AZTR Rules Carousel

[ScottM]

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

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

[jsliacan]

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.

I was wondering if this would be brought up, because as far as I understood this is kind of in favor of the visitation rule, but not the way it's presented by the bikepacking community. It would seem that there is some kind of effect from audience: either net negative (social inhibition) or net positive (social facilitation), but hardly net neutral. So it is an interference with the race (not necessarily a boost). If we wish to remove this variable from the equation, then something like the visitation rule is probably justifiable. But again, it doesn't seem to be "support" across the board. It's been some time since I read about this (2019), so I might need a refresh if we go deeper into the topic.

Also, as far as I remember, people performing more complex tasks (where dominant response isn't entrenched) tend to be inhibited by an audience. And I think we could argue that optimizing one's run over 1-2wk race is "complex" (feeling full of beans after seeing your friend might not be ideal if it's time to sleep for the long-run performance). And without being an expert, I remember leaving the topic with an impression that everything has impact on how the audience affects performance (positive/negative) and there's no bottom to it. The field seems to be full of partial theories each of them explaining effect somewhat, but conclusions are hard to draw. Not unusual for a field like psychology.

But since you brought this up (probably good for completeness of the discussion... thank you), I do remember that competition effect on physical performance is much more clearly positive. The current discussion being whether there is evidence that people with non-competitive traits are inhibited in competitive environments. I couldn't find much to support it though (a few papers mentioning this too). The reason why I write this here is that if we restrict visitation with "emotional support"/social facilitation in mind, then we cannot consider grand depart self-supported. Listing self-supported FKT/ITT times alongside the grand depart times is wrong (provided you care about this level of self-support at all -- I suggest we shouldn't, but I seem to be alone).

[jsliacan]

I'm close to giving up (which might seem like good news around here ), because we seem to be talking past each other in the discussion.

Full agreement that objective is a higher standard and would be nice to have. ... 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.

I think what we disagree on is contained in this quote. My position is that rules which aim to guide others' behavior in races cannot be based on gut feelings and impressions - higher standard is needed. You (and some others) claim that that's enough. BTW, I already responded to davew's post (maybe I shouldn't talk about gut feelings anymore but inconclusive research instead).

To build on this difference, I think it's good to note that such low standard for including a rule has not been applied in other cases, i.e. if this is enough for a rule to exist, then we should see *many* more rules than we do.

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.

I am not sure if it should be a popularity vote. But even if we accepted that, I think we're all living in our bubbles, and our perceptions of what the mood in the community is differs. People discussing this topic in general at https://bikepacking.com/plog/self-supported-principles/#comments have no clue about our discussion over here. And so on. Many of the comments under the bikepacking.com article are to the effect that "we're taking it a bit too far by trying to regulate emotional support".

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.

That's only a fraction of what I said. There are other emotional and practical benefits of being in a race compared to riding truly solo (ITT/FKT). Chasing, being chased, seeing who's in front, who's  behind. Judging people's state when you see them, etc. They can't correct for those with any rules. Yet we're ok with declaring such race efforts self-supported as long as visitation is restricted enough. Sorry, that just seems a very wiggly line to draw.

'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! 

I did not help with the event or the rules at all. But I did talk with James about painkillers around the time when UTMB banned them (or some of them). His stance is similar to mine. Also, it's only fair/consistent to include doping in your rules if you're so specific about emotional support (that's the point I've been trying to make here too, unsuccessfully).

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.

Race setting is by its nature not self-supported (in the strict sense). So consistency and fairness with respect to ITTs go out the window I'd say. And that it fits within some people's definition of self-support... we discuss this in a point above. So I'll leave it.

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.

I guess I am going to take this as it is, although there are many other ways to decrease the footprint of the event which are not being leveraged.

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.'

The rule says that even if you drive hundreds of miles for some other reason, you shouldn't cheer on the racers. It doesn't speak about sole-purpose visits. Often, out of town people might come with family, who already flew there and will drive to the finish to do a pick up. So not being able to stop in some town on the way to intercept the race is odd. I do see the idea you're pursuing, I just don't see if it matters in the scale of things.

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.

Explaining concepts on tracking pages is certainly a good idea. Plus on the event site, plus on platforms like bikepacking.com etc. Maybe on youtube too. I think it's only a matter of time when public's interest is going to dwarf the interest of family and friends. I mentioned the case of TCR. The time has already come for some other races.

[Joliver]

Although I believe that seeing a person that you know while on course (especially in multiple places) would certainly provide emotional support, I have always believed that the biggest benefit is realized when I was packing for a race and agonizing over what potentially life saving items I should take or leave because of the weight. Anyone that races bikes, climbs, runs, or skis in the high alpine knows that weight is a major factor in speed and success, and those people also know how quickly things can go from wonderful to very scary in that environment.  When pushing a bike uphill (or riding it uphill), even the smallest reduction in weight can (and is) substantial, especially over a multi-day race.  It becomes exponential.  Knowing that a person(s) will be out on course and most certainly in close range during portions of a race and capable of coming to my aid in an emergency, would make it much more likely for me to leave that sleeping bag, that larger puffy jacket, or those extra pairs of gloves at home.     

