For Mike it obviously worked to its full power because the day before he was having a hard time pushing his bike uphill, let alone riding it. After taking the stuff and waiting a half hour for it to kick in, bingo, race on!

Yes, he got his lungs back. That's a good thing--and absolutely fair.

That appears to be more than a mere breathing boost.

While I have no inside knowledge on Mike's actual medical condition, it sounds like he was suffering from some form of hyper-active airway disorder. As an asthmatic, I can relate to his experience. If you can't breathe, you can't move. If you want to understand what it feels like, try going for a ride while breathing through a drinking straw. Yes, you can still probably ride--barely. Remove the straw, and you'll feel like superman.

A lot of research and work has been done by major sports to determine what constitutes a performance-enhancing drug, and under what conditions various drugs are deemed acceptable. Rather than re-invent the wheel, maybe it is easier to go with the flow and follow the well-worn protocols that have been established by the Olympics, etc. Don't shoot EPO or steroids, and don't pop amphetamines. If you need something to control asthma, diabetes, etc., whether it's an over-the-counter antihistamine, prescribed cortisone, or insulin, then take it. Drink Red Bull if that's your thing, stick with water if it's not.

I have to say I was a little taken aback when I watched Ride the Divide and saw Mike Dion's stash of blue pills.

Little blue pills, eh? Gotta be Viagra. Definitely against the rules, as that certainly wouldn't qualify as self-support.

I think it's important that we don't treat the founders of our sport like gods. They had screw ups, the same way this generation of riders has screw ups, the same way that all athletes for the rest of time will have screw ups. They had good ideas. They had bad ideas. Just because they said it, doesn't mean that it's right, or applicable to the current racing climate/situation.

I realize that they weren't gods. But they defined an amazing sport, for which they deserve a great deal of respect. And they set some pretty damn high standards, imperfections and all.

Seems like many people don't enjoy your constant whining...might want to just lead by example rather than speaking so much

Yeah, I do lead by example. Which is why I treat people with respect--even when I disagree with them. Yes, that even includes you!

Now can we move on? Thanks.

Ya don't enforce anything just constantly whine year after year about it. I guess that wouldn't work now would it? There goes all your material! As far as did they cheat or bend the rules? I don't know I wasn't there. Have fun with the next 20 pages of this thread.

I wish that you didn't feel the need for personal attacks.

Toby, I don't know why Scott hasn't had you and Mark volunteer as enforcers?

I don't think that enforcement is really the solution. Why? Because almost everything about these races is unenforceable. What I want is for people to accept the challenge of the race as it was defined. Which means committing to the spirit, structure, and rules of the event, instead of deciding that "simple" rules and lack of enforcement means that whatever goes.

And when people look back at the "good old days" which in reality are only a few years ago and say those people were so much more honorable than today's strikes me as preposterous. With more people come more eyes and more accusations.

Do you think that Matthew Lee drafted? Do you think that Stamstead rode around tough sections? Do you think that Stefan begged food? Do you think that Mike stashed water?

The evidence is very clear that many riders are not following the rules as they were defined by the founders of this sport. Of course this doesn't mean that everyone is cheating. But think that it's clear by the posts in this thread indicate that a lot of people view "few rules" as essentially the same as "optional rules."

JosiahM, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of this sport. But the original racers tended to be very strict when it came to following the rules. For the most part, they were very "pure."

It's only more recently that people have begun to approach the sport in a more leisurely style--which often includes taking many rules with a grain of salt.

I think the split seems to be between the people who want to race on a fair playing field and people who want to ride the route in order to 'be a part' of something. I think both are good reasons to be out there, and I think that both groups should have the opportunity to be tracked by Trackleaders, but I think that showing up to the Grand Depart and then cutting the course and then still claiming to be part of the "race" (and then sending nasty hate-mail to Scott and Matthew when relegated) shows a lack of respect to the people who are out there racing and following the rules of the Gentle(wo)mans agreement, whether they're at the front, middle, or back of the pack.

I don't care how fast people ride the thing, but I do believe that when you show up to the start of the event, you're agreeing to respect the rules.

No, we don't need the UCI, or WADA, or USAC, but it seems pretty clear that a free-for-all with no governing rules isn't what people are looking for. If you want to do your own thing and make up your own route, go touring. It's a wonderful activity and you meet a lot of really amazing people along the way.

In a kinder and gentler way, Eszter, you just said what I've tried to say this entire thread. Thanks!

robinb, while I concur with the sentiment, for many I don't think rule enforcement is that simple.....

Post-Race Rule Enforcement?

Before I offer some quick comment on rule enforcement I would reiterate the “pre-race” items that might be re-emphasized or refined.  I really think some version of these items might reduce the need to enforce infractions “post-race” and help level the field for everyone during the race.

With some type of overview/final say by event organizers:
1.   1 recognized Result location after the race is finished (trackleaders, google page whatever—but one that is ultimately signed off on by the organizer)
2.   An authorized signup sheet (to perhaps include rule acknowledgment check off box?)
3.   FAQ and/or offers of one on one dialogue regarding event rules.
4.   Clear distinction is made between various race strategies (styles or forms) and actual rule infraction.

