AZTR Rules Carousel

[jsliacan]

I think he is teasing, since he has only slept at the Llama Ranch and Red Hawk Lodge so far

I don't think that's the point though. While it matters what he does, it matters more what he advertises (24k followers). He can probably sleep in a post office secretly (in at 1am out at 4am... noone even notices). It's the normalization of the thing for the public that creates the footprint I think. Next thing you know, someone down the field will be brewing coffee at the post office at 7am (exaggeration of course, but that sort of thing).

[ScottM]

While true, the amount of misunderstanding around RD's decisions is probably correlated with how far from transparent they are. And more generally, I think we have way more control over these "shit storms" than we admit. From the way things are communicated, to the processes around these decisions, to the underlying rules, etc. Who knows how many unpleasant situations could have been prevented regardless of what the rider did. I am saying this because there were suggestions in this thread that Lael should've communicated things better to her fan base, that she could've been more transparent about her intentions, etc. As valid as those demands are, I don't see many such questions being asked inward: was the relegation communicated/explained well? Was the decision transparent enough? Etc.

You are right that things on the RD/community side could have been handled better and more transparency would help.  We do have more control than we admit, absolutely.  I guess when I hear high expectations like these being applied to RDs who are doing this as a service to a community vs. a rider who is doing it for a living (with a large following and therefore a large responsibility), well, the comparison breaks down a little.  But I agree otherwise with what you're saying.

I've heard this before, yes. That said, I am unsure whether it's a justified fear (in the scheme of things). Who cares about the opinions of uninformed internet trolls? The rest seems quite civilized - not always pleasant, but civilized enough.

I might agree with this except that one rider lost his sponsorship / livelihood as a result of the canceling. 

The footprint of this year's TD is sizeable already in the first week: https://fernie.com/blog/bike-race-consumes-search-and-rescue/. On top of that some are normalizing sleeping in post offices (as something we all do, which we don't) https://www.instagram.com/p/CeyhsaSLRAe/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=.

Yep, it's been an eventful TD so far -- and not just with these rescues.  I was happy that the Fernie 'press' there was quite right to point out that the event provides no support (and thus no responsibility) -- that riders are fully on their own when out there.

I don't think that's the point though. While it matters what he does, it matters more what he advertises (24k followers).

Yep with 'fame' comes 'responsibility'.

[bmattingly44@yahoo.com]

I feel angry and sad for the dark cloud controversy that has occurred because of one person's ride and the the choices that were made on how to ride it.  The AZT 300/700/800+ rides are super fantastic adventure experiences by bike that many people have done, or attempted to do, for over a decade now.  These rides are beautiful and bring out the grit in those that complete.

Scott and John have done a SPECTACULAR job creating and managing this ride, putting countless hours of their time, and I believe overall wanting people to have a great experience on this long, isolated route.

I've spent a good deal of time on a few 300s and a 750 and have great memmories for the beauty, the suffering, and the experiences.  I've thoroughly enjoyed meeting and riding with other people too.  My 750 ITT was pretty dam isolated.  Not alot of people out there heading southbound.  Can't imagine my fiance showing up to meet me daily for a video.

I think Outside Magazine's article is very thorough giving both sides of the story.  After reading that article and these posts I think way too much attention is cast on the rules and not enough on one persons self promotion attempts and ego.  The negativity from one ride casts a dark cloud on an event that many people love.  When a race director shows up while ride is going and warns of rule violation it would be wise for a team to honor the warning rather than blow it off.  I think the RD went above and beyond.  Relegation stinks but the RDs have to manage a race for consistency I believe.

Thank you Scott and John for helping many of us expereince a life enhancing event.  You rock!!!!!

[jsliacan]

Sorry, I meant to respond to this earlier but didn't know what to write re:cancelling so I sat on it for a while...

You are right that things on the RD/community side could have been handled better and more transparency would help.  We do have more control than we admit, absolutely.  I guess when I hear high expectations like these being applied to RDs who are doing this as a service to a community vs. a rider who is doing it for a living (with a large following and therefore a large responsibility), well, the comparison breaks down a little.  But I agree otherwise with what you're saying.