I recall sitting there for hours or days thinking about whether I thought the risk of leaving a particular piece of gear at home was worth the danger in which I might be exposing myself because no one would be there to help me if things went bad.  I still make those calculations when skiing or running or whatever.  Racing in some of these races can be frightening at times, and when faced with limiting certain potentially life-saving tools to go faster, I often thought those decisions were as impactful as almost anything that I did out on the trail. Some might suggest that an InReach quells those concerns, and I suppose it lessens them to a degree, but to me it is not nearly as significant as knowing that there is likely someone very close by that is looking out for me and could help me in a pinch.   

[ScottM]

I think what we disagree on is contained in this quote. My position is that rules which aim to guide others' behavior in races cannot be based on gut feelings and impressions - higher standard is needed.

I'm a little surprised you don't accept this to some extent.  Your first post here accuses the RD of not being in sync with the community.  I do think that this matters, and I think you have to admit that it does too.

People discussing this topic in general at https://bikepacking.com/plog/self-supported-principles/#comments have no clue about our discussion over here. And so on. Many of the comments under the bikepacking.com article are to the effect that "we're taking it a bit too far by trying to regulate emotional support".

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

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

That's only a fraction of what I said. There are other emotional and practical benefits of being in a race compared to riding truly solo (ITT/FKT). Chasing, being chased, seeing who's in front, who's  behind. Judging people's state when you see them, etc.

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

They can't correct for those with any rules. Yet we're ok with declaring such race efforts self-supported as long as visitation is restricted enough. Sorry, that just seems a very wiggly line to draw.

To you.  I think most people are willing to accept that in order to have a race you have to include all these things that, yes, aren't strictly self-support.  We all agree that we want to have a race, right?

To me the line with visitation isn't very wiggly, it makes sense from so many angles.  You do not *need* visitation to have a race.  You do need all these other things to have a race, including sometimes riding together.

I am happy that you see the point that at some point you do have to draw a line (and it must have some curvature).  Simply arguing "it's not self-support" is not enough.  Simply arguing "it's emotional support" is not enough.  Because we can always make it more extreme (you must wear blinders so you can't see the scenery and get an emotional boost from it!).

it's only fair/consistent to include doping in your rules if you're so specific about emotional support (that's the point I've been trying to make here too, unsuccessfully).

I fully see your point and attempt to compare the magnitude here.  It just feels very weak and inconsistent itself: therefore not compelling.

I also doubt that adding a doping ban would change your opinion on visitation at all.  Or am I wrong?  Is that all we need to do?  

Race setting is by its nature not self-supported (in the strict sense). So consistency and fairness with respect to ITTs go out the window I'd say.

Isn't this black and white thinking -- because we can't make ITTs exactly equivalent we shouldn't even try?  I think we *should* try, because there's no reason not to.  

As an aside, we haven't mentioned the one huge advantage ITTs have over group starts: choosing a weather window.  There's a strong sense in our community that setting a record during a GD has more prestige than an ITT effort for this reason.

I guess I am going to take this as it is, although there are many other ways to decrease the footprint of the event which are not being leveraged.

Such as?  Genuinely interested here.

[ScottM]

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

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

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

Thanks for the post.

[ScottM]

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

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

When I re-read this it seems like you agree with the principle and the thrust of the visitation rule.  You just don't want it to be codified and put in the rules of the event?  If that's correct perhaps we can move on from many of these arguments.

I do see a point here: that it's perhaps less effective to put it on the racers rather than those doing the visiting/spectating.  Having a visitation rule without explanation as to the 'why' is indeed less effective.  What you are suggesting here: education from various platforms, may be more effective.  It's a good thing race director of AZT pays so well, because they have so much time to engage in this.     I am being facetious but the point here is that it's really the community's responsibility.  Maybe you can take this campaign up, Jakub?  That would be a great contribution to the community.

I think one reason to keep it in the rules is that the only real recourse we have is the threat of relegating riders.  If it isn't in the rules and is merely subject to an education campaign there's nothing to stop riders from having a van waiting at every intersection and at every gas station.  They can rightly argue "I heard the message but rejected it. Show me the rule that says I can't do this."

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

[jsliacan]

I'm a little surprised you don't accept this to some extent.  Your first post here accuses the RD of not being in sync with the community.  I do think that this matters, and I think you have to admit that it does too.

I absolutely think it matters to be in sync with the community (with a wider community too). That's also why I mentioned a few times that trail running doing a 180 in 2021 on visitation/media is sad, but that it softens my position. However, I still think that rules should have solid reasons for existing. For visitation, these two things are somewhat at odds. Also, I don't see that the bikepacking community is predominantly behind the visitation rule -- how would we know this?

I think we are going too far banning riding with people (as James does) and all the emotional support that comes with it.

I find it too extreme as well. But given that we ban this very thing for ITTs, the discussion is warranted (that, or declaring races "semi-supported" or "supported").

The challenges or questions about the visitation rule have been few and far between in the last decade, so I suppose that speaks volumes.

The challenges of the visitation rule maybe. And maybe they just didn't filter all the way to you. Anyways, the confusion/misunderstanding is obvious I'd say. The most compelling reason for visitation rule seems to be the low footprint of the event (to preserve it for the future). The rest just seems a disputable and "convenient" side-effect for the proponents of strict self-support. Yet when someone breaks the rule, they're relegated for "support", not for putting the event at risk of being shut down. I find that confusing if not disingenuous. Coincidentally, any discussion you can identify about such relegations or the rule itself address self-support as the key issue. Wouldn't that qualify as lack of clarity about the purpose of the rule?