Rule Enforcement:
As I said earlier I try not to let rule infractions bother me ‘during’ a race.  It’s going to happen to some degree, and as was implied earlier, the actions of others are pretty much beyond our control during the race.

But just because rule enforcement is problematic and can be very unpleasant do we turn our backs on it?  Once again I will support the organizer, they want to be casual or firm it’s ultimately their call.

But if the organizer implements methods of enforcement what might they look like?

•   Preliminary results then ‘review period’ then Final Results?

•   Review Period to include mechanism for racer Protest?  Something like we can protest to the organizer against a fellow racer but we take ownership by taking the risk of a time penalty if our protest is denied.

•   Spot or GPS aid in verification of route adherence? This seems a no brainer but there is more to it than just watching the trackleaders pages. Lost Spots, dead batteries and occasional false coordinates amongst others. 

•   On the other hand you can infer a lot from Spot or GPS data, studying avg speeds, time of day, weather conditions, locations etc can give insight into possible route deviations.  And also Spot or GPS data combined with call-in’s, social media or post-race reports can point to possible rule infractions that could/might need to be reviewed.

•   Self-reporting of possible infractions, big or small, for adjudication?

•   Consequences: name stricken from finish list, regulation (time but no place), publicly or privately banned from future event, time penalty, asterisk with corresponding explanation, other???

Now that I am talking rule enforcement I am going to refrain from posting for a while as I feel I have been monopolizing the discussion……..but I would finish with pointing out that most of my comments involve action from event organizers in some fashion—and they already carry a heavy load -- I am not asking they simply ‘work’ harder, I have a real concern that their wonderful underground events might become too much work and fade away if ways are not found to smooth out some of the ‘rule’ stuff..............

You just made me look like a moderate, Marshal

Is that really racing?  I don’t even know.  But unless I put that pressure on myself – the expectation that I’m going to push myself at something like a race pace – my outing could easily devolve into a leisurely tour.  And that’s not what I want.

Yep, that's racing. I like your style, dp. Good luck out there!

Toby, I think many of the self-supported multi-day race 'old timers', along with myself, and many who are new to the whole thing, agree completely with your summation/position above.

Yet on a personal note (yes I am getting personal); While you clearly 'get it' with regards to MC's original self supported intentions and are also one of the ones who have walked your talk when it's real and counts you just don't seem to know how to let up.  

For my taste and I suspect quite a few others, when it comes to your position on self supported rules & ethics you simply pound the drum too often, too hard  At some point the horse is dead and will no longer respond to the beating, no matter how concisely, repetitively or enthusiastically you go about it.  Yes you have every right to pound away and I am not saying to stop, but in till you find some way to better control the volume you invite ever escalating responses, ok enough personal..........

Marshal, I fully realize that old-timers like you are sick of me beating the same drum. Hell, I'm tired of beating the same damn drum.

But I think that you're forgetting that old-timers are becoming a very small segment of the scene. Bikepacking in general, and ultra-racing in particular, is growing very, very quickly. When newbies show up, they really have no idea of the context and depth of the seemingly simple rules and ethics of this sport. They often assume that few rules means "whatever goes" is fine.  I know this from speaking to many of them. WE ALL know this by witnessing their behavior during races. As is true with any sport or profession, newcomers need some help getting up to speed. Most of them are coming from very different backgrounds--such as fully-supported racing, which is VERY different.While everything seems pretty straightforward to guys like us, this sport is actually pretty weird and esoteric. I honestly think that most new riders who break the rules simply don't know that what they are doing isn't OK. Failing to address long threads where they argue for major rule changes will lead to further erosion of what makes this sport so special and different.

If people don't speak up when lots of people start advocating strongly for the "Do. Whatever" approach, what do you think will happen?

Maybe it would help if you addressed our common ground (of which we have lots), rather than--once again--making it personal.

Relegating someone after they've made such a huge commitment to do the race can not be done lightly.  Especially if the relegation is made based on rules that some/many might consider to be outdated or too stringent for most racers.

That approach is pretty much at the crux of my entire position regarding ultra-racing rules. I think that a lot people believe that they are racing fairly, but also maintain that they are free to deviate when they find rules that "some/many might consider to be outdated or too stringent..."

Racing does seem pretty black and white to me. You either adhere to the rules and ethics of the event, or you don't. There's a massive amount of freedom within the structure and rule-set to make a personally meaningful and individual experience. I just don't understand why people feel entitled to cut corners when racing against people who aren't.

I realize that my position isn't terribly popular with a lot of people here, which has resulted in some increasingly hostile and personal responses. There's not much more for me to say, so I'm moving along.

Cheers!

