AZTR Rules Carousel

[jsliacan]

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.

I hadn't known how controversial these things are. I didn't even own bikepacking bags in 2018 and I only bought my mountainbike that year. I didn't know there were "politics". I am being much more careful now, I guess I learn slowly.

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 understand that they are amateur efforts, hence my surprise at some of the rules which aren't necessary and cause extra awkward work when enforcement is needed (in TTW's case, there's no reason to keep the event hush hush - they even self-promote, as you said). BTW, hearing it at a race briefing for the first time isn't that fair -- I already invested a lot of effort into being there. Listing it in FAQs is... unfortunate. Strictly speaking, it is on the website and so it's publicly available. On the other hand, I don't look at FAQs unless I have a question and I need to check if it had been asked already. So yes, I could have stumbled on the info earlier, but then I wasn't enjoying heaps of spare time around then to read FAQs for fun.

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 think there's a misunderstanding here. The person who Brian told off for being on the course is not my wife. Someone else down the field was her husband. I had never seen the lady before or after. And to be fair, it wasn't "gentle", the way he called her out. If you think my tone was off in my first post here, then I'm surprised you find his tone gentle... Especially not from the position of a racer who's wife is meeting people on the course a lot (which is fine I think, just don't scold others for it).

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 am not sure what was pointed out that the earnest reader could find interesting.

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

But I am not condoning the behavior against the RD (or not most of it at least). So I am not sure why anything up to that is acceptable when women's record holder does it.

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).

If I disregard the rules/RD's behavior, I absolutely see how it's a race to do. I think you'll like it too. To be clear though, they're all nice people. I'm only objecting to some of their calls, which I see as bad taste. Maybe even Brian would agree now that it was a bit "unnecessary"... and maybe not . Anyway, I am surprised that you're disappointed because you also said this:

If the racers didn't like the rules, no one would show up.

What options do I have? If I go to these events, people (e.g. you) will say: but surely you don't mind the rules so much when you still race here. And if someone else comes to you saying that the rules might need change, you'll say: nobody else minds, if they did they'd stop racing here. I can do nothing, except vote (with my presence). It is what it is.

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.

You mentioned this a few times: that you think the visitation topic is quite small compared to the big picture of the whole event. I'd agree if this tiny rule wasn't used to e.g. invalidate/relegate an FKT that bettered the previous time by a day and a half. Or if the race organizers didn't publicly scold enthusiasts who, let's face it, don't ruin the spirit of the event at all (TTW case). If the little rule was used in little ways, it'd be true what you're saying. But because the little rule has a disproportionally big impact, I'm not so sure. The consequences of the TD's 2019 visitation/media handling include the fact that Lael + crew had not approached the RD and the community about their intentions and weren't upfront about everything at this year at AZTR (going under the radar was the "encouraged" thing to do). And that's something she's been criticized for this year. The fact that other events are adopting the visitation rule without having the "let's keep low profile" reason also speaks volumes. I think it's unfortunate how far reaching the consequences are. And I can't blame the general public for finding it unpleasant to watch.

BTW, this is just "philosophy" now, I'm not arguing to remove or change any rules.

[jsliacan]

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.

I also wouldn't like it if I had to wait for 1-2 years after scratching, but before the event, it would definitely make me more thorough in preparation. But it was just an off-the-top-of-my-head idea to increase the stakes for scratching (which, in itself, might not be the right goal).

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.

I would imagine that a qualifier would only qualify you as "I take this seriously" person. That would allow you to enter e.g. lottery and a startlist would be drawn from there, for example. Distribution could be skewed to favor people who have been unlucky in the lottery previously (so you make sure everyone gets their ride). Also, local people (e.g. if you promise to come by train/bus) could get a lottery entry without any qualification. And this race would serve them as a qualification for their overseas entries. That sort of thing. The goal would unashamedly be cutting co2 footprint.

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.

Thanks, I see your concern. It's hard to communicate these things well, I agree. In a way, it would indeed be determining worthiness. However, it'd be for a good cause (control event's environmental footprint) and hopefully done transparently. As soon as there are 74+ applicants, the event will have to start vetting entrants anyways - am I wrong? There are some problems with introducing such qualifications in practice though, I agree. Including that the frequent fliers will automatically qualify to fly even more. Maybe it'd be better to do something else, e.g. we can check people's names on dotwatcher.cc results page (except for races like TD...). If a person raced in South America, New Zealand and Europe in the past year, it's basically guaranteed that their "race footprint" is ~7-8t CO2e. Which is too much, given that we should all average around 3t/y by 2030 and 2t/y by 2050, iirc.  I don't know - I have no answers, but I did notice people now fly a lot for the purpose of racing. If events assume responsibility for this, it could lead to something good. Of course, if we don't want the measures to have side effects (as you mention), they'll have to be very delicately designed.

[taprider]

And now for something completely different!

Guy Martin (Isle of Mann TT racer and famous British TV presenter) talks about doing the AZTR
starts at 5:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aTvOBDEdSw

[Two Tired]

And now for something completely different!

Guy Martin (Isle of Mann TT racer and famous British TV presenter) talks about doing the AZTR
starts at 5:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aTvOBDEdSw

Terry Smith !

More talent than ego.

Perhaps that should be a new rule.

[taprider]

Terry Smith !

Malcolm Wade in 2019.  Age, country, bike and route deviations  match

[ScottM]

BTW, hearing it at a race briefing for the first time isn't that fair -- I already invested a lot of effort into being there. Listing it in FAQs is... unfortunate. Strictly speaking, it is on the website and so it's publicly available. On the other hand, I don't look at FAQs unless I have a question and I need to check if it had been asked already. So yes, I could have stumbled on the info earlier, but then I wasn't enjoying heaps of spare time around then to read FAQs for fun.

Fair enough, you had a new baby and were visiting the in-laws, so didn't have heaps of time.  I get that.

It would be good to take some responsibility for that shortcoming though.  It reads as bad taste, to me, to complain about a rule that you didn't bother to read beforehand.  There are so few words on his site (vs Silk Mtn has a 60 page PDF!) that it seems negligent to not read them all and worse to complain when you're caught off guard by it.  That might make it sting more, but it's your fault it stings and that has nothing to do with the rule itself.