Yep, those are all valid.  This is in line with the running FKT rules not accepting race efforts as self-supported.
To you.  I think most people are willing to accept that in order to have a race you have to include all these things that, yes, aren't strictly self-support.  We all agree that we want to have a race, right?

Surely that's a false dichotomy. You can have a race which is exactly the same, but don't call the times coming out of it self-supported. Semi-supported or supported come to mind. Example: the community says "Nobody takes away anything from Lael's smashing ride, it just wasn't self-supported." Why doesn't the same apply to the race?

To me the line with visitation isn't very wiggly, it makes sense from so many angles.  You do not *need* visitation to have a race.  You do need all these other things to have a race, including sometimes riding together.

You also do not *need* the race to be declared "self-supported".

I am happy that you see the point that at some point you do have to draw a line (and it must have some curvature).  Simply arguing "it's not self-support" is not enough.  Simply arguing "it's emotional support" is not enough.  Because we can always make it more extreme (you must wear blinders so you can't see the scenery and get an emotional boost from it!).

Precisely. We differ on what we consider extreme (I include emotional support in it; you don't).

I fully see your point and attempt to compare the magnitude here.  It just feels very weak and inconsistent itself: therefore not compelling.
I also doubt that adding a doping ban would change your opinion on visitation at all.  Or am I wrong?  Is that all we need to do? 

You're not wrong. I think visitation rule should go in its current form. However, I am not able to convince anyone here directly. One of the proof methods is by contradiction. You assume something that you think is invalid and explore its implications to arrive at something that's at odds with reality. If lesser things like visitation are in the rules, then more impactful forms of unfair advantage should be covered too. Medical doping is an example which contradicts this implication (mechanical doping *is* in the rules). It does not mean I think it should be part of the rules. I only think that it should be *if* visitation is. My opinion on inclusion of the doping rule independent of other rules is unknown in this discussion.

The form of argument I'm trying to employ is the following. You give me the subset of the rules, and ask me about a situation not covered by this subset. If the rules are consistent & complete, I should be able to correctly decide whether the situation is acceptable or not. So, take your rules and ask if medical doping is acceptable. I'd say no, but it is. Take your rules and ask if race setting is self-supported. I'd say it isn't, but it's taken to be self-supported. All these things are red flags about the rules. If I cannot, by means of analogy, correctly decide situations then either (a) the rules are inconsistent/incomplete or (b) the rules are unclear -- leading to misunderstandings or (c) I'm a complete idiot. I've been silently assuming that it's not (c) .

Isn't this black and white thinking -- because we can't make ITTs exactly equivalent we shouldn't even try?  I think we *should* try, because there's no reason not to. 
As an aside, we haven't mentioned the one huge advantage ITTs have over group starts: choosing a weather window.  There's a strong sense in our community that setting a record during a GD has more prestige than an ITT effort for this reason.

I don't know why they have to be equivalent. They don't seem to be if the visitation rule is kept. They would be closer to equivalent if the rule went. Having the rule has implications. Making exceptions doesn't seem great. Notice that if the visitation rule was only about the footprint, then race does not violate it. Except people insist on making it about self-support.

ITTs have many other huge advantages. You can do an ITT when you're in best shape (it's hard to race after winter, even if conditions might be best). Women can schedule an ITT for the correct week in the cycle. Etc. Heaps of advantages. But none are self-support related, and you made it very clear, that we shouldn't compare self-support issues/advantages with non-self-support ones.

[jsliacan]

When I re-read this it seems like you agree with the principle and the thrust of the visitation rule.  You just don't want it to be codified and put in the rules of the event?  If that's correct perhaps we can move on from many of these arguments.

Somewhat like that. I do see the point of restricting visitation to keep the footprint of the event low. But I think the visitation by "strangers"/dot stalkers will dwarf personal visitation in the near future (I gave the example of TCR where that already happened). What this implies is that our efforts should probably be redirected. Sure keep the visitation rule for the racers' families/friends. It will be a small part of the solution. In this case, of course, the rhetoric about self-support reasons for the visitation rule should go away. And we'd need to ramp up the education of the public.

I do see a point here: that it's perhaps less effective to put it on the racers rather than those doing the visiting/spectating.  Having a visitation rule without explanation as to the 'why' is indeed less effective.  What you are suggesting here: education from various platforms, may be more effective.  It's a good thing race director of AZT pays so well, because they have so much time to engage in this.     I am being facetious but the point here is that it's really the community's responsibility.  Maybe you can take this campaign up, Jakub?  That would be a great contribution to the community.

A few points here. Fair for calling me out to do it myself. I can contribute, and I should. But I am nobody -- even getting people on this forum to take me semi-seriously took a lot of back-and-forth. Most of the initial replies being in the spirit of "who are you to come and question the visitation rule". I can help but it'll have to be a community effort, as you say (de-regulated one I assume). The thing is, the first time I heard the footprint argument formulated coherently was from phatmike halfway through the discussion here. Again, explanation of self-support gets so much space on the rules page, but something that is critical to event's existence doesn't get a mention? That doesn't take much of the RD's time. And it's part of the exposure that the public (and the racers) should face. I think this was what I was getting at.

