what happens before the event starts), I'd like to hear it.

Same petty as visitation rule (not more), but happens at scale: Race setting. A grand depart/group start situation isn't self-supported in many ways: following lines, reacting to strategies, knowing who's in front by tire marks, being less lonely, knowing that in case of emergency next person isn't too far behind, etc. Even visitation rule is at odds with grand depart (2 friends taking part). The implication being that race times aren't eligible for self-supported classification. I have to say again that I think this is well within a reasonable definition of self-support (like visitation is) and is different from "real" support. But the reasoning behind the visitation rule implies this conclusion about grand departs.

Doping, I think, hasn't been dealt with for a number of reasons.  One is that it's just a huge can of worms that honestly I think we liked to fool ourselves that our little sport was "above" or that it wouldn't affect us.  I know that is naive and I don't think any of us actually rationally believed that.  But there's an element of accepting that we're taking ourselves too seriously as soon as you deal with doping.  It's unenforceable too, as many have said here on this thread.

Having said that, I don't see a reason it couldn't be included.  Because it's unenforceable it has little burden or exposure to the race director, so there isn't much of a downside.  I personally don't want it on there right now, but my mind could be changed.

Well, visitation rule proves that no one around here is afraid of cans of worms . On a serious note though, "no caches" is unenforceable, visitation is also unenforceable (in some cases enforceable but still not enforced as we discussed above), etc. So I'm not sure I see the reason for not including it when the other lesser unenforceable rules made it. As usual, I am hoping it won't be included, and therefore other little rules can also be omitted.

To me they are all talking about small forms of support that should be tolerated in small doses but not be allowed to get out of hand.  That puts them all in the same class and very consistent.

They are consistent along that axis, I agree. But they wouldn't form a set in this game: https://www.setgame.com/set/puzzle -- I think you'd know it and hence know why I brought it up here. If not, then just disregard.

Do you think that the emotional support of a personal media crew gives no more advantage than a fellow racer sharing a gummy bear?  Or getting a candy bar from a stranger?  Can you quantify how much faster a rider would be with an extra gummy bear in their stomach vs the promise of seeing a loved one at road crossings?  I don't think it's hard to see that the real boost from trail magic or racer sharing is emotional -- not the actual calories.

We know that trail magic isn't only about gummy bears. Being offered a CO2 cartridge by a clueless trail rider (doesn't know about the race) when I just lost my tubeless would save my tubeless setup. Huge advantage on thorny trails. Compare this with "emotional support" of seeing your partner/friend. I think trail magic can be considerably more impactful.

Apologies for the delay, it was busy at home. Feel free to cherry-pick parts and respond separately to the ones you want. I should've done it too. Thanks!

[all]

Before I respond to the specifics, I am beginning to think that I mostly agree with or understand most of what you write (yes, 2 quantifiers). This takes into account the fact that you can, in principle, imagine media documentation of the race (i.e. REI document by indep crew).

Agreed.  Based on my limited view of the US (and NZ) based community, these rules re: visitation and media crew do correlate with the views of the community.  I am actually somewhat surprised at the consensus on this: almost no one I have communicated with wants personal media crews closely following a rider, especially with close relations.  Almost no one thinks it is fair vs previous efforts on the routes.  There are reasons that many of these (recent) discussions have not been public, sadly, because I am big fan of transparency.

At this point I think we need to be careful to distinguish between independent media crews (which are forbidden by the media rule on the new AZTR website) and personal media crews (which fall under excessive visitation rule). I don't think you're defending the ban of all media crews which is featured in the current rules. So basically we're left with discussing the visitation issue.

Don't confuse those shouting the loudest with strong voices.  What I read in that thread is that a core group of us (6-8) were largely on the same page and did not want things like personal media crews all over the routes.  Whether or not we thought it needed to be spelled out explicitly in the rules is a different issue.  You asked for justification and proof we'd discussed it (ad nauseum as the thread is rightly called).