I see your point about voluntary vs pro. That said, transparency often doesn't cost extra work and comes quite handy when something is done imperfectly (e.g. when a volunteer doesn't have enough time to tie all the ends, or simply makes a mistake, or is misunderstood, etc.).

I might agree with this except that one rider lost his sponsorship / livelihood as a result of the canceling.  

I think boycotting someone or cutting them off can be a fair discussion tool in general. Cancelling has bad connotations recently (and that might be justified), but based on publicly available info, I don't see why you'd consider the cancelling in question a bad thing. Maybe you have more information than the internets hold.

Btw, assuming he was cancelled unfairly... Just above you expressed that being a pro should mean that higher standards might apply to you (as opposed to a volunteer). Here you're saying that pro's hands might be tied behind their back via their sponsors holding their income hostage (in a myriad of ways, e.g. by a threat of cancelling for speaking up). These two beliefs seem to be at odds with each other. If it's harder for the pros to behave independently, then why should we expect a more ethical behavior from them than from "free" people?

I was happy that the Fernie 'press' there was quite right to point out that the event provides no support (and thus no responsibility) -- that riders are fully on their own when out there.

While no support from the "organizer" matters, I was worried it'd be pointed out that such number of people were unlikely to need help at the same time unless their presence at the same place at the same time was "organized" -- and grand depart date is basically the only thing that the "organizer" claims to set. Fortunately, that went unmentioned.

Going back to one of the previous sub-discussions, I recently listened to Sofiane speaking about his TD https://open.spotify.com/episode/1iulUFPQh5TdiBAUc3Gfs0. The part relevant to what we discussed here starts around 49m30s into the podcast. In particular, the part where he mentions that Brian Alder was sending him encouraging messages during the run. Let me reiterate that I think this is inconsequential and shouldn't be a subject of any self-support discussion. It's just too petty. But... Given that Brian scolded that lady at TTW (in the name of self-support) who took a few fly-by photos, I find it particularly inconsistent that he's messaging a leading cyclist (his acquaintance) at TD with encouragement, during the event. Did he send those messages to all people on the course? And even if he had, he doesn't have the same relationship with all of them, so it wouldn't have been equally supportive for each individual. I think it was generous from you to give him such amount of benefit of the doubt (around TTW), but I also think it's more likely that the emotional self-support is only brought up when it suits people, for whatever reasons.

[jsliacan]

I feel angry and sad for the dark cloud controversy that has occurred because of one person's ride and the the choices that were made on how to ride it. 

I think everyone feels sad that the controversy occurred -- that's why we're here discussing it. The fact that you readily have a reason for it probably helps it being a controversy. The fact that Lael could've done things better in many ways is not disputed here - I think we all agree on that. The issue from the event's perspective, I think, is how to help prevent this for the future (whether it involves Lael1, Lael2, Josh3, or anyone else).

Can't imagine my fiance showing up to meet me daily for a video.

I can't imagine it either. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be forbidden or even that it's bad in general.

After reading that article and these posts I think way too much attention is cast on the rules and not enough on one persons self promotion attempts and ego.

Placing emphasis on someone's ego or their self-promotion efforts is only helpful if we come up with ways to lessen the controversy via these things. I think in this regard, there's much more success to be had by revising the necessity of the existing rules and how they're communicated and applied.

BTW, it would seem from where I sit, that many more egos were hurt by Lael claiming the FKT. The egos of the tough, self-sufficient, mentally strong, and true bikepackers who have to earn their living with a day job and race at their own expense. I am not saying all criticisms of her actions come from this, but it does permeate various discussions.

[ScottM]

And we're back!

I see your point about voluntary vs pro. That said, transparency often doesn't cost extra work and comes quite handy when something is done imperfectly (e.g. when a volunteer doesn't have enough time to tie all the ends, or simply makes a mistake, or is misunderstood, etc.).

To me transparency takes *a lot* of extra work.  There are so many communications and decisions that by nature are not public (not intentionally hidden, they just take place in private).  To communicate all of them effectively and without cause for controversy (being careful of wording, misinterpretation) takes time and effort.  I'm going to have to disagree strongly here.  It's as if you really aren't able to imagine what it is like to be in an RD's shoes, or to be an advisor to an RD.