I think there's a misunderstanding here. The person who Brian told off for being on the course is not my wife.

OK, thanks for clarifying this.

Someone else down the field was her husband. I had never seen the lady before or after. And to be fair, it wasn't "gentle", the way he called her out. If you think my tone was off in my first post here, then I'm surprised you find his tone gentle... Especially not from the position of a racer who's wife is meeting people on the course a lot (which is fine I think, just don't scold others for it).

Agreed that it sets a poor or confusing example.  I'd like to hear Brian's side of this.  If he didn't advertise her to be a race official or neutral reporter, which he could do, then I'd agree this is not a good example.  

This has little bearing on the rule itself, of course.

If I disregard the rules/RD's behavior, I absolutely see how it's a race to do. I think you'll like it too. To be clear though, they're all nice people. I'm only objecting to some of their calls, which I see as bad taste. Maybe even Brian would agree now that it was a bit "unnecessary"... and maybe not . Anyway, I am surprised that you're disappointed because you also said this:

Glad to hear you say they are nice people -- Kiwis generally are!

No surprise though.  If this rule meant that much to you, so much that you'd regret doing and winning the race -- maybe you shouldn't have raced?

What options do I have? If I go to these events, people (e.g. you) will say: but surely you don't mind the rules so much when you still race here. And if someone else comes to you saying that the rules might need change, you'll say: nobody else minds, if they did they'd stop racing here. I can do nothing, except vote (with my presence). It is what it is.

As others have been saying in this thread, if this issue is that important and you think we are so off-base on it, start your own event.  That's a bigger vote.  Plus you'll be contributing to the community -- regardless of the rules I'd be all for that.

The consequences of the TD's 2019 visitation/media handling include the fact that Lael + crew had not approached the RD and the community about their intentions and weren't upfront about everything at this year at AZTR (going under the radar was the "encouraged" thing to do). And that's something she's been criticized for this year.

Not sure what you mean here.  How was going under the radar encouraged?  Lael didn't bring it up beforehand because she didn't think it was an issue -- she didn't read the rules and was going off of me approving her 2015 (much more limited) media crew.  I don't think she intentionally hid it.  She thought it would be OK.

You mentioned this a few times: that you think the visitation topic is quite small compared to the big picture of the whole event. I'd agree if this tiny rule wasn't used to e.g. invalidate/relegate an FKT that bettered the previous time by a day and a half.   Or if the race organizers didn't publicly scold enthusiasts who, let's face it, don't ruin the spirit of the event at all (TTW case). If the little rule was used in little ways, it'd be true what you're saying. But because the little rule has a disproportionally big impact, I'm not so sure.

You know, I do see this point: the fact that when someone gets called out / relegated it can be received badly.  The community (RDs new and old, racers new and old) may be in support of curbing visitation but what happens when you enforce it?  It made you regret (?) what might have been a ride of a lifetime for other people.  That's sad.  And it's caused some controversy.  The question, which I think you've asked, is -- is it worth it?  If we're talking about preserving the event the answer seems to be yes (and I think the answer might be yes for TTW too -- it's one that needs to keep the footprint low too).

It's not that it's unenforceable -- it's pretty enforceable, I'd say.  It just often isn't enforced because it can cause issues.  See the 2007 CTR thread when I raised the question.  I wasn't enforcing anything, wasn't the RD -- just trying to start a conversation.

It feels like a bit of a moral failure to give in for this reason.  Like we should expect people to be better than this?
 And the goal here isn't to make everyone happy.  People should be able to accept that there are rules and be OK with them or take responsibility when the infringe on them.  But the practical side of me does see something here for keeping the peace.  

[ScottM]

Malcolm Wade in 2019.  Age, country, bike and route deviations   match

Yep, that's him under pseudonym.  I hadn't seen that clip -- pretty hilarious -- thanks for posting.

"It's not a bike race.  Not a bike race at all!  It's a crawling race."

"I did it because it's the hardest mountain bike race anywhere."

"I got no satisfaction after finishing it and still don't have any...."

  Seems like the race is exceeding its goals and mission.

 I also respect that someone as 'camera friendly' as he is was able to accept the spirit of the event and do it under the radar.

[jsliacan]

Fair enough, you had a new baby and were visiting the in-laws, so didn't have heaps of time.  I get that.

I'd find time to read anything that I knew I was supposed to read. Including a 60 page document, if that was the case.

It would be good to take some responsibility for that shortcoming though.  It reads as bad taste, to me, to complain about a rule that you didn't bother to read beforehand.  There are so few words on his site (vs Silk Mtn has a 60 page PDF!) that it seems negligent to not read them all and worse to complain when you're caught off guard by it.  That might make it sting more, but it's your fault it stings and that has nothing to do with the rule itself.

I do take some responsibility. But I shouldn't have to. I read the rules very carefully and there was *no* visitation clause in them -- still isn't. FAQs start with meaningless stuff like "what bike setup is best for the race?" Is that the company of questions that you put a "vital" visitation rule into? You're also missing something really important: SRMR gives you a PDF and tells you "all info you need to know is in this PDF". In TTW's case, where does it end? FAQs? Or personal blog posts? Or IG posts? When can I stop digging to be sure I've read all I need to know about the rules? I draw the line after studying the rules section. Is that really so "negligent"?

Agreed that it sets a poor or confusing example.  I'd like to hear Brian's side of this.  If he didn't advertise her to be a race official or neutral reporter, which he could do, then I'd agree this is not a good example. 

I don't think it sets a poor example. I don't think it's a problem at all. I think it only takes away the RD's right to criticise others for such conduct. BTW, you saying that the rule is there to keep footprint low in TTW is trying really hard to justify it. I really don't think that's a concern at TTW (the lady was on a huge public gravel road on her bike -- not in a car, alone). And if crowding was the problem, I'm sure it'd be communicated as "Debbie, if everyone came out to meet the riders, we'd effectively double/triple our participant pool. That's something we haven't accounted for and could be perceived badly by the local communities. Please keep this in mind so we, as an event, don't crowd the spaces. Thanks". Instead, she's borderline accused of trying to cheat by supporting her husband (who was 1/2-1d behind us at that point, nowhere near). In short, it wasn't at all about keeping the race's profile low.