That's fair. Plus there weren't that many people in total contributing to that discussion - so that sample is too small to be representative of a community. I agree that thread establishes that the visitation+media were discussed. It did leave the topic even more open than it was at the beginning though.

As John Stamstad said on this thread the natural tendency with these rules is that as people keep pushing against them and problems arise we start to feel the need to explicitly put things in the rules that were just simply understood before.  I think that's what has happened here.  Even in 2007 the core of us agreed that personal media crews were not solo, not self-supported.  We made it to 2019 before any RD felt the need to explicitly say so.  That's pretty good.

I don't have a problem with evolving rules. Not even with additional rules if they improve the sport. And "no personal media crews" is very strongly correlated with visitation, so I see how that was "settled" long ago. But today's AZTR website bans all pre-arranged media crews. Personal or not. That's very different.

I don't agree that this issue is petty, i.e. inconsequential.

OK, so I think this is the crux. Thanks.

From my AZTR rules (below), these are almost equally inconsequential (not dealing with major forms of cheating like motorized travel and cutting the course) are they not?

6. Unplanned support from other AZT racers is OK
7. Trail magic (from strangers) OK - but please, no begging
8. Mailing stuff ahead to Post Offices is OK
9. Using public AZT water caches is OK (sparingly! do not rely on them!). 
No personal or race specific caches, please
10. Visitation by spectators (friends, family) is OK if they are local the route, the
visit is near town/services and the visit is short.  No pacers!

I'll agree they are all lesser things, call them petty if you want.  But those seem consistent with each other to me.  I don't see how visitation seems so out of place in that list. 

I just noticed that my statement should've read (sorry...):

1. Rules should also deal with all other issues of the same and lesser pettiness, which they don't.

I wouldn't call them consistent. 6, 8, and 9 specify relaxations of big rules (so they aren't additional restrictions and therefore don't count for this purpose). If 7 is understood as "No begging for trail magic", then it is a restriction and we have 7 and 10. However, only visitation is a "just in case" ban: "if emotional support is net beneficial, then in that case 10 comes in". 7 is referring to tangible benefits. That said, I think greater inconsistency is caused by omitted rules which are (I hope) self-evidently more impactful than 7 and 10. I gave examples of a few, including win bonuses from sponsors (effectively prizes for only select riders), doping, painkillers, etc. All these not only corrode the style, they also have enough potential to alter race results. Yet no mention of any of these. Of course, I see that the list of rules which are omitted is non-exhaustive. But that's exactly my point, we need to draw the line higher up so we have a smaller chance of including/not including rules in an unsystematic way.

In the light of the above, it seems that the visitation issue boils down to 2 things:

• Is visitation inconsequential? (to purity or to race results?)
• Are the rules going to be relatively consistent and complete if we keep visitation?

BTW, thanks for explicitly stating what you agree with and expanding on the rest. Really helps!

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.

This is an interesting practical point (the numbers restrictions). I assume it would depend on what the media crew is and how they conduct themselves. They could be asked to follow some NatGeo wildlife principles etc. that probably lead to very little footprint. I am also not suggesting that everyone has their own media crew, maybe 1 independent crew agreed on with the RD beforehand etc. would be acceptable.

Edit to add that the Kendrick fire burned very near if not on the AZT and was caused by a drone:
https://wildfiretoday.com/tag/drone-causes-fire/#:~:text=The%20drone%20that%20landed%2C%20caught,brush%2C%20or%20grass%20to%20burn.

That story seems more like an assault and a case against off-lead dogs. I do acknowledge problems with drones though, I only mentioned them as an option to explore, not as a solution to everything. And if they're used, they probably shouldn't be home-made... Besides, isn't it already forbidden to fly them in many national parks & other areas in the US?

[considered]

Who pays for aid stations?  Bikepack races in North America typically don't have entry fees.

I do feel treated like an idiot sometimes... Wouldn't you assume that I know that bikepack races in NA have no entry fees? When I said "races should be supported" I was using John Stamstad's language meaning that "races should be considered supported". Maybe I should not use these shortcuts even if the context made this clear imo. Sorry. Either way, I am not suggesting introducing aid stations or pacers. I hope that's clear now.

http://topofusion.com/azt/race-rules.php

These rules (thanks for the link btw) have a very friendly self-support explainer attached. It's sad to see that very part hasn't made the cut onto the new site. I particularly liked the "don't have any friends" joke.