Btw, assuming he was cancelled unfairly... Just above you expressed that being a pro should mean that higher standards might apply to you (as opposed to a volunteer). Here you're saying that pro's hands might be tied behind their back via their sponsors holding their income hostage (in a myriad of ways, e.g. by a threat of cancelling for speaking up). These two beliefs seem to be at odds with each other. If it's harder for the pros to behave independently, then why should we expect a more ethical behavior from them than from "free" people?

I didn't say it was either fair or unfair, just that the potential *significant* consequence is there. 

Taking what you wrote above (pro v. volunteer), and below:

Going back to one of the previous sub-discussions, I recently listened to Sofiane speaking about his TD https://open.spotify.com/episode/1iulUFPQh5TdiBAUc3Gfs0. The part relevant to what we discussed here starts around 49m30s into the podcast. In particular, the part where he mentions that Brian Alder was sending him encouraging messages during the run. Let me reiterate that I think this is inconsequential and shouldn't be a subject of any self-support discussion. It's just too petty. But... Given that Brian scolded that lady at TTW (in the name of self-support) who took a few fly-by photos, I find it particularly inconsistent that he's messaging a leading cyclist (his acquaintance) at TD with encouragement, during the event. Did he send those messages to all people on the course? And even if he had, he doesn't have the same relationship with all of them, so it wouldn't have been equally supportive for each individual. I think it was generous from you to give him such amount of benefit of the doubt (around TTW), but I also think it's more likely that the emotional self-support is only brought up when it suits people, for whatever reasons.

I'm struck by how keen your sense of inconsistency is. Methinks you have too high expectations.... of the rules, of everyone.  Humans are, by their very nature, walking and talking bags of inconsistency.

Re: Pro vs volunteer: the onus is on the person making the claim of an FKT or a new route, to make an honest claim, an accurate claim and to pay respect to those that came before.  Doesn't really matter if they are pro or not.  John Stamstad talks about this in a recent bikes or death podcast.  On the other hand, a volunteer RD is forced to respond when an inaccurate or dishonest claim is made.  An athlete making a claim potentially gets exposure and money.  An RD responding at best maintains the integrity of a free event -- they put their neck out just to protect something they believe in.  I still stand by my statement that the expectations should be much higher on the athlete.

[AZTtripper]

I would be great if the RD could get the same level of hero worship, can do no wrong, admiration that is given to the riders. 

[jsliacan]

To me transparency takes *a lot* of extra work.  There are so many communications and decisions that by nature are not public (not intentionally hidden, they just take place in private).  To communicate all of them effectively and without cause for controversy (being careful of wording, misinterpretation) takes time and effort.  I'm going to have to disagree strongly here.  It's as if you really aren't able to imagine what it is like to be in an RD's shoes, or to be an advisor to an RD.

I think the trick is in the quantifiers here. I said that transparency *often* doesn't come at extra cost. You're saying that "*so many* communications and decisions are by nature not public". I think our disagreement is over a much smaller portion of the situations than it seems. For instance, I don't see how a rider ever has to ask the RD any private questions. Similarly, requesting decisions e.g. about camera crews, never needs to be done privately. Rule changes or race detail changes should probably always be "necessary" if they are made, so pointing to a source of the necessity is likely not hard when making those changes (especially since this shouldn't happen often). Nobody is asking for extreme transparency, just some common sense things, such as this discussion needs to be had in the open and not 1-on-1 with John.

I didn't say it was either fair or unfair, just that the potential *significant* consequence is there. 

If that significant consequence is fair and to-be-expected, then isn't it good if it deters people from behaving in unacceptable ways? You said that some people might be worried to speak up publicly because they could be cancelled. Then you gave an example of someone being cancelled hard. So... if the cancellation was justified (fair), then why would that cause anyone to be afraid of being cancelled unfairly? If your comment is to make sense, it does imply that either the cancellation was unfair, or that a fair cancellation can make people afraid of being cancelled unfairly -- which doesn't seem likely. Also, and this would be ironic, I wonder whether the content of the exchange would be the different if it had been public (e.g. here) and whether it would then lead to cancellation. I suspect not, but that's just speculation of course. 

