Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12
Reply Reply New Topic New Poll
  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #100 on: May 12, 2022, 02:26:47 AM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: May 12, 2022, 02:26:47 AM »

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.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #101 on: May 12, 2022, 03:52:10 AM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: May 12, 2022, 03:52:10 AM »

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 Smiley.
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. 
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #102 on: May 12, 2022, 04:24:31 AM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: May 12, 2022, 04:24:31 AM »

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.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #103 on: May 12, 2022, 04:56:04 AM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: May 12, 2022, 04:56:04 AM »

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?Huh??? 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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2022, 06:32:31 AM by jsliacan » Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #104 on: May 12, 2022, 05:25:05 AM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: May 12, 2022, 05:25:05 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2022, 05:57:27 AM by jsliacan » Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #105 on: May 12, 2022, 07:45:17 AM
JohnStamstad


Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: May 12, 2022, 07:45:17 AM »

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.
Yeah, this is an interesting distinction between running and Bikepacking norms. Back in the original times we did acknowledge the advantage of racing--not because of emotional support but because of the obvious fact that you tend to ride harder chasing someone than not. Out of sight out of mind became a saying for a reason. Even those that are the mentally strongest on the planet still get an edge. I guess one could argue that trackleaders has  changed that. Lael's ride last year had her trackleader page, with Mike Hall's "track" virtually racing hers. I think his was based on averages, not actual, but you get the point. Technology is really changing everything. She was racing head-to-head... sort of, virtually. Hmmm,  I don't know what i think on this subject.  Everyone should have an equal opportunity to do their best ride and i think people trying to avoid every mental advantage are missing the point. This is a sport with a billion variables, we can't wrestle them all. It's simply about drawing a line between supported, self-,and un-supported. FKT defines these very well in my opinion.
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.


Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #106 on: May 12, 2022, 08:36:28 AM
ScottM
bikepacking.net admin


Location: Wherever the GeoPro is parked.
Posts: 2863


View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: May 12, 2022, 08:36:28 AM »

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.


Hey Mike.

It's still here, at the bottom of the old and defunct AZTR site:

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

Actually it's on the current AZT rules page at the bottom, too.

"do. it. yourself." - including the documenting, photo taking, story telling.  Having personally spent energy taking photos and thinking about stories while racing, that certainly resonates with me as I'm sure it does with you.

The earliest draft of that I can find is from 2007/2008. 

I don't think it's particularly relevant when or how rule changes were made.  But I appreciate that Jakub respects the history enough to bring it up.  There's no doubt in my mind that the original intent of the divide/azt/ctr rules absolutely does not jive with a media crew following one racer at many road crossings.  I remember discussing this issue with MikeC after AZTR 2006 when one racer's ride kept showing up at road crossings and taking photos.  I also remember that during 2007 CTR someone was out interviewing (youtube!) the leaders in a remote part of the route (and I understood it to be a romantic partner of one of them).  I questioned this idea (not the actual occurrence but the idea) and suggested it did not fall under self-support.  A 'spirited' debate then ensued.  That thread can be found on the MTBR forum because it predates bikepacking.net (which was started in 2008):

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

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.

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.
Logged

Author of TopoFusion GPS software.  Co-founder of trackleaders.com - SPOT event tracking.

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #107 on: May 12, 2022, 09:36:41 AM
JohnStamstad


Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: May 12, 2022, 09:36:41 AM »

Hey Mike.

It's still here, at the bottom of the old and defunct AZTR site:

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

Actually it's on the current AZT rules page at the bottom, too.

"do. it. yourself." - including the documenting, photo taking, story telling.  Having personally spent energy taking photos and thinking about stories while racing, that certainly resonates with me as I'm sure it does with you.

The earliest draft of that I can find is from 2007/2008. 

I don't think it's particularly relevant when or how rule changes were made.  But I appreciate that Jakub respects the history enough to bring it up.  There's no doubt in my mind that the original intent of the divide/azt/ctr rules absolutely does not jive with a media crew following one racer at many road crossings.  I remember discussing this issue with MikeC after AZTR 2006 when one racer's ride kept showing up at road crossings and taking photos.  I also remember that during 2007 CTR someone was out interviewing (youtube!) the leaders in a remote part of the route (and I understood it to be a romantic partner of one of them).  I questioned this idea (not the actual occurrence but the idea) and suggested it did not fall under self-support.  A 'spirited' debate then ensued.  That thread can be found on the MTBR forum because it predates bikepacking.net (which was started in 2008):

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

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.

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 for adding your voice here Scott. I agree these rules are not new. They just get clarified and spelled out as is necessary.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #108 on: May 12, 2022, 12:23:00 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: May 12, 2022, 12:23:00 PM »

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.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #109 on: May 12, 2022, 01:58:42 PM
ScottM
bikepacking.net admin


Location: Wherever the GeoPro is parked.
Posts: 2863


View Profile WWW
« Reply #109 on: May 12, 2022, 01:58:42 PM »

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.

Good.  On that MTBR thread it's pretty clear that emotional support and a bailout option were two of the main things we were thinking about.  That thread is eerily similar to recent discussions, with many of the same arguments being made.

Quote
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.

Yes, I agree with this.  The visitation rule does allow for certain amounts of media on route.  AZTR's new media rule isn't just a clarification but can be seen as a strengthening of it.