And to address the "spouse as race official, neutral reporter". As I said, I'm ok with whoever's spouse following whoever else. I don't think it matters in the scale of things (assuming crowding isn't an issue). However, would a neutral media crew (RD approved) containing one rider's spouse be OK? I don't think it'd go down very well in the community... (even though I think it's fine). The two cases are basically identical.

If this rule meant that much to you, so much that you'd regret doing and winning the race -- maybe you shouldn't have raced?

No, it doesn't mean so much that I would throw away all preparation and investment I made on the night of the race briefing just before the start. If I had known about the rule ahead, I would probably have re-considered.

As others have been saying in this thread, if this issue is that important and you think we are so off-base on it, start your own event.  That's a bigger vote.  Plus you'll be contributing to the community -- regardless of the rules I'd be all for that.

I don't particularly like the consequences of the visitation rule -- how it's applied, how people are called out, etc. Is it the end of the world? Of course not. I still think it's good to discuss it. Especially since people do like to pat themselves on the back for how hard their effort was and that feeds a bit into the self-support radicalism I think. So voicing the opposite opinion might be good -- if only for the balance. And maybe it's also good to race and be outspoken against the rule in those events (except then I get "if you don't like the rule, don't race" comments). I don't know, I'm still figuring out how to approach all this.

The question, which I think you've asked, is -- is it worth it?  If we're talking about preserving the event the answer seems to be yes (and I think the answer might be yes for TTW too -- it's one that needs to keep the footprint low too).

Yes, that's basically the question. Thanks. And we know it's not about preserving the event (re:TTW), because all you can find is references to self-support, not event's footprint. It's really easy to phrase it as keeping race alive instead of almost accusing people of cheating. Yet... everyone only worries about "cheating".

It's not that it's unenforceable -- it's pretty enforceable, I'd say.  It just often isn't enforced because it can cause issues.  See the 2007 CTR thread when I raised the question.  I wasn't enforcing anything, wasn't the RD -- just trying to start a conversation.

Here I can only repeat what I wrote before. If RD introduces a rule, then it's their obligation to apply it fairly (not only when they feel like it).

People should be able to accept that there are rules and be OK with them or take responsibility when the infringe on them.  But the practical side of me does see something here for keeping the peace. 

I agree, they should. That's why I clearly tell everyone to stay away from my race -- don't want some self-support vigilantes suspecting me of unknown things. Someone said it here, I try to not only be clean, but also to not give any reason to anyone to suspect me from not being clean. However, I view it a little bit like my opinion on helmets. I think it's dumb not to wear a helmet for a training ride. But if I was making a policy, I would never make helmets mandatory. It's just not practical to make them mandatory.

[ScottM]

I do take some responsibility. But I shouldn't have to. 

Huh.  OK, you're not going to take responsibility for it as the next two paragraphs show.  We'll move on.

BTW, you saying that the rule is there to keep footprint low in TTW is trying really hard to justify it. I really don't think that's a concern at TTW (the lady was on a huge public gravel road on her bike -- not in a car, alone).

I was speaking generally about TTW.  Given the private land with special permissions and what I know about DoC and the hut system down there I would be very surprised if that race is on stable grounds.  I'd say it's a fragile beautiful thing and one that the community is lucky to have for now. 

But yes, this one lady's actions did not endanger it and yes Brian used self-support language to call her out.  That does not mean that preserving the event is of no concern!  All I meant is that TTW may need to keep curbing visitation even if they are convinced to drop self-support arguments.

Besides your unreasonably high expectations of a free event you also seem to be missing that many competitions have rulesets that do not include justifications for them.  I'm thinking bike races but so many things beyond that too.  Sometimes there are good reasons for rules that the organizers don't share for whatever reason, sometimes it's just limited time.  Others it's just not their obligation to. 

Another way of looking at Brian's comment is that he was trying to be helpful.  Regardless of any rules he may have been trying to head off the appearance of support in this case, to shield the rider from criticism.  He didn't threaten relegation but may have been concerned this rider would get suspicions or accusations from outside the race.  This is part of why I see it as a gentle comment.  But then I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I have also been in his shoes before.

Yes, that's basically the question. Thanks. And we know it's not about preserving the event (re:TTW), because all you can find is references to self-support, not event's footprint.

Incorrect.  We do not know this.

It's really easy to phrase it as keeping race alive instead of almost accusing people of cheating. Yet... everyone only worries about "cheating".

A big problem is that people take it as cheating even when worded as gently as possible.  I wish people could take it as a small violation like a foot fault in tennis -- it does not make you a bad person.  That's where the bad energy comes from.

But you're right that if you phrase it as preserving the event that helps people see it more as a practical violation rather than bald faced cheating.

Here I can only repeat what I wrote before. If RD introduces a rule, then it's their obligation to apply it fairly (not only when they feel like it).

Here's another unrealistic expectation.

If RDs were salaried employees and all rider's livelihoods were on the line you might have a point here.

But let's face it, these are free events that people put on at significant risk to themselves.  They should be given gratitude, understanding and the benefit of the doubt.  The risk is not only liability (from riders but also land agencies and the government) but also risk of illogical and unfounded attack by riders or supporters of riders.

They have a ruleset and the final say when enforcing but I think it's ultimately the community's responsibility to self-police for a lot of the minor infractions.  What the community thinks matters.

I have definitely let many small things slide with the hopes that the community will hold riders responsible.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

I agree, they should. That's why I clearly tell everyone to stay away from my race -- don't want some self-support vigilantes suspecting me of unknown things. Someone said it here, I try to not only be clean, but also to not give any reason to anyone to suspect me from not being clean. However, I view it a little bit like my opinion on helmets. I think it's dumb not to wear a helmet for a training ride. But if I was making a policy, I would never make helmets mandatory. It's just not practical to make them mandatory.

Yeah this is a good justification for the rule in general -- it removes a lot of possibility for suspicion. 

I'm still looking for more justification on these lines.  People have bad reactions to accusations or enforcement.  Is curbing visitation worth these bad reactions?  Hmm.