I think one reason to keep it in the rules is that the only real recourse we have is the threat of relegating riders.  If it isn't in the rules and is merely subject to an education campaign there's nothing to stop riders from having a van waiting at every intersection and at every gas station.  They can rightly argue "I heard the message but rejected it. Show me the rule that says I can't do this."

Please keep it in the rules (I say this above too). But why mask it as self-support issue? Not only is that a missed opportunity to educate everyone, it's also misleading. I cannot see why you'd like to relegate riders for "self-support" when what you're really relegating them for is setting a precedent that would lead to crowding and the event being potentially shut down. I see the latter as a *much* more compelling and objective reason. The former seems petty and controversial. Why go that way? I genuinely don't understand.

I hope I clarified what I meant. I am not in favor of crowding the race course. I think low profile/footprint is a serious reason for visitation restrictions. But all anyone talks about re:visitation is self-support. So there is some disconnect going on. And I suspect it comes from the visitation rule which is phrased and quoted/used as a self-support control tool. So I do think the issue is with the rule (to some extent at least).

[ScottM]

I think the visitation by "strangers"/dot stalkers will dwarf personal visitation in the near future (I gave the example of TCR where that already happened).

Why do you think that hasn't happened in the triple crown events, despite them being much older?  You're missing a key difference here (beyond the visitation rule).

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

But I am nobody -- even getting people on this forum to take me semi-seriously took a lot of back-and-forth. Most of the initial replies being in the spirit of "who are you to come and question the visitation rule".

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

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

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

While preserving the event might be the primary reason for me personally, as former race director, I don't think many would agree with me.  As I have been saying, excessive visitation doesn't fit in with what the community considers self-support, with what rules and experience racers want to ride under.  That's the primary reason here and why people can say "it's not self-support."  (Meaning their definition of self-support and the definition of self-support under the races they know -- because there is no such thing as an absolute definition of self-support)

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

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

I admire and respect someone that questions things, maybe questions everything.  But I contend you are overthinking.  There simply is no objective truth to strive for here, it's not a mathematical problem to be solved.  It's a bike race, a competition.  And in the end the rules don't first and foremost strive to be consistent.  They don't strive to be purely self-support, nor do they pretend to be.  That's why it says self-support is a guiding principle not an absolute extreme. The race strives to provide an experience and a ~fair challenge.  If the racers didn't like the rules, no one would show up.  Many threads like this would be started.  They are working because people show up and we haven't had a good rules debate in some time.

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

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

Are the rules 100% consistent?  No way.  Are they grossly inconsistent?  Also no way.  Pretty sure this thread speaks to that and you'd have to agree.  

I've been thinking this whole time: even if we grant that the rules are somewhat inconsistent it's simply not a compelling enough argument to make a change.  There has to be more than that.  Here are a few things that seem more worthy of discussion:

1 - Times have changed and sponsors now demand 'content' of their athletes
2 - If we want the sport to attract the best athletes we could cater to them
2a - If we want them to go as fast as possible we can't expect them to create their own content, i.e. self-film
3 - People do love the content created, give the people what they want, it inspires others, gets people to care about the routes, the landscape, the environment
4 - The community of riders is OK with or wants vans all over the route, people everywhere, less solitude and rugged individualism.  Having personal followers and media fits within their definition of self-support.

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

Versus: we could mention doping and sponsor bonuses and many other things, or remove the visitation rule completely, but then another Diogenes type figure can come along and find other equally small inconsistencies to point out.  It's endless.

[jsliacan]

Why do you think that hasn't happened in the triple crown events, despite them being much older?  You're missing a key difference here (beyond the visitation rule).

What am I missing?

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

I've always agreed with this, but it was only brought up late in the discussion. Self-support was the issue we mostly talked about.

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

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

While preserving the event might be the primary reason for me personally, as former race director, I don't think many would agree with me. 

That's a very sad state of things then. I actually think (hope) it isn't true.

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

I think it's more that I like to *understand* things. If I could do that by just reading the rules & explanations, I wouldn't be asking questions (I also wouldn't be asking questions if it was a private event, but TD, AZTR, and CTR seem to be viewed as community-ish events).

That's why it says self-support is a guiding principle not an absolute extreme.

I think, if visitation is viewed as a self-support rule - it's extreme. If it's viewed as a tool to keep low profile, then it's acceptable. The thing is, it's used in the former sense and therefore leaves bad taste (e.g. when someone betters the previous time by 1d10h and is relegated for "having support" based on visitation...). But I guess that's how it's going to be.

If the racers didn't like the rules, no one would show up.  Many threads like this would be started.  They are working because people show up and we haven't had a good rules debate in some time.

I think people show up even if they don't like the rules. Especially those towards the sharp end, because they may have obligations and other incentives to ride races like the TD. Also, not many people have time to come here and discuss things at length for days/weeks. I'm squeezing it between (or instead of) anything and everything. I'm sure you know how much time it takes. So I doubt your conclusion follows (although it might still be true that the rules are working for most people).