In summary, here are the NEW rules for the TD (as loosely taken from ideas and anecdotes noted in this thread):

1. Skipping a section  of the route is OK if it was an honest mistake.
2. Not being aware of the all of rules makes following then optional.
3. It's OK to beg for food from non-commercial establishments if you're really hungry.
4. It's OK to draft if you have an injury.
5. Visits by outsiders are OK, if they doesn't make you faster.
6. Bumming supplies from other racers is fine if you came unprepared.
7. Anything reasonable is acceptable unless it gives the racer an advantage.
8. Nothing really matters in 100 years, so who cares anyway.
9. Don't race the TD if you want official results.
10. Those who don't finish with "competitive" times should be relegated.
11 "Competitive times" are arbitrary, and the distinction should be removed.
12. Cut-off times should be added
13. Results should be published
14. Results should not be published
15. Racers should be pre-qualified
16. It's just a ride. Do do whatever feels good.
11. Riding in groups is fine. Or not. Whatever.
12. Just ride your bike.
13. Start a new category, where all rules are optional
14. Add a governing body or sanctioning committee to arbitrate the rules
15. the rule for “competitive times” should be stricken
16. Non-official results shouldn't be published
17. Anyone can post unofficial results
18. All results are unofficial
19. Someone needs to be in charge of the rules and race
20. It's your race. Do it the way you want to do it.
21. Rules are dangerous and will kill somebody, so make the rules optional
22. Codify a way of allowing people not to follow the rules to the letter
23. Racers should provide a complete GPX of the route
24. Add an "age" category
25. Replace the asterisk symbol with something more palatable
26. Only those who are going to a win need to prove 100% compliance with the rules and route
27. You can only tell people to STFU if you have posted X number of times.

All I got to say is until you do the race (Toby) shut the fuck up. You'll ruin it for everyone! Its more than u can comprehend!

Way to elevate the conversation?

No, I haven't done the TD yet. But I have raced the CTR three times, and Kokopelli's twice. But it really doesn't matter what I've ridden, does it? When I find the time to line up for the TD, I am looking forward to racing it in good style--which includes, but isn't limited to, not telling other people to "shut the fuck up."

I really hate the way these discussions are often reduced to personal attacks, name-calling, etc. Aren't we better than that?!?

Toby, I understand you are into the rules.

I'm not "into the rules." I'm into racing under my own power, self-supported, with a level playing field. Rules are the means to the end--not the end.

I sign up for the competitive race. I give my word that I will follow the rules.

How does anyone know that I have?

It is true that external enforcement of the rules is problematic at best. But it has occurred with some regularity based on data Spot tracks, reporting from other riders, etc.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to internal enforcement. There some great examples of that, such a CTR racer relegating himself a year after finishing the race.

Internal enforcement requires that people fully buy into the ethics that built this sport. They need to internalize the value and importance of the structure. Not everyone is will to do this though, which is obvious from the behavior of recent races and comments posted in this lengthy thread.

So an obvious solution is to create a new race format where anything goes. No rules. Do whatever. Those of us who want to perform under rigorous constrains can race in the "traditional" format. Those who don't, can race in the "Tour Divided" format.

Are you organizing it?  

It needs someone more disorganized than I am.

Thus, the main category of riders will remain the same with a slight modification to the rules to adjust to this reality (but still have relegation for major/blatant cheating (however that is defined) so the "spirit" is essentially unchanged).

Good luck with that. Every time someone suggests a rule change (to either tighten or loosen the format), everyone freaks out. What defines "major cheating" for one person is another person's idea of "Do what feels good." Which is what really brought us here in the first place, right?

Seems to me that the "Tour Divided" should defined as a race where people ride most the route, from Banff to Antelope Wells, in whatever style suits them. Need to skip a wet section because it's too muddy? Go for it. Need to beg some food from a residence along the way? Go for it. Need to draft another racer because your knee hurts? No problem. Accidentally miss a section of the route? No worries, just get back on track as soon as you can. That seems to be what a lot of people have been arguing for, so why not make it happen?

In other words, make a race without rules. Just a suggested route & start date, and a bunch of like-minded people out doing their own thing together.

How about this... The original Tour Divide becomes an invitation only and/or submit your race resume event.  Just like those old bastards Mike C and Stemstad imagined.  Just the pure athlete in a 100% battle with self come salvation or death.  Jefe, JayP, Mike Hall'in ass, down to the seriously disciplined middle to back of the pack guys.

While I understand the thinking behind this, I don't like it. I think that that self-selection is a better approach. Anyone who is committed enough to show up and abide by the ethics and rules that "those old bastards" established should be allowed to race. External exclusion isn't the solution to keeping "Tour Divided" folks from diluting the hardcore version of the race. Giving people more than one race, and then letting them choose the one that fits their style, is better.

But, yes, it seems that there are many people who would like to race TD but do not want to follow such things so strictly (whether they know it when starting, or not).  I'm glad you asserted that it's not necessarily better or worse, a higher standard or lower.  It's just different.

It is only bad when the stated objective of a race is self-support, and then people don't race that way (or they cheat in other ways). Which is why I like the idea of two races, each equally valid and prestigious. By providing a format for those who don't want to Do It Themselves, everyone is happy. Even better, perhaps providing a mechanism where someone can move from one format to the other would be cool, which would address the situation that you mention where someone might have a change of heart deep into the race.