AZTR Rules Carousel

[jsliacan]

The visitation rule has been in effect for all of the Triple Crown races since their inception. This is not a new thing.

One more thing, can we please do our best to check our claims before posting them? False statements, whether honestly believed or not, dilute the thread. Cheers!

[SlowRide]

One more thing, can we please do our best to check our claims before posting them? False statements, whether honestly believed or not, dilute the thread. Cheers!

Excuse me for not noticing that particular footnote, I guess I should have said long standing instead of since the inception. I'll exit the conversation now as you are obviously trying to just convolute the issues here. The rules were broken, a rider was relegated. There's no doubt it was the correct decision. The only thing diluting this thread is your trying to twist the simplicity of this in to some kind of courtroom hearing. I'm glad the RD sees it the way pretty much everyone in this thread does except for you. It's simple if you are one who follows rules instead of trying to find loopholes to bend them. Take responsibility for yourself, and race unsupported with no visitation. The rules were available before Lael's run and she broke them in a premeditated fashion. That honestly makes it even worse.

[Two Tired]

Missing these days...

[jsliacan]

I'll exit the conversation now as you are obviously trying to just convolute the issues here.

There were no controversies, no major complaints, and not much confusion before the visitation/media rule. Who is convoluting things?

The rules were broken, a rider was relegated. There's no doubt it was the correct decision.

Why bring the RD's decision into this? The topic has been the rule change. No one is questioning the relegation decision (conditioned on the existence of the rule).

The only thing diluting this thread is your trying to twist the simplicity of this in to some kind of courtroom hearing. I'm glad the RD sees it the way pretty much everyone in this thread does except for you.

Maybe oversimplifying the rules (outright bans instead of regulation) isn't always the best thing. By "pretty much everyone" you mean a handful of people. Also, it says a lot that none of these people is willing to go through the possible changes. Instead, all of them categorically oppose *any* change to the visitation/media rule, without even hearing what it might be.

It's simple if you are one who follows rules instead of trying to find loopholes to bend them.

Clearly, I am not looking for loopholes but am trying to instigate a transparent rule change.

The rules were available before Lael's run and she broke them in a premeditated fashion. That honestly makes it even worse.

Lael stated that she hadn't known about the new media rule. Let's be careful with accusations.

[taprider]

Bikepack racing is not intended to be a spectator sport!

That has been the philosophy since at least 2011 according to this website, and rules were even stricter according to magazine articles back in the 1990s/2000s
There have been no rule changes, only clarifications of the original spirit of the no visitation rule when people tried to bend of break it.  There were discussions back before 2016 about what "visitation" meant, so go check the old threads (there are hundreds of pages, I am not going to do your homework for you).

But first you must complete a multi-day/multi-week bikepack race, before you start trying to change the spirit of the original rules

ps; how could bikepack racers not be aware of the no visitation and no media rule (L & R asked the RD for and were granted an exemption prior to the 2019 Divide)

[Two Tired]

Clearly, I am not looking for loopholes but am trying to instigate a transparent rule change.

Nobody is stopping anybody from organizing an event with full media coverage.

Remember though, before buying that next piece of expensive video gear, that the pendulum swings both ways.
Racers of the future may consider the "control car media chase" un-cool.

[jsliacan]

Bikepack racing is not intended to be a spectator sport!

Watching a YT video is hardly spectating.

That has been the philosophy since at least 2011 according to this website, and rules were even stricter according to magazine articles back in the 1990s/2000s
There have been no rule changes, only clarifications of the original spirit of the no visitation rule when people tried to bend of break it.

I am pretty sure that media crew rule is new for AZTR (TD still doesn't have it). And I cannot find any discussion preceding the addition of the rule. As for visitation, it's not one of the original rules - it got its current form around 2010-11.

There were discussions back before 2016 about what "visitation" meant, so go check the old threads (there are hundreds of pages, I am not going to do your homework for you).