I don't think it's particularly relevant when or how rule changes were made.

I think it matters whether rules appeared after due process of discussion or they were just passed top-down by the RD based on their unchallenged personal opinions. Rules cannot be as "live" as prices on stock exchange, so some barrier to change should exist - discussion imo. But RD will naturally have more authority & probably make the final call. It would be good though if that at least correlated with sentiments found in the community.

https://www.mtbr.com/threads/solo-self-supported-race-rules-rehashed-ad-nauseam.323295/#post-3351707

It took me a while to read that thread (and the CTR thread it had started on). I can't help but wonder though - the thread does show that a discussion about reporting on the race (and visitation, the discussion conflates the two) happened. But it also shows that there were strong voices against regulating it any further. In fact, some people acknowledged that it could be a problem, others dismissed it as petty (I remember this because I used this word in this thread). But I don't think I read more than 1-2 opinions to the effect that yes, this needs further rules or rule clarifications.

So I think we're looking at an even bigger mystery. How did we get from such a discussion to the current AZTR rules? The current rules made the point to omit the friendliest part of old guidelines (while keeping the rest). They introduce a "clarification" about media without any real mandate for this. The rules also introduce complicated and quite arbitrary way for assessing route compliance (if you miss 0-1% of the route then X happens, if you miss between 1-5% Y happens, etc.). Wouldn't any two gpx files over 800mi differ by 1% simply because they're different interpolations of the route. Add to this that the rules page is written in a shouty tone (caps lock, bold text, etc)... I think it's very justified to ask where the changes came from and why -- as it is not obvious. The mtbr discussion seemed a community based approach whereas this does not. With rules like these, you cannot say "rules are rules" when someone violates them.

Visitation was spelled out as early as 2010 for TD, meaning the 3rd year of the event and 12 years ago?  The AZTR adopted the same stance shortly thereafter if I recall correctly.  It was certainly in our minds well before that.  The wayback machine could probably be used to check the actual rules if we want to be pedantic, but again I don't think it's important.  The rules are, in my mind, always up for debate and discussion, regardless of history (a living document as John Stamstad nicely put it) and that seems to be what Jakub (jsliacan) wants to do.

If we agree that rules are open to change -- given that there's that inclination in the community -- then I agree that it the historical trajectory of each rule is tiny bit less relevant. Knowing history is still useful if we want to avoid re-discussing the same things without contributing new input. And knowing that rules were introduced after a due process helps people trust them being fair.

I see the trouble with the visitation rule mainly in it's pettiness compared to other rules. Rules about riding under your own steam deal with tangible issues. Trying to regulate what one can and cannot find motivation in seems a little desperate (bad word, but you know what I mean). Besides, why does this quote from MikeC's rules not apply in this case?

If you find yourself looking for loopholes, consider taking another year to prepare before racing.  Most likely you'll go faster and enjoy it more as a result.

I think trying to regulate emotional support amounts to looking for easier competition. Some people find heat hard, some people find loneliness hard, some people find navigation hard, etc. Let's just train what we're weak at and not project rules on everyone that try to remove my particular weakness from the equation of racing. Hop back on the bike, do some efforts for a couple more years, consistently, and emotional support will become inconsequential for you too.

In short, I don't think the previous discussion(s) deal with the problem of the visitation rule not fitting in with other rules. This leads to exactly one of the following problems:
1. Rules should also deal with other issues of the same pettiness, which they don't.
2. You have to justify why visitation made the cut but other issues didn't - I have not seen this discussed.
If none of these is addressed, it makes no sense to have visitation rule in. I've seen objections to pettiness, etc. But I think the most important objection is to the form of the ruleset. Because regardless of our opinions about the strength and type of the rules, everyone should agree on consistency & completeness of the ruleset.