[jsliacan]

Huh.  OK, you're not going to take responsibility for it as the next two paragraphs show.  We'll move on.

This is what I wrote before, I'd say it amounts to taking some responsibility.

Strictly speaking, it is on the website and so it's publicly available.

I was speaking generally about TTW.  Given the private land with special permissions and what I know about DoC and the hut system down there I would be very surprised if that race is on stable grounds.  I'd say it's a fragile beautiful thing and one that the community is lucky to have for now. 

Yes, but mostly dependent on riders' behaviors. Not really related to the case I described (out of private land, out of DoC jurisdiction, huge gravel road, solo woman on the bike). I brought it up because I think it is a very clear example of the RD minding visitation from the self-support side.

But yes, this one lady's actions did not endanger it and yes Brian used self-support language to call her out.  That does not mean that preserving the event is of no concern!  All I meant is that TTW may need to keep curbing visitation even if they are convinced to drop self-support arguments.

OK, fair, let me rephrase: "This case clearly wasn't about event preservation. Moreover, if it had been, the comment should've been different." BTW, you really seem to not like that it all points to self-support extremism. Why? It is what it is. Same thing with James' event in Spain. That doesn't mean those events are bad or the organizers are bad. Not at all. Imperfect activism is very welcome and we're grateful for it. But why resist any partial suggestions/criticism? I really don't get it. And I would happily race all these events if we could have a discussion in parallel without me being called out that "if you don't like it, you have the choice to not race it".

Besides your unreasonably high expectations of a free event you also seem to be missing that many competitions have rulesets that do not include justifications for them.  I'm thinking bike races but so many things beyond that too.  Sometimes there are good reasons for rules that the organizers don't share for whatever reason, sometimes it's just limited time.  Others it's just not their obligation to. 

I thought I understood this, and it was the reason to come and discuss it here, to an event that's more open & community shaped. I am not going to be doing this for e.g. SRMR or even TTW. To be clear, the fact that we're having this discussion here is a huge plus for AZTR - maybe I should've said this explicitly before... It's amazing, and I think it sets an important example that I hope other events (even private) will copy (instead of the visitation rule ).

Another way of looking at Brian's comment is that he was trying to be helpful.  Regardless of any rules he may have been trying to head off the appearance of support in this case, to shield the rider from criticism.  He didn't threaten relegation but may have been concerned this rider would get suspicions or accusations from outside the race.  This is part of why I see it as a gentle comment.  But then I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and I have also been in his shoes before.

I got multiple questions about it (e.g. "what was that about?") and it doesn't come across right even for me. My guess is that nobody from the outside of the race would accuse people in the race of these things if they weren't led to it by suggestive rules and preemptive comments like that one. The suspicious people you're talking about could maybe give more benefit of the doubt to other riders. And I think the rules like the self-support phrasing of the visitation issue only embolden such suspicions (make them seem justified).

A big problem is that people take it as cheating even when worded as gently as possible.  I wish people could take it as a small violation like a foot fault in tennis -- it does not make you a bad person.  That's where the bad energy comes from.

When I was arguing that the visitation rule is out of scale petty (lesser), this is what I meant. If they list it alongside big rules preventing cheating, then what are people supposed to think? Your argument with respect to AZTR was that you have it bundled/padded with a few other lesser rules. But that isn't the case at other events. I still think that these "lesser" rules are not strictly necessary to keep the competition ~fair and efforts ~self-supported. Yet they do invite misunderstandings and trouble with fair enforcing.

If RDs were salaried employees and all rider's livelihoods were on the line you might have a point here.

I think dropping the visitation rule (or rephrasing it as protecting the event's low footprint) would decrease the work of everyone and naturally increase compliance with the rule (because people are more likely to care about the event than extreme self-support). What you wrote is only true if you insist that visitation as self-support issue must be included in the rules. If there's no budget/time for this to be done thoroughly (that's understandable), then why not relax/rephrase it?

But let's face it, these are free events that people put on at significant risk to themselves.  They should be given gratitude, understanding and the benefit of the doubt. 

Criticizing one bad call or an odd rule does not diminish the gratitude one has for the work of an RD. But now the topic is self-support & visitation. If you want to discuss a new topic, e.g. how good the route is, or how well-oiled the organization is, or how nice & helpful Brian is to all the riders, then let's discuss that. There's plenty of praise to be given. But the topic was self-support phrasing of the visitation rule and it's implications - so I gave an example once you brought up TTW's rules. The same way you wish people don't take visitation violation as hardcore "cheating", I wish my objections/criticism/suggestions aren't taken as a murder of the event.

They have a ruleset and the final say when enforcing but I think it's ultimately the community's responsibility to self-police for a lot of the minor infractions.  What the community thinks matters.

The community is led to think things. So many rulesets send the message that visitation is a capital sin. At the same time, many people have good memories and strong emotions from these races (not because of the visitation rule, of course). So I think they'll be ready to defend anything about that event. This phenomenon is ubiquitous though, people find it hard to criticize something they like, no matter how valid that particular criticism is.

Yeah this is a good justification for the rule in general -- it removes a lot of possibility for suspicion. 

I'd say it tells people that they should've been suspicious if they weren't. And the very existence of the rule endorses "not giving the benefit of the doubt".

I'm still looking for more justification on these lines.  People have bad reactions to accusations or enforcement.  Is curbing visitation worth these bad reactions?  Hmm.

I thought your position was that people who matter don't have bad reactions to enforcement. Those who have bad reactions to enforcement are fans and other non-riders. However, it's not supposed to be a spectator sport, so all is OK. Because of this, I haven't pursued this line of argument. But I can have a think...

[ScottM]

OK, fair, let me rephrase: "This case clearly wasn't about event preservation. Moreover, if it had been, the comment should've been different." BTW, you really seem to not like that it all points to self-support extremism. Why?

Fair question.  I'm not actually bothered by Brian's comment and reasoning.  I still see a lot of weight in the solo/self-support/bailout side of the visitation rule as well.

I just do see your point that talking about preserving the event being easier, more effective and less contentious.

While driving today I listened to some of the "Bikes! Bikes! Bikes!" podcast with Jefe Branham (new CTR RD).  The host asked Jefe a pretty loaded question about rules, specifically visitation and how he approaches it.  