From the discussions that I read (most of those that are returned by search for "visitation" on this site), the concern & reason for introducing visitation rule was that racers will be bothered by crowds of fans. Hardly ever is there a mention about emotional support as early as 2011. That only came later. It's quite safe to say that the original purpose of the visitation rule was not to prevent emotional support, but rather to prevent bothering the participants. The discussions even include the problem of how this is going to be communicated to general public, as that's who the rule is really for. And the obvious objection (that the racers cannot be blamed for fans showing up/visiting) was noted and dismissed (basically).

So in short, I am not sure how this changes much about the problematic application of the "no visitation" rule in today's races.

But first you must complete a multi-day/multi-week bikepack race, before you start trying to change the spirit of the original rules

New rule?

ps; how could bikepack racers not be aware of the no visitation and no media rule (L & R asked the RD for and were granted an exemption prior to the 2019 Divide)

If the media rule wasn't there during the racer's last run, and the rules aren't supposed to change too much, it's conceivable that someone forgets to check the rules again (a mistake, but not a mystery).

[Eszter]

I almost kinda miss having Toby Gadd on this forum. What fun would be had if he were still around here. 

[MikeC]

TD spun off of the Great Divide Race.

I wrote the original GDR rules down in '03-'04.  I inherited the framework for those rules from John Stamstad and Pat Norwil, whom codified many of them in advance of John's '99 ITT.

I can't find that exact version online, but I did find them from 2006:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060208230820/http://greatdividerace.com/_wsn/page3.html
 
The word 'visitation' wasn't used in this version, but the spirit of the rule is clearly there.

I know I wrote at least one more variant of these rules before checking out of the petty pissing contest that this sort of event was becoming. I know they included a Do. It. Yourself.  Emphatically in bold.

But I cannot find those.

[taprider]

Toby aka Done came down from the mountain in 2012 with stone tablets full of wisdom
http://tobygadd.blogspot.com/2012/05/ultra-racing-rules.html

some highlights

• As the boundaries that define the spirit of ultra-racing are trampled and distorted through ignorance and entitlement, the sport is quickly becoming a free-for-all, where the final results justify the means. One racer even tried to argue that, since ultra-racing isn?t sanctioned, there aren't really any rules anyway.
  
• But the devil is always in the details. While race organizers have tried to keep the rules simple, with the idea that a few basic principles will be properly interpreted to address a myriad of unforeseen situations, more specific directives have often been added for clarification. Indeed, the Tour Divide and Colorado Trail Race have a growing list of rules, and many pages of FAQs, addressing such issues as visitation, cell phone usage, alternative routes, etc.
  
• Pre-planned camera crews for "famous" riders are banned from many races for good reason. For a sport that's all about a solo challenge, having a crew following along will always change the dynamics. If in doubt, contact the organizer. Personally, I'm not a fan of crews--regardless of how careful they are.
  

Big discussion about the "Spirit of the Tour Divide" on bikepacking.net in 2014 here http://www.bikepacking.net/forum/ultra-racing/the-spirit-of-the-tour-divide/
Toby's response in that thread to ABfolder is a classic
ABfolder on November 24, 2014, 06:48:00 AM "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."
Toby's response: "Little blue pills, eh? Gotta be Viagra. Definitely against the rules, as that certainly wouldn't qualify as self-support."

[jsliacan]

Toby aka Done came down from the mountain in 2012 with stone tablets full of wisdom
http://tobygadd.blogspot.com/2012/05/ultra-racing-rules.html

Funny you link this given the discussion in the comments. Those rules are extreme. Next thing we know, riders must tie their hands behind their backs and ride without adjustable seat height. Even Scott Morris is objecting to the absolutism and pettiness (my term) of those "rules" -- see the comments. But even if you choose them as a standard, why drop doping ban but keep media or visitation ban? The inconsistency of the current ruleset is appalling. And nobody seems to address that.

Moreover, Scott Morris points out, very eloquently and diplomatically, that there are no golden original rules as some here try to claim. The "founders" were, like all of us, searching for the right definitions and concepts. Why not keep evolving the rules with changing climate. There were no smartphones in 1999 or 2006. Surely it's easier to book a hotel room now than it was back then -- making any possible records only comparable up to +/- epsilon. But should we ban smartphones? I don't think so. Same goes for the media. We have drones, ebikes, etc. Media crews can be much more inconspicuous now than they could be 10-15y ago. Why not let them produce *good* films that public has access to (on YT)? Sure, let's discuss how this will be done, but an outright ban is hostile by being unnecessarily crude.