A number of documenting efforts have been tolerated or encouraged over the years, usually because of things like: they are limited in scope (not following the entire race), are done by neutral parties and don't contain close relations of riders.  The RD has given approval to such endeavors for these reasons.  That was true of the 2015 REI movie on Lael's ITT attempt, which I did give the green light to.  The understanding was that they were going to get most of their footage after-the-fact with only limited 'live' footage and it was a crew that was unfamiliar to her.  The crew seemed very concerned that their presence didn't affect the legitimacy of the ride in my eyes and (more importantly) in the eyes of the bikepacking community.


Logged

Author of TopoFusion GPS software.  Co-founder of trackleaders.com - SPOT event tracking.

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #110 on: May 12, 2022, 03:07:13 PM
phatmike


Posts: 181


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: May 12, 2022, 03:07:13 PM »

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.

I don't know what to think about drones. Would I want to hear one flying overhead? Not really. Do other trail users want to hear them? Probably not. A very real concern I have is malfunctioning drones potentially malfunctioning and causing fires. The desert southwest is a tinderbox and it is trending worse. Many miles of AZT have been impacted either directly or otherwise. No AZT miles that I know by drone users, but it has happened in other places. My stance is the less things out there to cause fires the better. This could considered unfair of course. What if a participant operated a drone out there? Would I care then? Yes, my concerns are the same. I personally wouldn't fly a drone out there knowing how easy it is to spark a fire here right now.

Just another thought about other trail users, specifically thru hikers and equestrians. It is no secret that many of them don't like bikes very much. My hunch is that this impression comes from day riders who have less regard for other trail users, but it is still an issue that the cycling community deals with. Do we need another reason for other trail users to not like us? They already get upset that we "go too fast" or "don't yield" or "drain the public water caches". Do we need to add to that by flying drones and having vehicles effectively chase the racers only to in effect descend like locusts into the locations the cars can get to just to disrupt that area for filming purposes? Some are large enough where it isn't an issue, others it could very well keep another real trail user from being able to park and access the AZT. That isn't good.

Your idea about filming in overly public places is probably valid, but unless filming people buying food at one of the limited locations that this falls into is rich and engaging enough is up for debate. With changes to the route, these locations have also decreased over the last few years. Several small towns south of Tucson and even Flagstaff proper are now out of the mix. Skipping Oracle is getting more common, etc.

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.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2022, 04:47:54 PM by phatmike » Logged


  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #111 on: May 13, 2022, 01:35:33 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: May 13, 2022, 01:35:33 PM »

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).
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #112 on: May 13, 2022, 01:57:37 PM
taprider


Location: North Vancouver
Posts: 341


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: May 13, 2022, 01:57:37 PM »

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

As far as annoying noises,
I rate drones more annoying than constant nearby gun fire (such as along RedNeckington Road), but less than a swarm of voracious mosquitos trying to get into your ears and every other orifice
« Last Edit: May 22, 2022, 09:34:52 PM by taprider » Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #113 on: May 13, 2022, 10:53:18 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: May 13, 2022, 10:53:18 PM »


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.


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?

Quote
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.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #114 on: May 13, 2022, 10:58:08 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: May 13, 2022, 10:58:08 PM »

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.
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #115 on: May 13, 2022, 11:04:56 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: May 13, 2022, 11:04:56 PM »

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?
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #116 on: May 14, 2022, 11:18:24 AM
ScottM
bikepacking.net admin


Location: Wherever the GeoPro is parked.
Posts: 2863


View Profile WWW
« Reply #116 on: May 14, 2022, 11:18:24 AM »

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.

Not sure why that was removed.  

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
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.

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).

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.

Quote
So I think we're looking at an even bigger mystery. ...... knowing that rules were introduced after a due process helps people trust them being fair.

Hopefully what I wrote above makes it less mysterious.

Agreed on the rest - proof of some process, some discussion, correlation with the community are all valid things to ask about.

Quote
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.

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

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.  
Logged

Author of TopoFusion GPS software.  Co-founder of trackleaders.com - SPOT event tracking.

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #117 on: May 14, 2022, 03:47:40 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: May 14, 2022, 03:47:40 PM »

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...):
Quote
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!
Logged

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #118 on: May 14, 2022, 05:16:07 PM
ScottM
bikepacking.net admin


Location: Wherever the GeoPro is parked.
Posts: 2863


View Profile WWW
« Reply #118 on: May 14, 2022, 05:16:07 PM »

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).

Yes, I don't think we are so far off.  Good.

Quote
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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote
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.

Thanks, I appreciate the agreement.  We're close, but I don't think it's banning non-personal crews there.  We might need to clarify this with John Schilling.  But it talks about "media support", i.e. personal.

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

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

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.  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.

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.

Quote
I wouldn't call them consistent.

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.

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.

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

Likewise, I appreciate you are here to discuss ideas and are willing to make concessions.  Cornerstones of a good discussion.

Logged

Author of TopoFusion GPS software.  Co-founder of trackleaders.com - SPOT event tracking.

  Topic Name: AZTR Rules Carousel Reply #119 on: May 16, 2022, 02:59:38 PM
jsliacan


Posts: 77


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: May 16, 2022, 02:59:38 PM »

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 Smiley. 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!
Logged
  Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 12
Reply New Topic New Poll
Jump to: