AZTR Rules Carousel

[ScottM]

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).

We can ask John if you want but I am certain he did not intend that rule to mean no neutral media.  In fact, he granted it in the 2021 event.  Jefe also granted permission for limited neutral media in 2021 CTR.  The precedent is all over, as many have pointed out: the films exist and many were given RD blessing.

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 can see now that if people are led to believe (not by actually reading the rules, but by narratives and articles) that absolutely no media is allowed, then an RD is being inconsistent in going out to cover the event in any shape.  Thanks for illuminating that point for me.  Fortunately that's not at all what the rules say or have ever said. 

This also shows why one might point to other films and claim unfair treatment. Easy to do if you don't understand the differences and the nuances, and if you don't read/comprehend the rules.

To be honest I think it is the personal media crew proponents grasping at straws here.

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.

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

The fact that Josh's crew didn't announce their intentions ahead of the start makes it even worse, agreed.

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

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).

This is absolutely a fair point.  TD does not publish results and this is a bone that I and many others have to pick.

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

And if not, then that comes with the responsibility of speaking up when subtle and non-obvious rules are broken.

Agreed that TD has dropped the ball here with respect to lack of enforcement.

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

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

Well, visitation rule proves that no one around here is afraid of cans of worms

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

They are consistent along that axis, I agree.

I'm glad you see them as consistent. 

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.

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

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

As usual, I am hoping it won't be included, and therefore other little rules can also be omitted.

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

What happens to the events if each rider has even 10 visitors roving all over the route?  The answer over here in the states is that the event is much more likely to get noticed, much more likely to get shut down.  Not allowing visitors, media or not, all over the route is not just about self-support but about preserving the event. 

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

[jsliacan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6th Tour Divide 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens to the events if each rider has even 10 visitors roving all over the route?  The answer over here in the states is that the event is much more likely to get noticed, much more likely to get shut down.  Not allowing visitors, media or not, all over the route is not just about self-support but about preserving the event.  

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

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

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

[ScottM]

I am 100% sure that the rule does not say anything about media crew being personal. And if one means personal media crew, it's easy to write "personal media crews" into the rules.

Agreed, the word personal is not there.  I'll concede that adding it would make it more clear.

Surely you can't blame the readers for misunderstanding.

My question here is how can a neutral media crew covering the entire race be construed as a support crew?  The term 'support crew' doesn't make any sense for neutral media so the rule cannot be talking about that.

Further, a neutral race reporter and the decision to give one the green light is the decision of the RD and only the RD.  So there's no reason to spell it out in the rules.  The rules are for the participants, they aren't spelling out what the RD may or may not do.  None of the other rules deal with what the RD may or may not do, why would this one?

Yet here we are speculating about what a 3rd person thought when they wrote the rules...

There's no speculation here.  He granted neutral media access to the race in 2021.  He was out there himself during the event and during ITTs.  He clearly did not intend to ban all media. I don't know how to make that more clear. 

I did sense that you're less radical - much appreciated. However, not all folks have "a couple of races" to get their heads around the rules. Going by what I've seen on this forum, very few wrapped their heads around the rules correctly and most of them must have done a few of these events already (judging by what they wrote).

Yes this is an issue.  I don't think there is a solution to it.  Removing a few rules or adding a few, taking different views on what self-support is or isn't will not change this.  This is a fundamental problem to our sport.  Nothing we are talking about changing here will have any effect on the fact that people have a hard time getting their heads around self-supported racing.  Having said that for some people it's pretty natural.

Journalists already have various standards for documenting various settings. Adopting some of those, designating accessible and off-limit places on route, regulating numbers, etc. is all strictly better than status quo. And of course, followed by education. Explaining concepts at the bottom of the old AZTR page was great. Going on podcasts and talking about this is also great. Writing blog posts about these topics is further great. Bikepacking.com and other platforms (even Radavist I think) would be happy to publish various ponderings on these issues. There are heaps of ways to make people used to thinking the right way. Talking to other race organizers and cross-analyzing each other's rules would help too. And keeping all discussions open is important as well, so people can access context to the rules if they wish.