If people wish, they can put asterisks next to their super pure efforts (e.g. the SS category is basically a positive asterisk). But lets make the default rules pleasantly relaxed with a little wiggle room for inconsequential style differences.

[jsliacan]

TD spun off of the Great Divide Race.

I wrote the original GDR rules down in '03-'04.  I inherited the framework for those rules from John Stamstad and Pat Norwil, whom codified many of them in advance of John's '99 ITT.

I can't find that exact version online, but I did find them from 2006:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060208230820/http://greatdividerace.com/_wsn/page3.html
 
The word 'visitation' wasn't used in this version, but the spirit of the rule is clearly there.

I know I wrote at least one more variant of these rules before checking out of the petty pissing contest that this sort of event was becoming. I know they included a Do. It. Yourself.  Emphatically in bold.

But I cannot find those.

Thanks for this Mike!

However, I cannot see the intention to curb "emotional support" (visitation) or media. All the rules seem to refer to material and measurable advantages. Even the remark about the intentions of the rules (given that it follows the rules above). BTW, I don't think anyone objects to the Do It Yourself idea. It's just that people's interpretation of it is different. For instance, it would never occur to me that seeing someone I know on the route means not doing it by myself. It just seems so inconsequential next to other things that aren't banned.

[phatmike]

jsliacan,

It appears you don't want a discussion at all, rather you want to pick apart point after point of people who appear to be on the side "against" media crews. Many of whom who have actually lined up to this event and others like it. Until there is a rising of support for this from within the participant pool, I wouldn't expect any traction on it. If you and others want that experience, go create the event you desire. Let the participants decide which event and set of rules they want to be under. Have all the E-bikes (not allowed on the AZT btw) and drones flying all over the place. Sounds great.

PS - Fly those drones nice and low on the north side of Redington Rd. Maybe you'll get some cool footage.

[jsliacan]

It appears you don't want a discussion at all, rather you want to pick apart point after point of people who appear to be on the side "against" media crews.

That's basically the definition of a discussion - someone makes a statement, others challenge it and vice versa. Now that we clarified this, can we discuss why media crews and visitation are given such disproportional importance around here?

Many of whom who have actually lined up to this event and others like it. Until there is a rising of support for this from within the participant pool, I wouldn't expect any traction on it.

And this is the thing. They allow as little publicity as possible, basically making it a ride among mates and then you write something like this. The participant pool is extremely inbred because people are very unlikely to chance on any good/captivating information about the event. What you wrote is basically a tautology.

If you and others want that experience, go create the event you desire. Let the participants decide which event and set of rules they want to be under.

I already explained why it's undesirable for the community & the event to have a "clone event with rules variations".

Have all the E-bikes (not allowed on the AZT btw) and drones flying all over the place. Sounds great.
PS - Fly those drones nice and low on the north side of Redington Rd. Maybe you'll get some cool footage.

Cheap comments.

[phatmike]

And this is the thing. They allow as little publicity as possible, basically making it a ride among mates and then you write something like this. The participant pool is extremely inbred...

You make it sound like it's a "good ol' boys club" which in my experience is very shortsighted if not downright wrong. The people lining up for these come from all walks of life and are as diverse as the terrain they wish to travel. And again, just for clarity, nothing in the rules states that Lael is prevented from doing her thing. It just says that the effort will be * and it can't count as a record for the AZTR. Both of these facts should be able to exist together. Does Lael's documentation and story become less valid and inspiring without the FKT? Will the people inspired by her suddenly quit bikes when somebody inevitably goes faster? Of course not.

[Guild44]

Jsliacan - Thanks you for all your well-researched comments. I think it sheds a whole lot of light on what is going on here. I appreciate it.

[TailLights]

Jsliacan - You make some great points.