This might steer the discussion a bit from "rehashing" former arguments. As that might be the worry of some.

I think i'd be fine with grad departs being supported, and then the races themselves could limit that support. Seems like a bad idea to have a grand depart with 100 people all with follow cars supporting them....that would end racing.

If races were supported, it would also take some pressure off the RDs to try to foster the highest purity.

That said, running races often allow pacers (WSER, Hardrock100, Leadville100, etc.) and some even mandate them. Plus running events tend to have aid stations. Who knows if they'd consider a race self-supported if pacers & aid stations weren't there. Probably no. I think I'd still prefer relaxing the definition of self-supported (to what it was on fkt.com before Feb 4, 2021).

To me, a closely following media crew is clearly against the visitation rule.  Explicitly calling out a media crew was just a necessary clarification but not really a new rule.  I think that covers the 'no discussion' and 'no history' arguments.  More on other issues touched on in this growing thread later.

Thanks a lot for this. The whole post is packed with info that I need to go through properly instead of writing something half-baked, but this summary you wrote clears up many things for me.

If we're talking about Lael's case, then what you write in this quote is hard to disagree with. In the future events though, media crew does not necessarily imply violating the visitation rule. I have hope that it can be done well, with enough remote filming (by drones, remotely operated cameras) and filming in overly public areas (towns, gas stations, etc.). To be fair, the way the visitation rule is phrased, if a film crew employs enough people so some member is always local to the filming location, they would not violate the visitation rule. And if they are not friends, acquaintances or family, then it's even less in the face of the rules. I did read the "don't look for loopholes" and "elevate yourself to the level of the race" - I am only writing this to point out that the media rule does actually seem to be an additional rule, i.e. there is a non-empty and non-trivial area of the media rule which is not a subset of the visitation rule.

If you want people to engage with your inquisition, it's not a big ask for them to want to understand which bikepacking events have formed your experiences.
So I'll ask one last time:  What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?

Not an inquisition, more like a thorough walkthrough. That said, I already answered your question. I gave you my full name and dotwatcher.cc lists both of my races - it's public information, easily findable (unlike most of the information we're discussing here). But let me be explicit: Silk Road Mountain Race 2019 and Tour Te Waipounamu 2022.

You've arrived from somewhere with fully formed opinions and criticisms.  Where?
You've disparaged the rules and the people behind them.  To what end?

Can you provide a reference to something that I wrote and is disparaging people behind the rules? Thanks.

My opinions are not fully formed (can they be?), but I do have reasons for thinking what I'm thinking and I am happy to have them corrected.

Would removing the no dedicated media and visitation rule in AZTR make the sport better?  I think it would make things worse.  

Right now it is simple.  There is no reason for a dedicated media crew or visitors to be on course because they?re not allowed.  If either is seen repeatedly with a racer throughout the race it?s a pretty clear cut rule violation.  Such a pattern is likely to be observed by a number of racers over the length of the race making it easy to identify.   Consider how much controversy was created by this one case where, opinions aside, it was obvious that the media crew and visitation rule was broken.  The ensuing social media mob ignored facts and reason and instead fixated on how the rule is stupid and arbitrary, and not applied consistently, and just there to discredit the racer, and is there to gatekeep, and?.?where is the proof??? and ?photos didn?t make her ride faster!!!,?  Blah blah blah.  

Remove the media team/visitation rule and I see potential for a lot more controversy.  I?m not saying racers will seek support from visitors or media teams.  More likely they will be put in difficult positions by well-intending visitors.  Repeated interactions means more opportunity for that to happen, intentional or not.  Media crews have no excuse IMO but friends/family/fans have varying levels of awareness of self-supported racing principles, and it is human nature to want to help each other out.  So it?s inevitable that racers will be offered things that are considered support under the rules.  Will racers do the right thing and turn it down when no one is watching?   Some will, some will not.  It?s harder than you think to turn down what seems like trivial support when it is from friends or family.  An apple, a coke, maybe sit in the friend?s car while a heavy rainstorm passes by.  Or perhaps they give you a replacement item for something you lost or broke on trail.  