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

I guess this leaves me with very few options. This thread might come handy later if people ever raise the topic in the future. There are a few good objections to the visitation rule on the TD page in FAQs too. One thing worries me a little though. There is a real tendency to shoot the messenger. If people from within the community voice their opinions, they're noted. If outsiders do the same, everything about them is questioned before they get any attention: did they ride events? do they know the history? do they have ulterior motives? etc. So the scene is set up in such a way that "what community thinks and wants" might be hard to interpret.

Are the rules 100% consistent?  No way.  Are they grossly inconsistent?  Also no way.  Pretty sure this thread speaks to that and you'd have to agree. 

I think this thread speaks to the fact that the rules are pretty inconsistent. Grossly? I wouldn't claim that. But enough to be confusing.

I've been thinking this whole time: even if we grant that the rules are somewhat inconsistent it's simply not a compelling enough argument to make a change. 

I have noticed that inconsistency isn't much of a worry. It surprises me a lot. I thought it was something we all agree on (regardless of our opinions about the actual topics covered by the rules). If we agree on consistency as a must (I mistakenly thought this was generally accepted), then regardless of our other differences, we can agree that the rules have problems. But that's not the case.

There has to be more than that.  Here are a few things that seem more worthy of discussion:

1 - Times have changed and sponsors now demand 'content' of their athletes
2 - If we want the sport to attract the best athletes we could cater to them
2a - If we want them to go as fast as possible we can't expect them to create their own content, i.e. self-film
3 - People do love the content created, give the people what they want, it inspires others, gets people to care about the routes, the landscape, the environment
4 - The community of riders is OK with or wants vans all over the route, people everywhere, less solitude and rugged individualism.  Having personal followers and media fits within their definition of self-support.

The topic I'd like to see discussed is the environmental impact of bikepacking racing. People fly to 4-5 events a year. That fact alone implies that they aren't in good shape for 2-3 of them. The footprint of such behavior is enormous. And we see it more and more. Wouldn't it be good to start introducing some rules about having to have qualification results from your local races to be able to apply to the key events that everyone wants to do? I'd also follow some trail running examples and demand hours of community service (whether helping with organization of races, trail maintenance, community awareness and education work, or even something completely unrelated to bikepacking). I'd also introduce rules about scratching. If you scratch, you'll have to sit out 1-2 years. The idea being that we want to prevent the scattergun approach to events (do lots of events, take risks, scratch from many, win some -- you see this approach a lot recently). It would also motivate people to DNS rather than DNF. This is good -- if you couldn't prepare well, you don't start. This should lead to smaller race footprint or the spot on the startline going to someone who feels prepared (less likely to DNF). A discussion like this would probably require a separate thread, loads of time, and some will to implement and maintain new measures. A fairly big task...

Versus: we could mention doping and sponsor bonuses and many other things, or remove the visitation rule completely, but then another Diogenes type figure can come along and find other equally small inconsistencies to point out.  It's endless.

It's supposed to be an iterative process (endless by definition). I think, as you said, a can of worms was opened when it was decided to look at visitation as support. The micro-scale of that issue is the very problem. It makes the community look fanatic, brings minimal tangible benefits (if any), and is awkward to enforce.

Anyways, my goal wasn't to change the rules for the sake of changing the rules. Many things were clarified in the process, e.g. I am glad to have found out about the event's footprint being kept low by means of the visitation rule. Of course, the general self-support rhetoric around visitation is unchanged and quite off-putting, but that's just what it is. Thanks for sacrificing loads of time to discuss this, I think it's good to have it in the open. Much appreciated. I'll keep responding to any questions/remarks/suggestions given that I started the discussion around this, that's only fair I guess.

[ScottM]

What am I missing?

Some races self-promote.

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

The thrust of your initial argument was: "Your rules don't make sense.  You haven't thought it through.  You haven't discussed it."  In summary: you don't know what you are doing.  

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

Plus you came on here in the aftermath of the race director being subject to a ridiculous amount of uninformed, illogical and flat out false vitriol -- for this very rule.  

That's a very sad state of things then.

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

I think it's more that I like to *understand* things. If I could do that by just reading the rules & explanations, I wouldn't be asking questions (I also wouldn't be asking questions if it was a private event, but TD, AZTR, and CTR seem to be viewed as community-ish events).

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

I am curious if you have over-scrutinized the two events you have completed? Neither of them mentions anything about doping and one of them has a stronger form of the visitation rule than we are discussing here.

I think people show up even if they don't like the rules. Especially those towards the sharp end, because they may have obligations and other incentives to ride races like the TD. Also, not many people have time to come here and discuss things at length for days/weeks. I'm squeezing it between (or instead of) anything and everything. I'm sure you know how much time it takes. So I doubt your conclusion follows (although it might still be true that the rules are working for most people).

Another small nit pick but you agree with the main point of what I said.  You offer no counter evidence that the community disagrees or that the rules aren't working.  Saying people don't have time to complain about the rules or that as race director for 10+ years the complaints might not have reached me?  That's unbelievably weak and should not have even been mentioned.  You're disagreeing just to disagree.

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

One thing worries me a little though. There is a real tendency to shoot the messenger. If people from within the community voice their opinions, they're noted.

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

I have noticed that inconsistency isn't much of a worry. It surprises me a lot. I thought it was something we all agree on (regardless of our opinions about the actual topics covered by the rules). If we agree on consistency as a must (I mistakenly thought this was generally accepted), then regardless of our other differences, we can agree that the rules have problems. But that's not the case.