I had written a long reply here, as I agree with you and would love to see the 2022 "*" spur off a summer of healthy discussions about what rules "work" and what ones don't (for all ultra races, not specifically AZTR). But I deleted the reply. There just doesn't seem to be the appetite to discuss the rules here or maybe just at this time. I don't even know if you did prove that the rule doesn't impact the results, if you'd get some people to agree to change them.

[MikeC]

Thanks for this Mike!

However, I cannot see the intention to curb "emotional support" (visitation) or media.

Can't, or don't want to?

[jsliacan]

Can't, or don't want to?

OK, let's have those rules here for completeness. I numbered them for easier referencing.

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.
2. Competitors must carry with them all necessary equipment.
3. Prearranged outside support is not allowed. This includes, but is not limited to, assistance with navigation, delivery of supplies, lighting, or lodging.
4. Competitors will stock up on food and other items at stores along the route. Provisions may be sent ahead (pre-race) to Post Offices only. Provisions may not be sent to residences nor delivered to a racer by non-commercial means (friends or family).
5. If you need something that you didn't bring or can't find on the route, you may have the item(s) shipped to you:
* via a commercial delivery service (UPS, Fed-Ex, DHL, Airborne, or USPS)
* to a commercial address (hotel, motel, restaurant, post office, bike shop).
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.
7. Competitors may, in the case of an emergency, mechanical or other unforeseeable problems, be assisted by motorized transport (hitchhiking) in moving backward or off-route, but MAY NOT, under any circumstances, be transported forward on the route.
8. Once you've solved your issue, you must then rejoin the route exactly where you left it, and you must do this under your own power. Again, you MAY NOT be transported forward on the route.
9. This is a solo competition, but during the race it is likely that some racers may choose to travel together. This is permitted. HOWEVER, racers MAY NOT draft other racers and MUST maintain seperate gear.
10. The intent of these simple rules is to establish an equal and fair opportunity for all racers, and to eliminate any advantage gained by those who live near to or have friends/family along the route.

The only rules that are vaguely related to interaction with others are 3, 9, and 10. Clearly rule 3 does *not* talk about abstract things like "emotional support" because if it did, at least one of the examples listed would be abstract to some extent. None of them are. The mention of "solo" in rule 9 clearly refers to interactions between racers, and not between participants and external persons (e.g. fans, friends, etc.). Same argument as in case of rule 3. If rule 9 did mean "solo" in a wider sense, the examples would've illustrated it - yet those only mention racer-racer interactions. Rule 10 simply summarizes the overall idea behind the other 9 rules - it basically declares that it's a recap rule with "The intent of these simple rules is...". So rule 10 introduces nothing that isn't in the other 9 rules - that's what it says.

Your turn now. If there is a hint of emotional support (visitation, media) being against the spirit, can you point it out please? I am sure I will not be the only one to benefit from it. Thanks!

[jsliacan]

Thanks you for all your well-researched comments. I think it sheds a whole lot of light on what is going on here. I appreciate it.

It's good to see someone in this corner of the internet who shares at least some of my concerns!

I had written a long reply here, as I agree with you and would love to see the 2022 "*" spur off a summer of healthy discussions about what rules "work" and what ones don't (for all ultra races, not specifically AZTR). But I deleted the reply. There just doesn't seem to be the appetite to discuss the rules here or maybe just at this time. I don't even know if you did prove that the rule doesn't impact the results, if you'd get some people to agree to change them.

Would it be too much to ask that you retype the gist of it and post it here? The reason for doing it here is that it's their venue of choice - there is a `Contact` section at he bottom of https://azt300-800.com/ which says:

Please consider posting your questions to bikepacking.net?s Ultra Forum. There is a yearly forum thread there with common questions asked and answered. There?s a helpful community of AZT riders that can help, and that way your questions (and answers) can help others with the same questions.

I don't have much hope of changing things either at this point. But it is still useful to log all concerns here. Media isn't going anywhere and the dotwatching scene is growing so this topic will likely be reopened more and more often. Someone already tried to make a point that "anyone that matters is happy with the rules". So the more people bring new information into the bubble, the better. Thanks!