These sorts of thing could happen a lot more than we?d like to imagine - and having more people around on course would make the rules harder to enforce.  If someone does get relegated for a case like these I think they?d be pissed.  All you need is someone with a large social media following to sic their audience on the race director or another racer and we could be in for more drama.  And that is not good for the sport.  The media team and visitation rule removes the opportunity and temptation for racers to accept support.  You cannot receive support or appear to receive support if there is no one out there to meet you on trail.  

I think the gist of your post is that if there is scope for suspicion (which creates "controversies"), remove it with a firm rule (in this case a ban). Pls correct me if I am misinterpreting you.

All I can do is list potential issues stemming from such approach and suggest that they outweigh the benefits. I think that

• It will not have the effect we're expecting. There will be suspicions about more minute issues in the same topic - creating the same heated debates ("it's about the principle, not the severity of the transgression" - they'll argue)
• It will have side-effects. Harsh rules come across unwelcoming.
• It's the same path that the UCI embarked on. You start adding rules, you'll have to continue if you want to be consistent.
• This approach does not extend to topics where you do not have resources to police the ban at all, e.g. doping.

I think these will suffice for discussion, but if pressed, I could probably come up with more.

[are]

We could debate that all day but it's fair to say every rider will respond differently depending on circumstances and mental state.  I've heard a lot of racers say seeing a friend or family could motivate them to ride longer into the night, or if they were at their lowest point mentally it could make the difference between dropping out or continuing the race.  That's not an immaterial impact.  For other racers, it could have no effect.  It is well accepted that endurance racing is 80% mental, so even if we can't quantify a potential emotional boost from visitation we cannot ignore it. 

I disagree with 80%, but it doesn't matter here I think. Even if we cannot quantify the potential emotional boost from visitation, we might be able to ignore it if we can upper bound it by a boost of something that we are ignoring already. And for this, I bring in the topic of win bonuses. I think a win bonus from a sponsor can be more motivating than seeing a photographer a few times each day over a week. Yet we aren't regulating win bonuses, but are regulating media. It is true though that without media presence win bonuses are *probably* smaller - so that's a positive side-effect of media absence.

What is certain is the mere presence of a media crew and visitation at AZTR brought conflict complete with speculation, assumptions and accusations.  So whether or not an emotional boost was actually received, there was enough perception of one to draw negative attention.

Yes, this community seems to give very little benefit of the doubt given that the sport is supposed to be based on trust and integrity.

The best parallel I can think of are professions like accountants and lawyers who go to great lengths to avoid not just a conflict of interest but also avoid the appearance of having a conflict of interest, because they each affect public perception the same way.  If we want to avoid future drama in bikepacking races we need to avoid the appearance of racers gaining an advantage as well. 

I like the analogy. And when I race I make sure people don't suspect me. But I am also not going to accuse others who race a bit less carefully. It's +/- epsilon. I think we'd avoid future drama by relaxing the rules and accepting the "approximate" nature of the results (which they will be approximate anyways, no matter how tight the rules will be). At the same time, we'll avoid having to police details and look unfriendly to the outside world. I do agree with your goal, but I'd go in the opposite direction to solve it.

If there is no dedicated media or visitation on course then there is no opportunity for a rider to get an emotional boost.  This also eliminates the appearance of anyone gaining an advantage which should avoid any accompanying conflict or accusations. 

I am not sure. As we agreed on the community being quite tight-knit, if the RD goes out photographing the racers (which we know happens), it is likely they'll know many of them but not all. Giving unequal emotional boost to the riders they meet on course. There can always be suspicions and accusations - wouldn't it be better to err on the side of chill? Relax the rules, accept plus-minus nature of the thing, make nice photos & share the stoke. At the same time, educate people about good practices.

Thanks for the good points though - I think we narrowed down a few things.

evdog, you posted a lot of content, so I'll try to give due attention to all of it - we'll see how long I can keep this up .