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

Apparently it's small enough that even you could see past it to fly down to the lovely little South Island?

https://www.tourtewaipounamu.co.nz/faq

"For the Dotwatchers out there as far as meeting riders goes, my rule is keep it between extremely limited to not at all. Racers, do not ask anyone to meet you out there, it simply isn?t fair to those that travel from afar to race and it opens the door to taking food/ water/ encouragement. Ultimately if someone is there at a trailhead without any arrangement, say hi, but don?t take advantage of the situation."

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

The topic I'd like to see discussed is the environmental impact of bikepacking racing. People fly to 4-5 events a year. That fact alone implies that they aren't in good shape for 2-3 of them. The footprint of such behavior is enormous. And we see it more and more. Wouldn't it be good to start introducing some rules about having to have qualification results from your local races to be able to apply to the key events that everyone wants to do? I'd also follow some trail running examples and demand hours of community service (whether helping with organization of races, trail maintenance, community awareness and education work, or even something completely unrelated to bikepacking). I'd also introduce rules about scratching. If you scratch, you'll have to sit out 1-2 years. The idea being that we want to prevent the scattergun approach to events (do lots of events, take risks, scratch from many, win some -- you see this approach a lot recently). It would also motivate people to DNS rather than DNF. This is good -- if you couldn't prepare well, you don't start. This should lead to smaller race footprint or the spot on the startline going to someone who feels prepared (less likely to DNF). A discussion like this would probably require a separate thread, loads of time, and some will to implement and maintain new measures. A fairly big task...

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

Anyways, my goal wasn't to change the rules for the sake of changing the rules. Many things were clarified in the process, e.g. I am glad to have found out about the event's footprint being kept low by means of the visitation rule.

Good, good, progress.

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

I still don't understand why it's "quite off-putting" to someone who doesn't want visitors or a personal media crew when racing themselves?  I disregarded the "not welcoming" comment earlier due to your misunderstanding of banning all media.  Now it comes up again.  Why is this small point, which you were able to see past in NZ, so off-putting, unwelcoming?

Thanks for sacrificing loads of time to discuss this, I think it's good to have it in the open. Much appreciated. I'll keep responding to any questions/remarks/suggestions given that I started the discussion around this, that's only fair I guess.

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

[phatmike]

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

You might be right, but it might have been more of a "timing" thing. Your intro came right after the drama and I interpreted it as yet another one of Lael's supporters coming out of the woodwork to attack the race and RD anyone else who agreed with the decision to relegate Lael's ride. It happened all over social media and other websites. It wasn't until a bit later in the conversation where your identity was clarified a bit and it was more obvious that you weren't just another person trying to tear down things without a bit of understanding and background of ultra bikepacking. You were an exception to the masses in my opinion, although again it felt like nobody had a problem with the 2019 update to the AZTR rules until it impacted Lael. Where was all the hateful energy towards the RD and supporters of the media rule when it was changed? Side thought: would the negative energy been as overwhelming had this happened to a male rider?

That's a very sad state of things then. I actually think (hope) it isn't true.

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

I'd also introduce rules about scratching. If you scratch, you'll have to sit out 1-2 years.

I don't know if this does much, the trail is open at any time for anybody. I'd also note that "being ready" aka fit or whatever has much less to do with finishing than the mental game or weather impacts. Obviously a baseline of fitness is needed but I would say it is mental/weather/equipment failure factors that cause scratches - not fitness. The number of legit riders (Lael included) who have scratched on this route is a testament to "being qualified" as being a silly barrier to entry if it is to prevent scratching. This also seems to support allowing only "qualified" people from lining up for the race. That is worse than relegating a person's fast time. I think there is more than enough information out there about the challenges and extremes of this route and others like it. I mean, there are blogs and pictures and stats and don't forget - videos

One more side note: I did watch the video that was produced. I thought it was great - I did see much more interaction (speaking to the camera) than I would have anticipated given the "minimal interaction" that was discussed. I also saw some other things that would be considered "poor form" at least in my eyes especially in regards to usage of water caches. Not specifically against the rules, but the rules do state: The following are allowed, but not encouraged. Please use sparingly. (Excessive use can lead to relegation). In my opinion, Lael documented herself relying on them a bit more than I (a much slower rider btw) have been "trained" to or have been lead to believe is acceptable. One of the caches I saw was one of the more understanding ones (freeman), but the others not so much. One of them was even very close to an actual spigot near the Gila River - albeit the cache is located at a very nice place to camp with flat ground and a gazebo-ish shade structure and ample parking right next to it.

[ScottM]

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

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

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

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

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

[ScottM]

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

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

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

My apologies.    

[jsliacan]

The thrust of your initial argument was: "Your rules don't make sense.  You haven't thought it through.  You haven't discussed it."  In summary: you don't know what you are doing. 

Apologies. My aim was to be concise, clear, and state everything as theses to be discussed (based on information I was able to dig up).

Plus you came on here in the aftermath of the race director being subject to a ridiculous amount of uninformed, illogical and flat out false vitriol -- for this very rule. 