Jefe's first several sentences were that he was responsible first and foremost to the Colorado Trail.  He described how it's not a bike trail, it's a hiking trail.  And the most important thing is trying to minimize the impact of the race and racers.  I was quite happy with this answer.  Jefe gets it and the CTR is in good hands.  He then went on to describe how the challenge is supposed to be solo and how having someone out there with you changes the nature of it.  He described very well how small infractions of this are ok and are tolerated, but don't abuse it.  It came across as very reasonable to me.

It is what it is. Same thing with James' event in Spain. That doesn't mean those events are bad or the organizers are bad. Not at all. Imperfect activism is very welcome and we're grateful for it. But why resist any partial suggestions/criticism? I really don't get it. And I would happily race all these events if we could have a discussion in parallel without me being called out that "if you don't like it, you have the choice to not race it".

This all sounds good.  I think the "don't like it, don't race" comes from someone who not only doesn't like the rule but also does not want to follow it.  It was some time into this conversation before you said that you're personally OK following it, you just don't like it.  Before that it was reasonable to assume you didn't want to follow it, too.  And if someone isn't going to follow a rule, they shouldn't show up, I think you'll agree.

I thought I understood this, and it was the reason to come and discuss it here, to an event that's more open & community shaped. I am not going to be doing this for e.g. SRMR or even TTW. To be clear, the fact that we're having this discussion here is a huge plus for AZTR - maybe I should've said this explicitly before... It's amazing, and I think it sets an important example that I hope other events (even private) will copy (instead of the visitation rule ).

Thank you for this.

I got multiple questions about it (e.g. "what was that about?") and it doesn't come across right even for me. My guess is that nobody from the outside of the race would accuse people in the race of these things if they weren't led to it by suggestive rules and preemptive comments like that one. The suspicious people you're talking about could maybe give more benefit of the doubt to other riders. And I think the rules like the self-support phrasing of the visitation issue only embolden such suspicions (make them seem justified).

OK, this is just your experience.  I have heard from others that had a friend following/documenting who later regretted it because people called them out for "support" and wondering what else their friend was doing for them.

I'm sure it happens both ways.
 

When I was arguing that the visitation rule is out of scale petty (lesser), this is what I meant. If they list it alongside big rules preventing cheating, then what are people supposed to think? Your argument with respect to AZTR was that you have it bundled/padded with a few other lesser rules. But that isn't the case at other events. I still think that these "lesser" rules are not strictly necessary to keep the competition ~fair and efforts ~self-supported. Yet they do invite misunderstandings and trouble with fair enforcing.

Yeah, I still don't see how visitation is that much different than a lot of the other things tolerated in small doses.  People get bent out of shape when accusations are made for sharing gear and trail magic, too.  

So I'm not sure what you are proposing, then, no limitations on these things?

Interestingly I believe the first version of self-support rules had nothing against sharing between racers.  The good MikeC or John Stamstad would need to enlighten us here.  My understanding was that because it's a competition you are only helping out your competitors and losing time and yet are under no obligation to do so.  So there was no reason to ban it -- it's fair.  It took Mike pointing out to me that "there's nothing saying you can't help other racers" for me to realize it.   It's possibly a fair argument when everyone is very competitive and at the pointy end.  It (maybe?) becomes an issue when riders start out to ride together and can then intentionally share gear, or when the events get big enough that one could reasonably assume the route is full of people to bail you out.  
 

I think dropping the visitation rule (or rephrasing it as protecting the event's low footprint) would decrease the work of everyone and naturally increase compliance with the rule (because people are more likely to care about the event than extreme self-support).

Yes I think wording to this effect needs to go into the rules page somewhere.  

Criticizing one bad call or an odd rule does not diminish the gratitude one has for the work of an RD. But now the topic is self-support & visitation. If you want to discuss a new topic, e.g. how good the route is, or how well-oiled the organization is, or how nice & helpful Brian is to all the riders, then let's discuss that. There's plenty of praise to be given. But the topic was self-support phrasing of the visitation rule and it's implications - so I gave an example once you brought up TTW's rules. The same way you wish people don't take visitation violation as hardcore "cheating", I wish my objections/criticism/suggestions aren't taken as a murder of the event.

I'm glad to hear you say this.  You just sounded bitter and did not deny regretting racing TTW.  That kinda pushed it towards murder of the event for me.  I'm happy to not take it that way.

I'm trying to gently nudge you away from (what I perceive as) somewhat of a sense of entitlement here.  Showing gratitude for what other people have sacrificed for you is one way.  Contributing back is another way (and I do consider your time spent here a contribution).  Being realistic with expectations is another (this is not the tour de france as I've said).  Nudge, nudge.
 

The community is led to think things. So many rulesets send the message that visitation is a capital sin. At the same time, many people have good memories and strong emotions from these races (not because of the visitation rule, of course). So I think they'll be ready to defend anything about that event. This phenomenon is ubiquitous though, people find it hard to criticize something they like, no matter how valid that particular criticism is.

Yep, some of this is unavoidable no matter how hard we try.

I thought your position was that people who matter don't have bad reactions to enforcement. Those who have bad reactions to enforcement are fans and other non-riders. However, it's not supposed to be a spectator sport, so all is OK. Because of this, I haven't pursued this line of argument. But I can have a think...

It's pretty easy to dismiss obviously uninformed opinions, I'm sure you'll agree.  But as I was saying there is a point here in keeping the peace.  Keeping the peace is always worth considering, and what you must sacrifice in order to do that.

[MikeC]

Interestingly I believe the first version of self-support rules had nothing against sharing between racers.  The good MikeC or John Stamstad would need to enlighten us here.  My understanding was that because it's a competition you are only helping out your competitors and losing time and yet are under no obligation to do so.  So there was no reason to ban it -- it's fair. 

You have it right. 

IIRC I didn't inherit anything about this from John's original GDR ITT framework.  And it took a few years for there to be enough people from outside of our little bubble of racers for it to 'come up' that people were misunderstanding the intent of the rules.

They were always intended to limit outside support.  Never intended to limit helping out a fellow racer in need. 