I wouldn't judge the bikepacking community here until you come over and race an event or two.  You will have a hard time finding a more welcoming and supportive community.  Tight-knit?  Definitely.  A lot of these people have been racing against each other and cheering each other on for many years. 

You probably know that it's quite draining to prepare well for a race, be away for 3-4wks from family (using vacation time I could've spent with them), and use quite some budget to attend e.g. AZTR800 from Europe. You'll only go through that for something you are quite sure will be a pleasant experience.

Or did some people just throw a tantrum on social media and then move along?

https://www.instagram.com/p/Cctc0hAvHye/ (posted 1 day after Lael publicly accepted asterisk without much fuss on her end) and https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccx7EjClFjU/ (posted 2 days after asterisk was in place). And that's not a keyboard warrior who never raced or rode a bike. There are more examples, I just picked this one as it comes across pretty bad, imo. As for the "weak male ego", "out to get her", "gender bias", etc. -- I think we can just skip over that cheap stuff. Although when you look at TD19 and compare Lael's case with Josh Ibbett's... You get worried. And gatekeeping is a bit different from those others I think. As a side-effect of media ban, the sport/event gets shared less and reaches fewer people, in effect restricting access to only those who move in the right circles. That's pretty much gate-keeping, even if unintended. Whether it's worth it, it might be, but I don't think so. It definitely isn't as clear as the proponents of the rule make it seem. I think we should be worried about gatekeeping more than we are.

The original issue is whether Lael's ride gets recorded as an unsupported FKT per Arizona Trail Race rules, or is considered a supported ride.  If the latter the time is noted in the race results with an asterisk but it is not considered a record.  Keep in mind anyone can ride the route at any time they want, in any way they want ? so no one is disputing Lael's FKT for the route.  It just doesn't count as a record for the race, which is what she had signed up for. 

Lael never claimed (that I can find) an FKT of AZTR, just the trail. Even the Radavist wrote it that way. It's still written as a FKT* on the trail: https://theradavist.com/lael-wilcox-arizona-trail-800-mile-fkt/. I don't think the outrage of the likes of Chase Edwards can be explained if you're right. So I am a bit unkeen to distinguish too much between AZTR and AZT. As a community, we probably only want one FKT on that trail -- and let it be managed by AZTR. Thanks to them for heaps of work. 

[not]

The media rule did not come out of nowhere. "FKT rules are not new except for spectator rule . That didn't need to be addressed until recently because in the past not enough people cared about the sport to matter. Now they do, so rules have been applied."

How many more ways is jsliacan going to drag this out?

There are 2 things to note here: media rule on AZTR website is new (2019). Spectating rule on fastestknowntime.com is new (Feb 4, 2021) -- and this rule includes media as "spectating by photographers". The "need" for these rules (because sports became more popular) is not self-evident. So instead of writing meaningless retorts, maybe put some thoughts together and explain? You might be surprised how difficult it's going to be.

[how]

I think you are right that the communities that participate in these events are tight-knit. That's just going to be the case when an event attracts those with similar mindsets in regards to the attraction of self supported ultra adventures. While there is a lot in common from that perspective, I mentioned in a previous post that it is my experience that the participants are very different and have myriad world views.

Re:"That's just going to be the case when an event attracts those with similar mindsets in regards to the attraction of self supported ultra adventures.", it's not only about attraction but also about coming across this sport. And that's currently quite hard unless a friend of a friend tells you about it. Those who get attracted to these events are a subset of those who get to know about these events. If the latter set is small, the former is going to be too, regardless of who is attracted to such racing.

I think when you project a negative view onto the people who support the rules you are doing yourself a disservice.

I would like to clarify that objecting to people's actions and ideas does not mean I view them (as people) negatively. But ideas need to be open to questioning, especially if they form the rules that are supposed to govern actions of others.

I tend to think that outside of the issue at hand (the media is support issue), we likely have more in common than you are giving everyone credit for. I think you should come check out one of the events you mention and find out for yourself - I think you would be pleasantly surprised with the people you encounter.