All of these are great ideas for guidelines as to how neutral media should operate, and how to communicate them.  And also for how limited scope personal media crews could operate.  You already know that I agree that limited personal crews are OK -- I approved Lael's 2015 REI movie.

But I think these events will hit that problem soon anyways.

So we should just accept that they are doomed?  Excuse me but we have made it nearly 20 years and that's remarkable.  It's in part because we have chosen to not allow spectators, visitors and media all over the route.  Just because it will get worse doesn't mean we don't try to do something about it. That's exactly a reason to do something about it!

Each spectator/visitor technically takes away one spot from a racer in the current USFS rules of 74 person limit non-commercial events.  There's plenty of justification here for keeping the visitation rule in place just for this reason alone.  The fact that visitation is not self-supported is just a nice bonus because most people find that easy to see as consistent with other rules and the spirit.

This is interesting. So in case there is a serious accident on course, you'd prefer to not have anyone spectating there (to make sure that they weren't tempted to help the other riders) over them being there when it matters?

This is a valid argument -- spectators in remote places does make the event 'safer' in some sense.  However I think we have all agreed that we are not looking for that kind of safety blanket here.  If we're going to argue along these lines we may as well put EMTs and aid stations all over as well.  This is not what we are looking for -- I think we can all agree on that.

I would prefer someone is around in case of an accident and would absolutely expect anyone and everyone to help out.  That's what I meant by the rules being silly and irrelevant, especially in cases like this.


What other reasons do you have for wanting the visitation rule stricken?

[Two Tired]

If the participants don't like it or the application of the rules, there is nothing on this beautiful earth preventing them from creating their own event with rules that are more suitable for their style and objectives.

That's not a fair suggestion though. If one event already exists, you won't create another one which is a copy of the first except for the rules. It would split the community, dilute the racing scene, confuse the public, and it would just be bad taste in general.

What other reasons do you have for wanting the visitation rule stricken?

The answer to that question was back on page 3.
Instead of organizing an event that promotes the full-on-media-chase, the racer wants to "evolve" an event that presently exists.
The most compelling argument that the racer has made is that the public would be confused should another event be created.
Bad taste appears to be an issue too.

[ScottM]

The answer to that question was back on page 3.
Instead of organizing an event that promotes the full-on-media-chase, the racer wants to "evolve" an event that presently exists.
The most compelling argument that the racer has made is that the public would be confused should another event be created.
Bad taste appears to be an issue too.

I agree with everything here.  Mike's suggestion is spot on and completely fair.  It's happened before and no event claims exclusivity to the routes or the concepts.

I also agree with you, Two Tired, that the racer (Jakub) is trying to evolve the event that presently exists.  All good with that.

Further, I agree that the most compelling argument thus made is that splitting the event is not desirable and should be avoided.  It should be a last resort.  Is this issue of allowing visitation/media enough to justify a new event?  Not for me to decide.

What I was asking is if there's a compelling argument for striking the visitation rule within the existing event.  So far we've covered rule discussion, consistency, pettiness and completeness.  We've also covered that limited forms of media are allowed.  What I haven't heard is a compelling argument for why it should be stricken.

[jsliacan]

My question here is how can a neutral media crew covering the entire race be construed as a support crew?  The term 'support crew' doesn't make any sense for neutral media so the rule cannot be talking about that.

That is my question from the beginning. And the answer which I received many times is that simply knowing that there are people around the course gives you peace of mind that violates the self-supported nature. Sounds extreme? My point exactly.

The rules are for the participants, they aren't spelling out what the RD may or may not do.  None of the other rules deal with what the RD may or may not do, why would this one?

Because this rule deals with visitors (friends of participants), not participants. It's very odd that a rule tries to govern people who didn't sign up for the race, but that's what it does... And an RD falls into that category if they show up on the course (they're friends with many racers and don't live along the entire route).

There's no speculation here.  He granted neutral media access to the race in 2021.  He was out there himself during the event and during ITTs.  He clearly did not intend to ban all media. I don't know how to make that more clear. 

Here's a way to make that clear: write personal media into the rules (but I don't think he's actually willing to do that).

Nothing we are talking about changing here will have any effect on the fact that people have a hard time getting their heads around self-supported racing.  Having said that for some people it's pretty natural.