We just didn't know that we needed to be specific about that yet.  It hadn't yet occurred to the first ~50 people doing these races that someone would even consider outside support, much less visitation, media, or any of the other entitled snowflake perspectives that have since crept (or, um, stormed) in.

That faucet is wide open now.

Thanks to you, Scott, for keeping both wrench and rag handy to clean up current spills and attempt to staunch the flow of future iterations.

[ScottM]

You have it right. 

IIRC I didn't inherit anything about this from John's original GDR ITT framework.  And it took a few years for there to be enough people from outside of our little bubble of racers for it to 'come up' that people were misunderstanding the intent of the rules.

Thanks to you, Scott, for keeping both wrench and rag handy to clean up current spills and attempt to staunch the flow of future iterations.

Thanks for confirming, Mike.  I remember this one well because I got called out for sharing my inhaler with hairball_dh back in, what was that, 2009 CTR?

As for the wrenching I'm hardly doing much.  Jefe and John are doing the heavy twisting and are the ones getting drenched in shit these days.

[ScottM]

I just wanted to note that Lael's writeup and video were released recently.  Of interest to this discussion is that both writeup and video say that AZTR does not allow media, strongly implying a blanket ban as Jakub understood it to be.

This is interesting because she knows it isn't a blanket ban.  Remember John was quite reasonable and lenient in allowing multiple media visits, stretching the 'local' part well beyond reason.  She is quoted as saying that John said what they had done to Picketpost was "fine."  And John himself was out taking pictures (though I am glad they did not dwell on that).

Maybe it's just an oversimplification, but in minimum it muddies the discussion.

[bikelite]

And now Outside Online has an article.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/lael-wilcox-bikepacking-fkt-controversy-arizona-trail/

[AZTtripper]

And now Outside Online has an article.
https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/biking/lael-wilcox-bikepacking-fkt-controversy-arizona-trail/

A fairly balanced reporting of the whole fiasco, wondering if John finally had a chance to make a little coin after all of the BS, do these mags pay people for interviews?

Making money off of bikepacking is one thing, but I might think some of the volunteers who built the trail might take issue with the idea of a for profit high speed run, and the trail angels who place water don't put it out there for people who have a friend meeting them at the same spot with a car. 

So do racers take over the Summerhaven Post Office as a normal thing? I have heard of people sleeping in the PO in Oracle but that's big enough to just take a corner. I was enjoying the video and getting past the idea that they were obviously driving to every trail head. Is this really the story the AZT bikepacking racers should be putting out. Too cheap to get a room in town, unwilling to carry warm enough gear to sleep out, you just take over a tiny towns PO?

My 2 shillingsworth

[phatmike]

I'm sure John stacked up those interview checks right next to the RD pay stubs haha!

A couple thoughts regarding the article (which I thought was fair enough)

1. While a google search might take you to the old site, it is very clear for anybody reading it that it is archived as one of the first things you read is WEBSITE IS NO LONGER ACTIVE
2. While someone I guess could say that they used the old site to gather information, it is clear that the new GPX, not to mention the current record holders are only published on the new one.
3. Regarding water - It is clearly documented on video and now confirmed even more in the article that water planning was not a big concern for Lael and team. Seemed way thirstier than she should have been at canelo pass rd, documented using public caches multiple times and maybe the biggest sin of all - stating in the article that she was out of water for the 5 hours leading into picketpost. Could have avoided that issue pretty easily by taking a right hand turn up to the rain water collector near at martinez canyon... One last thought regarding this. The video sure seems to try to make a point that "here Lael, now I can give you this bottle of water" at stateline. Seemed really "forced" in my mind.

Water caches are the source of some of the biggest conflicts on the trail. Last thing anyone needs is thinking that the magic water fairies are out at all times replenishing water caches. Next thing you know someone will take her words in the video as a free pass to go out on day rides in dry areas and utilizing those like it's a tap. This message presented by her in the video is in my opinion even more troubling  than the actual FKT/supported discussion.

[evdog]

So do racers take over the Summerhaven Post Office as a normal thing? I have heard of people sleeping in the PO in Oracle but that's big enough to just take a corner. I was enjoying the video and getting past the idea that they were obviously driving to every trail head. Is this really the story the AZT bikepacking racers should be putting out. Too cheap to get a room in town, unwilling to carry warm enough gear to sleep out, you just take over a tiny towns PO?

I've heard of racers sleeping at the community center in Summerhaven in the past but I think that gets locked overnight now, so maybe the PO has become the go-to spot.  I've seen this in Tour divide and other bikepack trip reports/videos as well.  Locals picking up mail in the morning might find it amusing once or twice but I can't imagine they would appreciate having to step over sleeping bikepackers on a regular basis.  Given Lael arrived late and left around 2am no one was likely to find her there in this case.  But a lot of eyes saw her "reportage" and might now think sleeping overnight in a PO lobby is a good idea.  Sadly a lot of people don't have the social awareness to realize they should be gone without a trace before anyone would show up in the morning.  It's only a matter of time before someone leaves a bunch of trash, or worse.  You only need to look at the Oregon Outback to see the worst case scenario.  https://www.bicycling.com/rides/a20022950/popular-bikepacking-event-killed-by-bad-behavior/.

Seems to me if we are concerned about protecting and minimizing the impact of the race this would be something that should be discouraged if not banned.  Not only does it seem like a bad idea, but may be illegal.  A google search "sleeping in post office lobby" pulled up Rules & Regs Re Conduct on USPS Property:  https://about.usps.com/posters/pos7.pdf .  Look at the "Disturbances" section, quoted below.   Seems directly applicable to sleeping in a lobby.   I know a bunch of post office lobbies around here (SoCal) are locked overnight now due to homeless sleeping in them.     

Disorderly conduct, or conduct that creates loud and unusual noise, or which impedes entrance to or departure from Post Offices? or otherwise obstructs the usual use of entrances, foyers, corridors, offices, elevators, stairways, and parking lots, or which otherwise tends to impede or disturb the public or employees in the performance of their duties, or which otherwise impedes or disturbs the general public in transacting business or obtaining the services provided on Postal Service property, is prohibited.