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

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

It's not a big thing that people for whom the event is care more about the trivial self-support issue related to visitation rather than how much the event is in the face of the authorities and the surrounding communities? An event that doesn't exist cannot be self-supported (or vacuously, it can be anything, but you know what I mean). It's pretty grim if that's the case, let's hope it isn't.

I am curious if you have over-scrutinized the two events you have completed? Neither of them mentions anything about doping and one of them has a stronger form of the visitation rule than we are discussing here.

I was absolutely clueless about all this when I signed up for SRMR at the end of 2018 (that was before the TD fiasco). So that choice was made based on different information. And I haven't read FAQs of TTW - the first time I heard the visitation stuff was at the race briefing the day before the start -- and I was suitably annoyed, because the rules (called "agreements") don't say anything about it: https://www.tourtewaipounamu.co.nz/agreements. Also, read Brian Alder's comment here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/4314323705333826/permalink/4360312097401653/ (note that we met Brian's wife at many points on the course, even talked to her, and Brian himself was racing). I am definitely not pleased to have raced that event. And I feel a bit tricked, because who puts rules into FAQs when there's a proper rules section?

Another small nit pick but you agree with the main point of what I said.  You offer no counter evidence that the community disagrees or that the rules aren't working.  Saying people don't have time to complain about the rules or that as race director for 10+ years the complaints might not have reached me?  That's unbelievably weak and should not have even been mentioned.  You're disagreeing just to disagree.

I was really unsure whether to discuss this stuff publicly or not. I could have decided differently and you wouldn't have known my objections (or that I wouldn't race these events because I don't like the rules). It's by chance that I felt brave one evening and posted here . I don't see why there wouldn't be others like me.

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

I guess that's fair. Although I was coming here after reading posts like these: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cctc0hAvHye/ and https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccx7EjClFjU/.

Apparently it's small enough that even you could see past it to fly down to the lovely little South Island?

https://www.tourtewaipounamu.co.nz/faq

"For the Dotwatchers out there as far as meeting riders goes, my rule is keep it between extremely limited to not at all. Racers, do not ask anyone to meet you out there, it simply isn?t fair to those that travel from afar to race and it opens the door to taking food/ water/ encouragement. Ultimately if someone is there at a trailhead without any arrangement, say hi, but don?t take advantage of the situation."

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

Can I say this is cheap? I flew to NZ because we had a baby last Feb and my wife is a kiwi and her parents live there. We didn't know when restrictions would end at the time of booking MIQ spots and flights. I only did the event because I was going to be in NZ for 3 months visiting in-laws. A small side project if we even made it there (the number of uncertainties was huge). I didn't confirm my participation until late December when we got out of MIQ (without getting covid). I would not have flown there only for the event -- you could have guessed that from my previous post where I said that people fly to events too much. About the FAQs, I already explained how I am not happy about that, but hadn't known beforehand.

I still don't understand why it's "quite off-putting" to someone who doesn't want visitors or a personal media crew when racing themselves?  I disregarded the "not welcoming" comment earlier due to your misunderstanding of banning all media.  Now it comes up again.  Why is this small point, which you were able to see past in NZ, so off-putting, unwelcoming?

A visitation rule phrased as self-support issue gives ammunition to people who write posts like those I linked above. And those are hostile. Then you read the comments and get the idea that there is a number of people in the community who support such interpretation and use of the visitation rule.

I don't think I'm able to see past the visitation FAQ in NZ. It's one of the reasons I am so annoyed about the topic. And given that Brian Alder is a TD fan, we know where his ideas come from. The thing is, it's a private event -- not an underground community effort "without organization". So the scope for objections is much smaller. The only thing that I can reasonably do is not take part again. You can see how annoying it is that I already raced there -- even you, after all this discussion we had, thought that I am being inconsistent and don't mind the same thing over there. Wow.

[jsliacan]

I don't know if this does much, the trail is open at any time for anybody. I'd also note that "being ready" aka fit or whatever has much less to do with finishing than the mental game or weather impacts. Obviously a baseline of fitness is needed but I would say it is mental/weather/equipment failure factors that cause scratches - not fitness. The number of legit riders (Lael included) who have scratched on this route is a testament to "being qualified" as being a silly barrier to entry if it is to prevent scratching.  I think there is more than enough information out there about the challenges and extremes of this route and others like it. I mean, there are blogs and pictures and stats and don't forget - videos

I don't know if that's the thing to do. It was just a thesis for discussion. The only repercussion for not following the rules is an asterisk or exclusion from the results. So this would be no different, I'd think...

BTW, in general, I suspect people underestimate how physical condition affects mental state. Especially in the race (not FKT/ITT). I think you make fewer mistakes if you're coping physically, you ride smarter (e.g. keeping momentum), you pick better lines, you're lighter on your bike, you think ahead, you have energy to cope with elements, etc. All this makes for an easier ride - mentally. It also helps you avoid mechanicals and you're left with some mental capacity to foresee trouble. I agree physical condition isn't everything, but someone here said that the game is 80% mental. I think that's far from the truth. That said, I meant overall "prepared", not just physically.

This also seems to support allowing only "qualified" people from lining up for the race. That is worse than relegating a person's fast time.

But qualified would mean that you finished local events, not necessarily won any. Why is it worse? Or how is it comparable?