The less extreme the rules (or the less we push self-supported concept into extreme), the less error there will be among the participants on the side of support. I think that's a pretty safe conclusion (you're moving a line left in a distribution, surely more of the distribution will be on the right side of the line if you shift the line to the left).

So we should just accept that they are doomed?  Excuse me but we have made it nearly 20 years and that's remarkable.  It's in part because we have chosen to not allow spectators, visitors and media all over the route.  Just because it will get worse doesn't mean we don't try to do something about it. That's exactly a reason to do something about it!

Each spectator/visitor technically takes away one spot from a racer in the current USFS rules of 74 person limit non-commercial events.  There's plenty of justification here for keeping the visitation rule in place just for this reason alone.  The fact that visitation is not self-supported is just a nice bonus because most people find that easy to see as consistent with other rules and the spirit.

Given all your responses until now, this one is weirdly unfair by taking what I said out of context and just pretending I haven't said some things. What I said was basically this: the participation numbers will go over the limit in the future no matter how hardcore your visitation rule is. In other words, your tools don't scale well with the problem and you'll have to look for more scalable solutions anyways. Why not implement a scalable solution already and relax visitation since it's primary purpose (as you write) will disappear in the future. I gave an example of an event that faced the same problem and solved it with lottery.

This is a valid argument -- spectators in remote places does make the event 'safer' in some sense.  However I think we have all agreed that we are not looking for that kind of safety blanket here.  If we're going to argue along these lines we may as well put EMTs and aid stations all over as well.  This is not what we are looking for -- I think we can all agree on that.

This was a minor objection I made. The main one was against the preemptive use of rules.

What I was asking is if there's a compelling argument for striking the visitation rule within the existing event.  So far we've covered rule discussion, consistency, pettiness and completeness.  We've also covered that limited forms of media are allowed.  What I haven't heard is a compelling argument for why it should be stricken.

I think this is the wrong way around. We haven't heard a compelling argument for having the visitation rule in. And the onus is obviously on those who want the rule in to prove its necessity - otherwise let's include all the rules we can think of.

• discussion - we've seen some discussions about the visitation topic (and media from the point of view of visitation); we haven't seen a discussion where it was concluded or even made obvious that it was a good idea to add a new rule
• consistency - somewhat settled on the understanding that the rules are incomplete as a consequence
• completeness - there wasn't much said about this when I scroll back; and if one includes a few lesser rules, then he/she also needs to include other major and lesser rules. I rephrased sponsor bonuses in a way that makes it clear they "occur during the event".
• pettiness - I think this topic changed when, in your recent post you mentioned that keeping numbers down was the important reason to have the visitation rule. I don't even know why we were discussing self-supportedness until now...
• limited forms of media allowed - I don't know how to stress enough that this is so hidden from everyone that not one person in this thread had suggested that media is possible under some circumstances. All of them defended media ban (as a blanket ban) that they thought was in the rules. The way the media rule is written, is very unfortunate (assuming your theory is true). And there doesn't seem to be a public discussion which led to adding the rule as it is. And there definitely wasn't any discussion about wording. 
  

There are many points which were just left unchallenged. For instance, race setting is by its nature not self-supported. So it makes little sense to include some of those little self-support rules for races. Maybe for ITTs.

I took a lot of care to provide reasoning for most of my statements, many of which were left untouched. That's fine, but then concluding that topics were "covered" is a bit of a stretch. If the visitation rule wasn't there and our discussion above was about adding it, I don't see a single compelling reason for doing so. Given that the goal is to have as few rules as possible, the default should be no visitation rule and one should only be added if it's the best answer to a compelling issue. I'm surprised how I'm now being asked to show that there's a compelling reason to remove a rule (even though I provided a good few). That's a low standard for including rules -- many candidates out there meet this criterion: "if there isn't going to be a compelling reason to remove it, let's put it in". Maybe that's what I was missing this whole time, I was arguing to a different standard than I was expected to. Please tell me if that's the case, I'm afraid I can't meet that standard (nobody can).

[ScottM]

That is my question from the beginning. And the answer which I received many times is that simply knowing that there are people around the course gives you peace of mind that violates the self-supported nature.

Alright, so we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.  Much confusion will go away once you realize that nobody wanted to ban all media.  The arguments here on this thread have been about personal crews.  It's you that is conflating the two, and very erroneously -- much to the detriment of this discussion I will add.

I went back and see phatMike talking about personal crews with loved ones on them.  I see evdog saying 'dedicated crew' meaning a crew dedicated to one rider, that is, a personal crew.  I am sorry if you have misunderstood this from the beginning but don't try to say that others are arguing things that they are not.  Further, the whole discussion is under the context of Lael's recent ride, i.e. a personal crew.  You yourself have mentioned her and her ride many times in your arguments.

Here's further proof if you need it, in Lael's own words (https://www.singletracks.com/community/lael-wilcox-talks-arizona-trail-fkt-media-support-controversy-and-the-importance-of-inspiration-interview/):

"And then, the race organizer came out to see me and take my picture at Picket Post trailhead (outside of Phoenix). And shortly after that he started texting Rue, my wife, who was documenting my story, and said what you?ve done so far is fine, because she was posting on my Instagram.

He?s like, ?Well, what you?ve done so far is fine because you?re local to Tucson, but if you continue documenting Lael?s ride, then her ride won?t count.? Or basically, I?ll have an asterisk if I get the record."

Key words here: "what you've done so far is fine."   Why is it fine?  Because it's visitation that falls under sparing and local use.  Because it's media, and rule 2 does not ban all media.  It bans support crews and that includes media support crews. 

Here's a way to make that clear: write personal media into the rules (but I don't think he's actually willing to do that).

Yep, I agreed that the rule could use the word personal to make it more clear.  I also think there should be something about the fact that neutral media may be encountered but that anyone who wants to 'cover' the race in this way should contact the race first.  (It's the only decent thing to do -- what journalist would cover a small, free event without asking the organizer first?  But it would help for clarity to say so).

Given all your responses until now, this one is weirdly unfair by taking what I said out of context and just pretending I haven't said some things. What I said was basically this: the participation numbers will go over the limit in the future no matter how hardcore your visitation rule is. In other words, your tools don't scale well with the problem and you'll have to look for more scalable solutions anyways. Why not implement a scalable solution already and relax visitation since it's primary purpose (as you write) will disappear in the future. I gave an example of an event that faced the same problem and solved it with lottery.

You've missed my point so there was nothing weirdly unfair about it.  I'll try again: the number of spots available is fixed: 74 in a Grand Depart.  Visitation rule is *not* a tool to keep the number of people vying for those spots down.  It keeps the number of available spots at 74, instead of much less than that if we allow personal media crews.  If everyone shows up with a crew capable of a high quality documentary we're down to a race of maybe 15 people.

So, no, the visitation rule doesn't kick the can further down the road so that we can survive a little longer without lotteries and the like, it preserves the race for the racers, which I think is exactly what we should do.

This is a very compelling reason for it.

As for the rest, I think it's time for you to restate your position and what you want here, given the major misunderstanding about all media not being banned.  What is your ideal change to the rules, given that limited media (with guidelines much like you have suggested) is already a thing?  There's already room to make a compelling doc about any of these races -- just keep the infringement on the race small and approved by the race itself.  Maybe add in some self-filming and shots after-the fact.  Is that enough?  Or do we really need to strike the rule in order to achieve these goals?

This is what I'm getting at with "what compelling reason is there to strike the rule"?  What is the benefit here?  What is the goal?  Is there anything to be gained other than consistency, completeness and lack of pettiness in the ruleset?

[ScottM]

Here's a way to make that clear: write personal media into the rules (but I don't think he's actually willing to do that).

I talked to John Schilling and he said adding the word personal sounds like a great addition and confirmed he never went so far as to ban all media. 

[jsliacan]

I talked to John Schilling and he said adding the word personal sounds like a great addition and confirmed he never went so far as to ban all media. 

This is great. I really didn't think any changes would be made. I'm very glad to have been wrong about this. Before it's done, I'd suggest to write "media crews that aren't neutral to the race", otherwise it might seen like the rule is talking about "personal" in the sense that family/friends are on the media crew. Which is already taken care of by the visitation rule. Maybe others can also point at holes in the wording?

The great thing about this (apart from knowing for sure that it wasn't a blanket media ban) is that anyone will know to approach the RD if they want to document the race. With the current wording of the media ban, only the entitled and those looking for loopholes (or those that know behind the scenes information) would come to the RD with a request like that. And that's probably not a good filter. I really appreciate transparency. So yes, I'm glad this is going to change - thanks heaps.

I'll aim to respond to your previous post asap - I agree that it'd be good to recap and re-evaluate positions, as many goalposts have moved and with that, many objections became irrelevant while new ones (or rather confusions) showed up. Thanks for patience!

[ScottM]

This is great. .....  I'm very glad to have been wrong about this.

Thank-you.  I am glad we got somewhere.  The misunderstanding is acceptable, but I feel like it should not have taken this long.  I wish you would have taken people at their word and accepted it when hard evidence was presented to you.  I wish you would have given us (and especially John Schilling) the benefit of the doubt.  That would have saved us a lot of time.  But it's OK -- in the end we realized we are all closer to the same page than it seemed and I accept that I could have been more understanding and concise in my comments as well.  Sorry about that.

And I do agree that rule 2 needs improvement and there should be a mention of contacting the race for neutral non-personal media permission.  This is progress.

-----

I stumbled onto an update today from the North Cape 4000 that is of interest here.  The update was concerning adding a minimum finish time (as some events in NZ have), but they mentioned:

"We also remind everyone that it is strictly forbidden to be supported by vehicles, even with the sole purpose of documenting the event. This is an unsupported event. "

A couple things to note here.  First this event is in Europe, showing we aren't in an echo chamber here.  Second they clearly consider a personal media crew to be support.  Third they worded it well -- it is clear they are not banning all media.  This rule is essentially the same as AZTR's #2.  

Also of interest is this recent podcast:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-9-the-rise-of-lauren-brownlee/id1617949561?i=1000562607355

The last 25 minutes deals with media in races.  I am really impressed with the younger generation of bikepackers now taking to the sport.  The thoughtfulness and calm candor with which they approach the subject is laudable.  I found it interesting that the host (Ezra I believe) is new to the sport, studied documentary cinema in college, is a big fan of all bikepacking content, was introduced to the sport by finding content of Lael's and is a big fan.  Yet he says that though he is a big fan of Lael (and all documentaries) he is a bigger fan of bikepacking and of the events themselves and that's more important.

The host also mentioned something I hadn't seen before: a camera in your face can increase your focus -- it definitely changes your actions in some way.  There's no such thing as an invisible reporter.  Being a documentary guy himself he says he sometimes imagines a camera is in his face so that he will stay focused.  That's an interesting point on the self-supported question.

[phatmike]

Does this mean that you are gonna head over here to the states to line up for one of these jscliacan? I sincerely hope you are able to so you are able to meet and ride with some pretty amazing people. You are clearly a strong rider and it's always a treat to watch those such as yourself tackle these routes to see how slow I really am haha.

I appreciate the discussion that has happened and I admittedly had to step out of it because I didn't feel like I was communicating well enough and I certainly don't have the extensive background or experience as other people who have been part of this discourse. Clarity in the language re: media crews is progress for sure. Thanks Scott for your work and attention to things as always.

[jsliacan]

Alright, so we have a fundamental misunderstanding here.  Much confusion will go away once you realize that nobody wanted to ban all media.  The arguments here on this thread have been about personal crews.  It's you that is conflating the two, and very erroneously -- much to the detriment of this discussion I will add.

The misunderstanding is acceptable, but I feel like it should not have taken this long.  I wish you would have taken people at their word and accepted it when hard evidence was presented to you.  I wish you would have given us (and especially John Schilling) the benefit of the doubt.  That would have saved us a lot of time.

I understood what you were saying and I believed your evidence. But it was at odds with what the rules said. And I did not believe any change was going to happen (you called the addition of "personal" a clarification, not a meaning-changer that it is). Therefore, I was going to hold the line pointing out that the rules are banning too much. In hindsight, of course I agree I should've given you & John the benefit of the doubt. I could have moved the discussion to updating the rule to reflect your evidence. It would be a better way to handle the stuck situation, but I didn't believe it was a viable option at the time. Lesson learned. Thanks.

Yep, I agreed that the rule could use the word personal to make it more clear.  I also think there should be something about the fact that neutral media may be encountered but that anyone who wants to 'cover' the race in this way should contact the race first.  (It's the only decent thing to do -- what journalist would cover a small, free event without asking the organizer first?  But it would help for clarity to say so).

Here, I'd only add that the TD19 situation is biting back: the journalist you're describing could easily be someone who tried the route of transparency and saw that going under the radar was way less problematic.

As for the rest, I think it's time for you to restate your position and what you want here, given the major misunderstanding about all media not being banned.  What is your ideal change to the rules, given that limited media (with guidelines much like you have suggested) is already a thing?  There's already room to make a compelling doc about any of these races -- just keep the infringement on the race small and approved by the race itself.  Maybe add in some self-filming and shots after-the fact.  Is that enough?  Or do we really need to strike the rule in order to achieve these goals?

This is what I'm getting at with "what compelling reason is there to strike the rule"?  What is the benefit here?  What is the goal?  Is there anything to be gained other than consistency, completeness and lack of pettiness in the ruleset?

Let me begin by saying that, given that the media rule isn't targeting neutral crews, I don't think there's any fundamental issue with the (updated) media rule. In that form, it also is only a little more than a clarification of the visitation rule (as you said about the old media rule). Therefore, there's only the visitation rule left -- this is a much more conceptually convoluted topic though. I quote it here for reference.

Visitation by spectators (friends, family) is OK if they are local to the route, the visit is near town/services and the visit is short. No pacers!

With my current understanding of the visitation rule (thanks for all the discussion), and going by the general idea of keeping rules to the minimum, I see the following as issues with the rule:

Support
People quote their experiences as reasons to limit/ban visitation. That's like saying "I would regret having an abortion, therefore it should be illegal (i.e. for everyone)", or "I find helmet makes me safer, they should be legally required.". Both of these are invalid conclusions. You get the idea. Also, I could list my experience from SRMR where I forgot to buy food at a checkpoint because I was distracted by the lens in my face all the time. Or how I had to go back out of the yurt 2nd time to air my sleeping bag because I forgot to do that as I arrived because I was conscious of the lens on me. Dust in the face, etc. are just petty details. My experience counts for nothing if there actually is an *objective* reason to believe riders get a boost. I'll vote for the restriction if that's the case. I don't see it though.

If we're talking about visitation as support, then we cannot apply this rule to the grand depart setting where you have many friends racing side by side, people checking others' trackers, being affected by others' strategies, etc.

If we are worried about support, I think I clarified why sponsor bonuses conditional on good performances are in-event (pre-arranged) support (like arranging your friend/family meeting you somewhere). Yet they aren't banned. Also, while a "lesser" rule of visitation is included, a "major" rule of medical doping isn't. Notice that mechanical doping does get its own rule (#4).

That said, I am sad that fastestknowntime.com introduced visitation as a "rule" too in 2021. Being in sync across areas is an added value in my opinion. Whether this is a good thing in this case, I don't know. What is the stance on this?

Footprint
This is a "relatively" new concern that phatmike brought up in this thread and you used it in your last few posts. I clump this together with allocating 74 spots to riders rather than sharing them with visitors. As far as I can see, it is the most objective and serious reason to restrict visitation. But... I don't see how this is an issue for ITTs/FKTs unless there are very many happening at once (or they're happening alongside a grand depart). Moreover, the rule talks about family and friends only, not general public (this is correct in my opinion, as public didn't sign up to abide by the race rules). However, at TCR the orgnizer had to plea with the public to give Fiona Kolbinger space in her final days as she was swarmed by dotwatchers (not family and friends). No rule can prevent this and it seems a more serious issue in the near future than overloading the course with family & friends. Maybe education and endless public discussions are the way to go, rather than the rules (notice that family & friends will be affected by this too).

Given that the visitation is only allowed near towns and services (do road crossings count?), why do visitors have to be local? Surely those 74 spots are not affected by how many people show up in town or at a service station. What am I missing?

Why do we care that the visit isn't long? The longer the visit the more time the racer wasted.