I don't think I have tried to comment on how much we do or don't have in common... We clearly all care about bikepacking and its values (which we most likely share entirely). The subject of this discussion is how to upkeep the sport and the events so everyone feels welcome and encouraged to ride. I have no doubt that people are generally nice. But nice people make bad calls, sometimes. And I still think that including this rule was a mistake in the long run (even if we disregard how it was done: quietly, without any discussion in the community).

jsliacan, you have an issue with ""If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot." - this rule is not realistic, because it only allows hike-a-bike in case the bike breaks.""   Why not realistic? For AZTR and CTR, motor vehicles are not allowed on much of the route, and in the case of the AZTR, you can be days between towns (and don't see how a timer to remind you to shop will help).  Just as with the Iditabike, if you are not prepared to walk (such as Sarah did for the 2016 AZTR) you either hit the red button on your Spot and disqualify yourself or you die.  jsliacan, your comments imply that you don't understand the conditions we encounter on the AZTR or CTR, yet alone winter ultras.  The original rules didn't have to say "no visitation or media crews" because it was understood they wouldn't be there when you needed help/rescue.

The rule I reference (from MikeC's draft long ago) is

Competitors may only advance on the route by human powered means. In other words, by bicycle. If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot.

My point was that this rule forbids walking unless your bike is broken. Which I doubt was the intention - surely I can walk if the hill is too steep. But I shouldn't be left guessing. Especially not in the midst of the "rules are rules" mentality...

Some Key rules from FKT dot com:

Self-Supported
Self-Supported means you may have as much support as you can manage or find along the way, but not from any thing or person just for you; any support you employ must be equally available to anyone else. This can range from caching supplies in advance, purchasing supplies along the way, staying at motels, to finding or begging for food or water; camping in a friends yard would be Supported, because that is not available to the public.  Most long thru-hiking routes are done Self-Supported.  To get a Self-Supported FKT you also have to beat the fastest Unsupported time.  Spectating will be considered as Support starting February 4, 2021 (no previous FKT classifications will be changed).

Spectating in person by friends, family, or photographers is supportive, and thus not in the spirit of this style, and will be classified as Supported starting February 4, 2021 (all FKT classifications previous to this date will remain unchanged). Phone and digital communication is not considered support, and spectators and support people at the start and finish is also allowed.

Anyone who is accompanied by another person for any distance (except members of a group or team who finish together) cannot claim an Unsupported or Self-supported FKT.

I think it is worth noting that fastestknowntime.com (fkt.com) treats both races and FKTs according to these rules - so race times would be supported. In bikepacking, it seems that grand departs (races) produce "self-supported" times even though people ride in the company of others (you see what others are doing via trackleaders, you can follow someone's line, etc.). Also, given how tight the community is, the front-runners often know each other pretty well (whereas someone like me would not know any of them). So they race with friends - making it basically similar to visitation. I actually think this is okay and the rule should be opened up even more. Only pointing this out for thought.

Thanks John. I value that you brought fastestknowntime.com into the discussion. I got to know about their change of rules recently and was disappointed. Then I completely forgot about it (not following the running scene so closely anymore). It's good to have it here, because even if I disagree with the inclusion of the rule, I do find it valuable for "sister" sports to be aligned re:ideas. So it does soften my position somewhat.

Many of you are looking at this as though bikepacking is some new sport and no one has ever talked about these issues. But the people who have been capable of winning or setting records have known the core rules. It is just that now that media is exposing the sport to mass numbers of enthusiasts.

I think most of us know the rules. Although clearly, interpretation (even if one isn't intentionally pushing into grey zones) does play a role.

Again , this is not new, this is not about Lael in any way, shape, or form. Lael is an uber phenomenal athlete. But rules do apply to everyone setting a record.

Just so we don't misunderstand the motivations here: this is not about Lael's case. She was relegated according to the rules (although the original azt300_800's IG post was a bit off in tone). The issue is with the rules. The media rule came seemingly out of nowhere in 2019. I see no past discussion here about having it included. Please correct me if I missed it.

It's nice to see people contributing actual content and not just questioning my presence here. Many thanks, I'll do my best to respond well.

[not]

There's one word you seem not to understand in there. "Solo" alone, by youself, no suppourt from inside or outside the race. Visitations count as support. Anyone who's been out there and struggled through the mental battle that is a solo endurance event will understand this.

Context is everything. "Solo" is used in the context of rider-rider interactions. This is made clear by the examples right after.

no suppourt from inside or outside the race. Visitations count as support.

Rule is no outside support. "Visitations count as support" is your subjective interpretation and addition. Don't conflate the two please.

Anyone who's been out there and struggled through the mental battle that is a solo endurance event will understand this.

That's false (I am your counter-example, but there are many more). No matter how much you try, it is not self-evident that visitation has a net positive effect on one's race. People scratch a lot in comfort situations (towns, etc.) before heading into another hard remote section. People get distracted and lose track of time when interacting with outside world (hence many set timers for shopping stops etc.). There are numerous examples of the exact opposite: outside interaction distracts from one's race. If you read past discussions, this was one of the earliest reasons against visitation. It's incredibly ironic that a rule which was supposed to protect the racers from distractions is now used to limit emotional support.

[you]

I bring this up because you have appeared seemingly out of nowhere.  You have an inscrutable screen name.  And you have an agenda of sorts that is slowly revealing itself each time you post to this thread.
Again, nothing wrong with any of that.
But before I check back in and invest myself in this conversation, how about if instead of continued sniping at the people here, you invest some of yourself, first?
Who are you?  Where do you live?  What brings you to the discussion?  What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?

I don't think ad hominem is fair. It should not matter who I am, where I come from, etc. It should only matter what I write and whether it makes sense. But here we go: I am not sure what your objection to my username is, it is more telling than yours. Jakub Sliacan - jsliacan. I live in Sweden.

What brings you to the discussion?
I am attracted by the route of CTR or AZTR, but I am put off by the tight-knit communities around these races that seem to be quite radical. In general though, I don't think anyone can deny that the situations around visitation & media recently have been quite damaging to the sport. And the more I dig into the past and how the rules came about, the more I think that they should be updated. AZTR website points people here for discussions.

What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?
The latter part of this question is unfair, you don't form all your ideas based on experiences. I don't know why this condition is being imposed. To answer the former part of the question... There are 2 issues here: 1. Inconsistency, incompleteness, and lack of balance in the rules. 2. The content of the rules.

I think any rules should strive to be:

• consistent: e.g. rule 1 should not oppose rule 2; or rule 1 should not overlap with rule 2; etc.
• complete: if rules are trying to govern people's mental state during the race, then once you ban visitation, you *must* ban win bonuses by sponsors (and many other things, this is just an example).
• balanced: having a rule about motorized forward transport and visitation in the same ruleset is unbalanced. Clearly the former is provably impactful while the latter is merely speculated to have an impact.

I think the content of the rules should be:

• realistic: "6. Competitors may only advance on the route by human powered means. In other words, by bicycle. If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot." - this rule is not realistic, because it only allows hike-a-bike in case the bike breaks.
• objective: if we don't know whether something is true (or not) for everyone, it should not appear in the rules.
• lenient: "1. The race clock starts at noon on 6/23/06, and ends for each racer when their front wheel crosses the International Border at Antelope Wells." - this rule is unnecessarily strict. Front wheel crossing the border. Clearly, the race is so long and so many things impact it, that everything can be "measured" +/- epsilon and no real information gets lost (even better, some noise disappears!).

I probably forgot some points, but the gist of it is there. As you can see, the current AZTR rules (https://azt300-800.com/rules/) are quite haphazard. They resemble a thought process rather than a set of rules. So I think there's plenty of benefit to be had from discussing them. And I expect that, as a side effect, any significant improvement to the set will affect visitation & media rules in particular. And, coincidentally, that was where the initial impetus to look into this came from.

Now, I entertained your suggestion and took a huge detour. Is it your turn now to explain how visitation is implicitly included in your former rules? Thanks.