One more side note: I did watch the video that was produced. I thought it was great - I did see much more interaction (speaking to the camera) than I would have anticipated given the "minimal interaction" that was discussed. I also saw some other things that would be considered "poor form" at least in my eyes especially in regards to usage of water caches. Not specifically against the rules, but the rules do state: The following are allowed, but not encouraged. Please use sparingly. (Excessive use can lead to relegation). In my opinion, Lael documented herself relying on them a bit more than I (a much slower rider btw) have been "trained" to or have been lead to believe is acceptable. One of the caches I saw was one of the more understanding ones (freeman), but the others not so much. One of them was even very close to an actual spigot near the Gila River - albeit the cache is located at a very nice place to camp with flat ground and a gazebo-ish shade structure and ample parking right next to it.

Yeah, that doesn't sound very good, re:water caches.

[phatmike]

BTW, in general, I suspect people underestimate how physical condition affects mental state. Especially in the race (not FKT/ITT). I think you make fewer mistakes if you're coping physically, you ride smarter (e.g. keeping momentum), you pick better lines, you're lighter on your bike, you think ahead, you have energy to cope with elements, etc. All this makes for an easier ride - mentally. It also helps you avoid mechanicals and you're left with some mental capacity to foresee trouble. I agree physical condition isn't everything, but someone here said that the game is 80% mental. I think that's far from the truth. That said, I meant overall "prepared", not just physically.

Gotcha and agree that physical is a huge part of it - though I still think the wait x number of years is harsh. I scratched from the 300 version of this event (ITT) in 2021 due to knee issues prior to the final 30 miles. It would really suck to have to wait to try again, especially as I have completed other multi day routes since then. That may just be me being selfish though I think in general most people who are lining up for at least the AZTR know what they are getting into. It might not be a terrible idea if the event starts to attract larger numbers to maybe contemplate using some kind of qualifier... that gets real iffy though as Scott said and very subjective and opens the door to more "gatekeeping" discussions accusations. That's a no win situation for everyone.

But qualified would mean that you finished local events, not necessarily won any. Why is it worse? Or how is it comparable?

They are obviously not the same things, but the point I was trying to make is that the alleged "sin" of relegating the effort of a participant is far, far less then putting a barrier to prevent participation in the first place. In fact one is just a consequence of breaking the rules while the other says "we will determine if you are worthy of being in our event". The correlation I was trying to make (probably poorly as usual) was that the relegation was tied to such terms as gatekeeping/bias/etc. I am combining the two topics which may not be helpful. Sorry about that.

[ScottM]

Apologies. My aim was to be concise, clear, and state everything as theses to be discussed (based on information I was able to dig up).

Fair enough.  A good aim.

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

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

I was absolutely clueless about all this when I signed up for SRMR at the end of 2018 (that was before the TD fiasco). So that choice was made based on different information. And I haven't read FAQs of TTW

This surprises me given the depth of research you are willing to do otherwise.  You didn't read the webpage, which is not very long, for an event you were participating in?  This isn't a judgement, it's just curious.

Also, read Brian Alder's comment here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/4314323705333826/permalink/4360312097401653/ (note that we met Brian's wife at many points on the course, even talked to her, and Brian himself was racing). I am definitely not pleased to have raced that event. And I feel a bit tricked, because who puts rules into FAQs when there's a proper rules section?

Who does that?  Someone who is putting on a free event for the community.  None of these events are the Tour de France with committees and meetings -- they are amateur efforts.  You seem to have unreasonably high expectations here.  You could have read the webpage and you heard it at the pre-race meeting.  That seems like he did his 'job.'

I also note that there's no asterisk next to your name in the results.

But I see, he called out your wife, albeit gently, and that is a sore spot, and you felt tricked.  It's sore enough to make you somewhat impervious to evidence and logical argument with respect to this issue.  At least that's the way I see it -- you sound very bitter.

I honestly was not trying to dig into your motivations and biases with this line of questioning, but you have revealed them nonetheless. I don't think they are very important or relevant here (because we are talking about *ideas*), but I would be remiss if I did not point this out for the earnest reader (if there are any left at this point.   )

I was really unsure whether to discuss this stuff publicly or not. I could have decided differently and you wouldn't have known my objections (or that I wouldn't race these events because I don't like the rules). It's by chance that I felt brave one evening and posted here . I don't see why there wouldn't be others like me.

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

I guess that's fair. Although I was coming here after reading posts like these: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cctc0hAvHye/ and https://www.instagram.com/p/Ccx7EjClFjU/.

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

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

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

My hope is that you would have agreed that it's a small point compared to the overall thrust and goodness and contributions of these events.  Because that would go along with my thinking that this is a small point we are quibbling over.  I'd hoped it wouldn't be enough to make you not ride in them again.  I was wrong.

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

I don't think I'm able to see past the visitation FAQ in NZ. It's one of the reasons I am so annoyed about the topic. And given that Brian Alder is a TD fan, we know where his ideas come from. The thing is, it's a private event -- not an underground community effort "without organization". So the scope for objections is much smaller. The only thing that I can reasonably do is not take part again. You can see how annoying it is that I already raced there

I'm genuinely disappointed that you are annoyed that you raced there and seem to regret it?  NZ is a beautiful place and that event is one of few I have interest in participating in (and it has nothing to do with the rules).

[ScottM]

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

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