The issue of sleeping in pit toilets was also raised in a thread last year and I'd put that in the same category as PO lobbies.  Maybe less an issue since many of those are at least in remote areas, but still brings the possibility of negative interactions as there are more and more people using public lands these days.  I came across an occupied toilet during AZTR in 2019 when I got to the north rim.  A R2R2R runner needed to use a toilet but a thru hiker had locked himself in and refused to come out.  The other side was locked as well, occupancy unknown.  The runner was not amused.  Fortunately I didn't need to sit down, but was still kind of annoying and a bad reflection on the hiker inside. 


There seems to be more of a trend lately of racers taking an all or nothing approach especially on FKT attempts.  Rather than come prepared for conditions they're likely to encounter like rain/snow they carry minimal gear and then if things don't go their way, they just bail and attempt another run later.  The typical plan seems to be to nap along the way as needed so they bring minimal (or no) sleep kit or shelter, and sometimes not even proper clothing to continue if they encounter bad weather.  It shouldn't be a surprise then that places like pit toilets or PO's are very tempting, if not planned.  When bad weather hits those racers may have little choice to but use those shelters or even pull out of the race.  A few years back some CTR racers near the front had a bad storm move in around nightfall just as they were about to start the climb over one of the big passes.  None of them had sleeping gear, shelters or sufficient clothing so they couldn't safely continue.  Rather than wait out the storm they pulled out of the race.  Sooner or later a rider is going to get themself into a dangerous situation by being unprepared and that is not going to look good for bikepack racing.

3. Regarding water - It is clearly documented on video and now confirmed even more in the article that water planning was not a big concern for Lael and team. Seemed way thirstier than she should have been at canelo pass rd, documented using public caches multiple times and maybe the biggest sin of all - stating in the article that she was out of water for the 5 hours leading into picketpost. Could have avoided that issue pretty easily by taking a right hand turn up to the rain water collector near at martinez canyon... One last thought regarding this. The video sure seems to try to make a point that "here Lael, now I can give you this bottle of water" at stateline. Seemed really "forced" in my mind.

Water caches are the source of some of the biggest conflicts on the trail. Last thing anyone needs is thinking that the magic water fairies are out at all times replenishing water caches. Next thing you know someone will take her words in the video as a free pass to go out on day rides in dry areas and utilizing those like it's a tap. This message presented by her in the video is in my opinion even more troubling  than the actual FKT/supported discussion.

I agree there was a lot more interaction with camera crew than expected and use of water caches seemed excessive and unnecessary.  I've used the cache at Freeman Rd on each of 300/750, pretty sure that was it.  I don't see much need to use other ones, and I didn't even filter from stock tanks anywhere.  Hopefully, having moved the grand depart from spring to fall will minimize usage like this by bikers.  But yeah it does not send a good message to a wide audience of aspiring bikepackers that it is ok to rely on these caches for your race/ride. 

I noticed the "now I can give you this water bottle" handoff at the end too.  There were also a few "lifted my spirit" comments following hiker/visitor interactions that I didn't think too much of until seeing the water bottle comment at the end.  Pretty sure those were included very intentionally.  The other thing that raised an eyebrow was the intro of the trip report where it sounded at first like Lael took a 90min nap at Manzanita rest area in the Grand Canyon.  Later in the trip report where she gets to the Grand Canyon she says she stopped there to meditate.  Don't know about any of you but by that point in the ride if I sat down and closed my eyes I was out cold pretty much instantly, so I find the meditation claim a bit dubious.  

Lael and Rue know the rule and are playing politics with their mob following.

I would agree with that.  Don't forget the media company, who stirred up the internet mob in the first place.   I think they were both were aware of the rules and acted intentionally both in breaking them and how they responded after the * was applied.  I can't tell if Lael is just clueless or manipulative, or if she just doesn't give a shit.  Or maybe a combination of all three.  There certainly doesn't seem to be a lot of respect for the race or the bikepack racing community - or her fanbase for that matter, judging by the way they are being manipulated.  You can tell by what was said both before and after, and perhaps more importantly by what wasn't said.  There are a whole lot of things they could have clarified to Lael's fan base that would have quelled the outrage, but they chose not to.  The most amusing part is not pointing out to the fanbase that they are fawning over a FKT set in an event that is only a year old that only has 15 documented finishers so far.  That's not to say it wasn't an impressive ride - it definitely was.  But if you compare it to past ATZR750 results you can tell this FKT isn't going to stand for very long, asterisk or not.  I suspect there are going to be some very motivated racers lining up this fall.   

[jsliacan]

Fair question.  I'm not actually bothered by Brian's comment and reasoning.  I still see a lot of weight in the solo/self-support/bailout side of the visitation rule as well.

I know, and I am quite puzzled as to why we agree on many things and this one, which seems so clear to me, you view completely differently. What values or background do we diverge on? No idea. I think Brian's comment gives a really bad vibe and he/event gains next to nothing by it. Literally nothing in this particular case (especially because of how he phrased it).

While driving today I listened to some of the "Bikes! Bikes! Bikes!" podcast with Jefe Branham (new CTR RD).  The host asked Jefe a pretty loaded question about rules, specifically visitation and how he approaches it. 

Jefe's first several sentences were that he was responsible first and foremost to the Colorado Trail.  He described how it's not a bike trail, it's a hiking trail.  And the most important thing is trying to minimize the impact of the race and racers.  I was quite happy with this answer.  Jefe gets it and the CTR is in good hands.  He then went on to describe how the challenge is supposed to be solo and how having someone out there with you changes the nature of it.  He described very well how small infractions of this are ok and are tolerated, but don't abuse it.  It came across as very reasonable to me.

I listened to the podcast, thanks! Yes, Jefe seems absolutely reasonable. And if the rules are communicated the way he does it, I basically wouldn't have (m)any objections. Maybe I wasn't so keen on him trying to make people experience the races the way he remembered he experienced them (so remote that he was scared he'd die -- to quote him). A funny exaggeration I guess. When I want to experience something like that, I go for a long ride in northern Sweden, not line up at TTW. In the US, the races are more remote I guess, so I see how he could view it that way for e.g. CTR. But I still think that races are never going to be proper adventures. You have riders in front, behind, etc. Races are "executed", adventures are experienced. The sole fact that the route was painstakingly designed and scouted and re-checked makes me ride races differently. So trying very hard to make the races into adventures might be missing the point in my opinion (but you'll probably say that here I am missing the point of doing racing as adventure). But I definitely agree that Jefe's take is one of the most friendly ones (together with your old rules). The current AZTR rules, with bold font, exclamation marks, capslock, 0-1% statements, etc. just come across unfriendly (but maybe I'm just an entitled snowflake...).

This all sounds good.  I think the "don't like it, don't race" comes from someone who not only doesn't like the rule but also does not want to follow it.  It was some time into this conversation before you said that you're personally OK following it, you just don't like it.  Before that it was reasonable to assume you didn't want to follow it, too.  And if someone isn't going to follow a rule, they shouldn't show up, I think you'll agree.

Yes, one shouldn't race if they know they won't do it by the rules - agreed. And yes, I did notice that it's generally assumed here that whenever I object to something I have a personal stake in it.

OK, this is just your experience.  I have heard from others that had a friend following/documenting who later regretted it because people called them out for "support" and wondering what else their friend was doing for them.
I'm sure it happens both ways.

I know, and the visitation rule is based on experiences just like mine too, except opposite. They aren't more valid or more real. But we've been through this.

Yeah, I still don't see how visitation is that much different than a lot of the other things tolerated in small doses.  People get bent out of shape when accusations are made for sharing gear and trail magic, too. 

So I'm not sure what you are proposing, then, no limitations on these things?

Interestingly I believe the first version of self-support rules had nothing against sharing between racers.  The good MikeC or John Stamstad would need to enlighten us here.  My understanding was that because it's a competition you are only helping out your competitors and losing time and yet are under no obligation to do so.  So there was no reason to ban it -- it's fair.  It took Mike pointing out to me that "there's nothing saying you can't help other racers" for me to realize it.   It's possibly a fair argument when everyone is very competitive and at the pointy end.  It (maybe?) becomes an issue when riders start out to ride together and can then intentionally share gear, or when the events get big enough that one could reasonably assume the route is full of people to bail you out. 

Well, visitation is different in case of AZTR and CTR, because of the footprint argument. But the other two... I really don't care about trail magic. It seems petty, sorry. Nobody can give you a new tire and pretend it was trail magic, and some coke or candies are inconsequential. As for sharing gear, that's a different issue I think, it's not a matter of self-support. If e.g. the 1st rider shares gear with the 2nd rider and makes his/her race possible or faster, they interfered in the race between the 2nd rider and the rest. They not only helped their own competition (that's OK), they also helped other people's competition. Unless they had a permission from the rest of the field to help that 2nd rider, they shouldn't have done it. An analogy is letting someone in in front of you in the queue. It's not OK if you don't have a mandate from all the people behind you to let that person in. It will extend all their queue times so you do need that mandate. I think it's because of this that gear sharing appears in the rules.

Yes I think wording to this effect needs to go into the rules page somewhere. 

You said this before and I was glad to hear it. I do hope it'll eventually appear on the rules page. It's an objectively strong reason.

I'm glad to hear you say this.  You just sounded bitter and did not deny regretting racing TTW.  That kinda pushed it towards murder of the event for me.  I'm happy to not take it that way.

Well, even you used the argument that "people show up to the race, so clearly many don't have a problem with the rules". If it's taken that by attending I endorse the rules -- which seems to be the case, then of course I regret it to some extent. Isn't that just a corollary?

I'm trying to gently nudge you away from (what I perceive as) somewhat of a sense of entitlement here.  Showing gratitude for what other people have sacrificed for you is one way.  Contributing back is another way (and I do consider your time spent here a contribution).  Being realistic with expectations is another (this is not the tour de france as I've said).  Nudge, nudge.

I have thought about this a lot. I definitely don't want to be entitled. The thing is, I find the visitation rule aggressive and unfair (the way it's used and applied, respectively). We're not talking about the footprint phrasing here. The way it was applied at TD is an example. The way Brian publicly scolded that lady is another example. By aggressive I mean disproportional, in a way. For the importance of the rule (it's a lesser rule), it is used very aggressively (it voids an FKT improvement of 1d10h).

And as for the "this is not the TdF as I've said", self-support visitation rule is a typical UCI sock-length rule (sure taller socks help with aerodynamics, but enough to have it in the rules?). I am on the side of not having it as a self-support rule. The only other thing I say is that if you insist on having it (your choice), then please face the consequences -- you need to enforce it fairly and be very transparent and nuanced about it (a task which I wouldn't want). I think *you* a're on the UCI side, except you don't like that you're then held responsible for the consequences (I wouldn't like it either). However, I think the solution is to relax/rephrase the rule, not try to separate the presence of the rule from the responsibilities that follow from it.

It's pretty easy to dismiss obviously uninformed opinions, I'm sure you'll agree.  But as I was saying there is a point here in keeping the peace.  Keeping the peace is always worth considering, and what you must sacrifice in order to do that.

Sure. I think making the rules more relatable would help with this.

[jsliacan]

I just wanted to note that Lael's writeup and video were released recently.  Of interest to this discussion is that both writeup and video say that AZTR does not allow media, strongly implying a blanket ban as Jakub understood it to be.

This is interesting because she knows it isn't a blanket ban.  Remember John was quite reasonable and lenient in allowing multiple media visits, stretching the 'local' part well beyond reason.  She is quoted as saying that John said what they had done to Picketpost was "fine."  And John himself was out taking pictures (though I am glad they did not dwell on that).

About this. I am glad that this will be changed to include non-neutral media crews instead of media crews. I only wanted to point out that people who are reading the rules need not be aware of previous precedents and other behind the scenes information that some know. Also, even if you know those things but have no further justification of them, it does come across as a double-standard or inconsistency. It is much more likely that the rule was bent in some cases than that it doesn't say what it should say. So writing that "Lael knew it wasn't a blanket ban" is a strong statement which I don't think follows from any information cited here. I think it's a real possibility that she believes it's a blanket media ban and that it just isn't enforced fairly -- which might explain some of the bad feelings if there are any. Luckily, it's easy to prevent this in the future by narrowing down the rule to personal media crews.