"No pacers!" is a major rule #6, it needs no inclusion in the "lesser" visitation rule I think.
-----------
What about the following? "Visitation by family and friends is OK near towns and services" (we're only talking to friends & family because we can affect their behavior through the racer; we can't do that with the public).
-----------
I still think that removing it would be OK as long as we educate the public, including a section addressed to them. A rough guidance of what to mind and how to approach it - including a suggestion/plea to spectate near towns and services. Maybe explaining that it'd be nice to preserve the racers' experiences, that it'd be polite not to swarm little service stations, that the event will only continue to exist if it doesn't become a bother to the environment where it's set. I think it would be more effective than the visitation rule (in terms of minimizing the event's footprint).

[taprider]

Hey jsliacan (or anyone). How would you word a rule to try to prevent "Trail Slight of Hand"?
"Trail Slight of Hand", as in non-serendipitous Trail Magic, definitely provides an unfair advantage to the individuals it has been targeted towards.

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

[jsliacan]

Let me post this also. It's an excerpt from the "evolution" of reasons behind the visitation rule.

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.

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.

What happens to the events if each rider has even 10 visitors roving all over the route?  The answer over here in the states is that the event is much more likely to get noticed, much more likely to get shut down.  Not allowing visitors, media or not, all over the route is not just about self-support but about preserving the event. 

You've missed my point so there was nothing weirdly unfair about it.  I'll try again: the number of spots available is fixed: 74 in a Grand Depart.  Visitation rule is *not* a tool to keep the number of people vying for those spots down.  It keeps the number of available spots at 74, instead of much less than that if we allow personal media crews.  If everyone shows up with a crew capable of a high quality documentary we're down to a race of maybe 15 people.

So, no, the visitation rule doesn't kick the can further down the road so that we can survive a little longer without lotteries and the like, it preserves the race for the racers, which I think is exactly what we should do.
This is a very compelling reason for it.

In short:

emotional support + bailout option   --->   footprint   --->   keeping 74 spots for the racers, not visitors.
(btw, notice that bailout option is there whether the media crew is personal or neutral; just a brief revisit of the closed topic - it was not always clear if the discussion was about personal or neutral media)

I guess all are reasons to some extent, not sure what the weights are (it seems to be leaning towards the latter ones as the discussion progresses). But if we could have a summary to refer to, it would help the discussion I think. What are the motivations to have the visitation rule included in its current form?

[jsliacan]

Does this mean that you are gonna head over here to the states to line up for one of these jscliacan? I sincerely hope you are able to so you are able to meet and ride with some pretty amazing people. You are clearly a strong rider and it's always a treat to watch those such as yourself tackle these routes to see how slow I really am haha.

I'd probably try to do AZTR or CTR anyways. Now it might feel nicer as I can read the rules as well-intentioned (not that they were ever going to limit my ride - I'll never have visitors or media or mail stuff to myself, etc.)

I admittedly had to step out of it because I didn't feel like I was communicating well enough and I certainly don't have the extensive background or experience as other people who have been part of this discourse.

I think the communication you saw here was also not very optimal. But I'm trying hard and Scott sees the big picture so he can help (and he puts tons of time into this). Experience/background would be good to have, but I'm glad it's not required. I would have never clarified this for myself just by searching old forums and reading rules. No chance. I hope the record of the discussion will help others.

[taprider]

The other thing is that the more a bikepack racer draws attention to themselves on social media, regular media or even regular internet, and also try to benefit from the attention (whether achieving an FKT or just finishing), the more on-line spectators and other bikepackers will look that every t was crossed and i dotted.

I don't see Lael as being targeted because she is a woman or that her wife filmed her, but because she has been benefiting the most from the media attention (maybe thinking better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission?).  When you are our figurehead you should go above and beyond to set a good example.

[ScottM]

Lesson learned. Thanks.

Excellent, thanks for that.

People quote their experiences as reasons to limit/ban visitation. ... experience counts for nothing if there actually is an *objective* reason to believe riders get a boost. I'll vote for the restriction if that's the case. I don't see it though.

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

Since we are far from that I do think there's reason to accept people's "gut" feeling here.  There is a lot of evidence that current bikepackers (even the younger generation) simply feel that excessive visitation is not self-supported and that a personal media crew is definitely not self-supported.  Taprider found another European event that not only agrees with most of the AZTR rules but is more strict (more on that soon).

I guess the point here is that there doesn't need to be objective evidence for every rule.  The community can decide 'we don't want to race this way' and that's enough.  My claim is the community doesn't want excessive visitation or following of racers.

If we're talking about visitation as support, then we cannot apply this rule to the grand depart setting where you have many friends racing side by side, people checking others' trackers, being affected by others' strategies, etc.

Interestingly the 'le espirit' event in Spain does exactly this -- you are supposed to ride solo.  No more than 15 min with other riders in the event, or with strangers.

If we are worried about support, I think I clarified why sponsor bonuses conditional on good performances are in-event (pre-arranged) support (like arranging your friend/family meeting you somewhere). Yet they aren't banned. Also, while a "lesser" rule of visitation is included, a "major" rule of medical doping isn't. Notice that mechanical doping does get its own rule (#4).

'le espirit' also mentions excessive use of painkillers and WADA rules.  It's almost like they were written by you but with AZTR as the starting point! 

Footprint
This is a "relatively" new concern that phatmike brought up in this thread and you used it in your last few posts. I clump this together with allocating 74 spots to riders rather than sharing them with visitors. As far as I can see, it is the most objective and serious reason to restrict visitation. But... I don't see how this is an issue for ITTs/FKTs

Agreed this is a concrete reason to curb visitation.  And you are right that it doesn't really apply to ITTs.  Consistency and fairness are two reasons to apply it to ITTs.  That and it fits within many people's definition of self-support.

Given that the visitation is only allowed near towns and services (do road crossings count?), why do visitors have to be local? Surely those 74 spots are not affected by how many people show up in town or at a service station. What am I missing?

Why do we care that the visit isn't long? The longer the visit the more time the racer wasted.

Keeping it local and short decreases the footprint of the event.  Less people driving all over the place and hanging about. That makes it look like less of an event to onlookers and land agency officials.

The local idea comes from the idea that, yes, zero visitation should not be allowed in strict self-support.  But like I've argued quite a bit in the past we are taking ourselves too seriously if we say a route local can't walk out into their front yard to cheer Tour Divide riders on.  I personally don't think we are taking ourselves too seriously by saying 'please don't drive hundreds of miles for the sole purpose of cheering on racers.' 

I still think that removing it would be OK as long as we educate the public, including a section addressed to them. A rough guidance of what to mind and how to approach it - including a suggestion/plea to spectate near towns and services. Maybe explaining that it'd be nice to preserve the racers' experiences, that it'd be polite not to swarm little service stations, that the event will only continue to exist if it doesn't become a bother to the environment where it's set. I think it would be more effective than the visitation rule (in terms of minimizing the event's footprint).

It's an interesting point that nobody addresses the public.  It's been some years but there used to be a pop-up on Trackleaders explaining self-support concepts and suggesting those watching the race online keep their distance, etc.  Please don't dot stalk!  Basically.

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

[ScottM]

I'd probably try to do AZTR or CTR anyways. Now it might feel nicer as I can read the rules as well-intentioned (not that they were ever going to limit my ride - I'll never have visitors or media or mail stuff to myself, etc.)

Please do.  Come on over and make it happen.

[ScottM]

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

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

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

[davew]

Quote (jsliacan)
People quote their experiences as reasons to limit/ban visitation. ... experience counts for nothing if there actually is an *objective* reason to believe riders get a boost. I'll vote for the restriction if that's the case. I don't see it though.


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

https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-social-facilitation-4800890

Social Facilitation:

"In terms of a basic definition of social facilitation, social facilitation refers to improvement in performance induced by the real, implied, or imagined presence of others.

Two types of social facilitation have also been defined: co-action effects and audience effects".

directly quoted from the site in the link

There are limitations with first study carried out in 1898 by Tripplet (with cycling coincidentally) and there have been 100's of research papers written since that go into a depth not warranted here except to say that this phenomenon exists. There are varied results in the studies but they do support of the idea that others being around helps 'performance'.

Might I also suggest this effect is amplified in bikepacking events such as the AZTR due to the brutality of the race, the remoteness, duration of the race, length of time away from others, and the amount of time you spend in your own head.