Malcolm Wade in 2019.  Age, country, bike and route deviations   match

Yep, that's him under pseudonym.  I hadn't seen that clip -- pretty hilarious -- thanks for posting.

"It's not a bike race.  Not a bike race at all!  It's a crawling race."

"I did it because it's the hardest mountain bike race anywhere."

"I got no satisfaction after finishing it and still don't have any...."

  Seems like the race is exceeding its goals and mission.

 I also respect that someone as 'camera friendly' as he is was able to accept the spirit of the event and do it under the radar.

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.

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

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 think there's a misunderstanding here. The person who Brian told off for being on the course is not my wife.

OK, thanks for clarifying this.

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).

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.  

This has little bearing on the rule itself, of course.

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:

Glad to hear you say they are nice people -- Kiwis generally are!

No surprise though.  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?

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.

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.

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.

Not sure what you mean here.  How was going under the radar encouraged?  Lael didn't bring it up beforehand because she didn't think it was an issue -- she didn't read the rules and was going off of me approving her 2015 (much more limited) media crew.  I don't think she intentionally hid it.  She thought it would be OK.

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.

You know, I do see this point: the fact that when someone gets called out / relegated it can be received badly.  The community (RDs new and old, racers new and old) may be in support of curbing visitation but what happens when you enforce it?  It made you regret (?) what might have been a ride of a lifetime for other people.  That's sad.  And it's caused some controversy.  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).

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.

It feels like a bit of a moral failure to give in for this reason.  Like we should expect people to be better than this?
 And the goal here isn't to make everyone happy.  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.  

Almost ready with the GPX.  Matthew just needs to sign off on it.

The Hartsel route checks out, thanks to Jeff Kerkove for scouting it for us.  See pic below.

We have a route around the El Vado dam so most of 112 and a fair bit of dirt is in to get to Cuba.  Then more dirt south of town! 

just got back from a ride towards upper whitefish lake from whitefish. What looked like continuous snow started about 2 miles above the olney crossover or 3 miles shy of upper whitefish lake/10+ miles shy of red meadow pass. This is extremely low for this date.  I'm sure there will be more melting in the next 2 weeks but forecasts are for consistently below normal temps. If this cycle keeps up the local snowtels may be at their all-time highest readings for early june- they are far off now. Its quite possible this will be the equivalent of 2008 and 2011. I was out 2 nights ago and was stopped by the sheriff looking for a cyclist who had left for polebridge in the am, without a detailed flight plan- they finally found him near the spot i turned around tonight at 11pm.
Short fat skis could be interesting.

Wow.  Great beta, thanks.

As some have pointed out, big snow up north, fire closures down south.  North America is a land of great diversity.

That sounds like the same re-route that was in 2018?

Looking forward to getting the route and sorting out all the GPS stuff, especially since form the UK it's going to be a real rush, working this week then flying out!

No, in 2018 the route was only skipping Santa Fe forest -- this year we've got to skip Carson as well so the detour starts all the way up at Cumbres Pass.

We are also checking on a dam construction detour on NM 112.  I am not sure if we can use that route after all.  (Thanks to Andy for pointing that issue out!).

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

To be clear I meant that the event was being inconsistent here, not you, by participating in the event.  I can see how you may have taken it that way but again I wasn't accusing you of being inconsistent.  Sorry about that.

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).

Fair enough.  A good aim.

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

A bit more time could have passed, given how truly hostile it all was, and how there was no reconciliation or apology for it.  I don't blame anyone on here for thinking you were just piling more hostility on.  That is what it appeared to be at first brush, and I had no interest in engaging.  After some time it became clear that wasn't what you were here for.

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

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.

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?

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 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 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 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 bravery coming here is to be admired, I must admit.
 

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/.

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

Can I say this is cheap? I flew to NZ because... -- even you, after all this discussion we had, thought that I am being inconsistent and don't mind the same thing over there. Wow.

I am sorry, I did not mean it to point out any inconsistency or hypocrisy in your actions.  I genuinely wanted to know how you were able to race in an event that is more strict than AZTR.  It's a fair question, is it not?  And you answered it to my satisfaction.  

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.  I'd hoped it wouldn't be enough to make you not ride in them again.  I was wrong.

I never thought you were inconsistent in tolerating the same thing over there vs. here.

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

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).

Now shooting for this coming Monday (memorial day) for the GPX.  Scout is heading out this Sunday barring any further snow storms!

Down by the Gila, I raised the idea of taking some CDT and skipping Silver City altogether but Matthew countered that 24 hour access to least a gas station is a the main reason not to skip Silver.  Looks like Glenwood is only open 8am-8pm.

Of note is that we're planning a different detour than ACA suggests for Carson/Santa Fe.  Apparently Ghost Ranch is enough of a draw that they don't want to skip it.  We'll take NM 112 direct to Cuba which skips both forests and is lower traffic + maybe a little gravel.

What I won't accept is a handful of off-hand comments on some social media post or cynical statements such as "like anyone can even know what the community thinks?"  [said in Napoleon Dynamite voice   ]  

Aw crap, I got it wrong.  It's Kip that says "like anyone could even know that."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxN9Mw6iQUs

My apologies.    

You might be right, but it might have been more of a "timing" thing. Your intro came right after the drama and I interpreted it as yet another one of Lael's supporters coming out of the woodwork to attack the race and RD anyone else who agreed with the decision to relegate Lael's ride.

Quite right, I edited my post to include the timing, which was quite poor given the abrasive and inflammatory tone, then I saw you made the point as well.  Thanks.

I think Scott may be underestimating the "preserving the event" desire of other participants. I totally am on board with preserving the AZTR and also respecting the AZT in general. Especially as I am an Arizona native.

I may be, indeed.  Kudos to you for seeing the bigger picture here.  My experience tells me that most racers aren't able to look that far beyond themselves.

I think a good point brought up in this discussion is that this very point should be made re: visitation -- that it's a reason to please ask your friends/family to stay away.  I feel like this spirit (of considering the wider repercussions of your actions and that the AZTR is indeed a fragile thing that can and probably will be shut down) is largely on the site and in the rules but I guess not specifically with respect to visitation.

What am I missing?

Some races self-promote.

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

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.  

So, yeah, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.    It does matter now if you want to try a more gentle and open-minded approach in the future.  You wonder why you were questioned -- I think this is the answer.  I would call your initial approach abrasive, not in a spirit of open minded community debate.

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.  

That's a very sad state of things then.

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

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).

Interesting.  The events are open-minded in that they will listen to well reasoned arguments and are willing to change.  But there's also a strong sense that in the end the race director makes the final call -- it's their race.  

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 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).

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.

Meanwhile in the course of this thread we've stumbled onto several events (most new to me) that have the same stance or a more strict stance than we are discussing here.

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.

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

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.

This line of argumentation is getting tiresome but we disagree on the *magnitude* of the inconsistency.  I claim it is insignificant.  You claim it is a little more than that.  We all agree on the main thrust of the rules.  This is a small issue.

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!

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...

Yeah these could go in a separate thread.  I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish here but get ready for loads of gatekeeping accusations, some of which I'd probably agree with.

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.

Good, good, progress.

Of course, the general self-support rhetoric around visitation is unchanged and quite off-putting, but that's just what it is

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?

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.

Yes, overall I appreciate and enjoy a good debate and it's been soooo long since we've had a good rules thread I figured it would be fun to dive in again.  

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).

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).

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

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".

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

And on the contrary you're intelligent and you've won recent events.  People will listen to you.

Please keep it in the rules (I say this above too). But why mask it as self-support issue?

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.  As I have been saying, excessive visitation doesn't fit in with what the community considers self-support, with what rules and experience racers want to ride under.  That's the primary reason here and why people can say "it's not self-support."  (Meaning their definition of self-support and the definition of self-support under the races they know -- because there is no such thing as an absolute definition of self-support)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes

I admire and respect someone that questions things, maybe questions everything.  But I contend you are overthinking.  There simply is no objective truth to strive for here, it's not a mathematical problem to be solved.  It's a bike race, a competition.  And in the end the rules don't first and foremost strive to be consistent.  They don't strive to be purely self-support, nor do they pretend to be.  That's why it says self-support is a guiding principle not an absolute extreme. The race strives to provide an experience and a ~fair challenge.  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.

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

I'm happy to accept evidence against this.  Evidence like: proliferation of new (comparable) events that allow unrestrained visitation.  More threads like this one (preferably with more than one person arguing against the rules).  What I won't accept is a handful of off-hand comments on some social media post or cynical statements such as "like anyone can even know what the community thinks?"  [said in Napoleon Dynamite voice   ]  

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'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.  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.

This type of thing seems much more likely to get rules changed -- or maybe create new events without media/visitation limits.  They might be enough to draw the line on the other side of visitation: preserving the event be damned, there's always a new route to hold an event on.  I doubt anyone is looking at current event rules and saying "these rules are vaguely inconsistent!  I'm going to start a new event with more consistent rules!" but they very well might start a new event with different rules for reasons like I've listed here.

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.

I think we (Jakub and I) got derailed into rehashing of old arguments.  Sorry about that.  I want to get back to this point of his:

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).

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.

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.

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."

Maybe you can explain why you agree with the principle of the rule but do not want it codified?

Although I believe that seeing a person that you know while on course (especially in multiple places) would certainly provide emotional support, I have always believed that the biggest benefit is realized when I was packing for a race and agonizing over what potentially life saving items I should take or leave because of the weight.

Agreed and well spoken.  There are so many reasons that visitation and following should be limited.  This expounds nicely on one of them that can have a tangible, measurable effect on the race outcome.

We can run the numbers on how the finish time of a racer would decrease if they forgo a sleep kit, for example.  That's tangible, that's measurable.

Thanks for the post.

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.

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.

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".

What I saw was that most of those comments were addressing emotional support between riders, which that article is somewhat novel in discussing.  I agree with many of the commenters that the article argues for a stance that's a little too extreme.   I think we are going too far banning riding with people (as James does) and all the emotional support that comes with it.

But I agree with your point that communities are bubbles and as I've said earlier, I consider my own view limited.  The challenges or questions about the visitation rule have been few and far between in the last decade, so I suppose that speaks volumes.

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.

Yep, those are all valid.  This is in line with the running FKT rules not accepting race efforts as self-supported.

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.

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?

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.

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!).

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).

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?  

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.

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 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.

Such as?  Genuinely interested here.

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.

Thanks for that and I agree with you that there's good reason to think the effect is amplified the harder and more remote it gets.

Well the late spring storm has been dumping on central Colorado so we're going have to wait a bit on the Hartsel scouting.  GPX won't be ready tomorrow, sorry folks.

Take a look at Sections 3.2 and 3.3 in https://www.lesperitdelbikepacking.org/lesperit-de-girona-rules.  Although, I would revise that flow chart to not only not allow serendipity providing a means to finish (preventing a DNF) but to also not allow means for a racer to be faster

Thanks for finding that.  It reads to me like the AZT rules were the genesis of it but they have taken it further and are quite strict.  I am glad to see they still allow for innocent forms of trail magic.

The flow chart for serendipity is hilarious!  I've added it here for reference.  It's in line with my thinking: if it saves your race or makes you measurably faster (as you say, taprider) you should probably self-relegate.

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.)

Please do.  Come on over and make it happen.

[Footprint]

Lesson learned. Thanks.

Excellent, thanks for that.

People quote their experiences as reasons to limit/ban visitation. ... 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.

Full agreement that objective is a higher standard and would be nice to have.  When we better understand the brain we can probably prove objective advantage to emotional support from visitors or increased focus when being filmed/watched.  But we are far from that.

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.  Taprider found another European event that not only agrees with most of the AZTR rules but is more strict (more on that soon).

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.

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.

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.

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).

'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! 

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

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.

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.

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.

The local idea comes from the idea that, yes, zero visitation should not be allowed in strict self-support.  But like I've argued quite a bit in the past we are taking ourselves too seriously if we say a route local can't walk out into their front yard to cheer Tour Divide riders on.  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.' 

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).

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.

I think it's still worth addressing riders, too, because it is their responsibility to educate their friends/family.  That covers the bulk of the spectators but you're right that it doesn't cover fans of riders or of the event.