I'm struck by how keen your sense of inconsistency is. Methinks you have too high expectations.... of the rules, of everyone.  Humans are, by their very nature, walking and talking bags of inconsistency.

Humans are many things, yet I would expect the RD to avoid being all of them. It's just bizarre for me: imagine you care about self-support so much that you scold a stranger for an inconsequential nonsense, yet you yourself do the same in the same race and then ignore self-support ethics on other occasions. Surely you can't think self-support is the ultimate thing on Thursdays and completely forget about it on the other days of the week...Let me stress it again: this is just an example - there's nothing interesting about this case, just that it's on record so we can discuss it.

Re: Pro vs volunteer: the onus is on the person making the claim of an FKT or a new route, to make an honest claim, an accurate claim and to pay respect to those that came before.  Doesn't really matter if they are pro or not.

I thought it mattered that one person does it for a living -- that's what I was addressing:

I guess when I hear high expectations like these being applied to RDs who are doing this as a service to a community vs. a rider who is doing it for a living (with a large following and therefore a large responsibility), well, the comparison breaks down a little.

Anyways, I will definitely listen to the podcast with John Stamstad, thanks.

On the other hand, a volunteer RD is forced to respond when an inaccurate or dishonest claim is made.  An athlete making a claim potentially gets exposure and money.  An RD responding at best maintains the integrity of a free event -- they put their neck out just to protect something they believe in.  I still stand by my statement that the expectations should be much higher on the athlete.

I think it actually matters what the false claim was about. Imagine Lael would use e-bike to do an FKT. When she'd be called out, everyone would just laugh at her for thinking that it could possibly count as a self-supported FKT. Nobody would say a word about the rules or the RD. But she was called out because there was a media crew meeting her at various points on the route (not providing her with any tangible support, as far as we know). Why didn't her "false claim" seem absurd to everyone? Could it be that we're taking ourselves too seriously in our bubble with these emotional support rules? And the rules seem more absurd than the athlete's claim? I think athlete can lose reputation big time if the false claim is significantly false. Plus they can lose sponsorship = livelihood, as you said. So there's a lot at stake for the athlete, provided the rules don't come across more absurd than the transgression. I don't know if like that expectations are much greater on the athlete. I do agree, however, that if you (whoever you migh be) are making a claim, you have the responsibility to be able to support it.

[jsliacan]

I would be great if the RD could get the same level of hero worship, can do no wrong, admiration that is given to the riders. 

My feeling is that admiration and can do no wrong perception of RDs are definitely strong within the community. The traces of this can actually be found throughout all of the above discussion. When Scott says that my expectations are to high (to an objection of a very obvious inconsistency), it's just a rephrasing of the "RD can do no wrong" attitude. But it's not just from him (an RD himself, or former). There are also many instances of admiration showing through, e.g. the fact that unless you begin a paragraph with thanks to the RD, you get reminded that RD puts huge amount of their own time and effort into a volunteering position. We could go on. I am actually pretty impressed by how respected an RD role is in the community.

[ScottM]

I think the trick is in the quantifiers here. I said that transparency *often* doesn't come at extra cost. You're saying that "*so many* communications and decisions are by nature not public". I think our disagreement is over a much smaller portion of the situations than it seems. For instance, I don't see how a rider ever has to ask the RD any private questions. Similarly, requesting decisions e.g. about camera crews, never needs to be done privately. Rule changes or race detail changes should probably always be "necessary" if they are made, so pointing to a source of the necessity is likely not hard when making those changes (especially since this shouldn't happen often). Nobody is asking for extreme transparency, just some common sense things, such as this discussion needs to be had in the open and not 1-on-1 with John.

OK, I see what you are saying.  I've already agreed it's a good goal to strive toward.  I'm just not sure what that looks like.  I don't know where these public discussions should take place.  Only a small percentage of the community is on these forums or even knows about them.  Social media is not it.  I'm trying to imagine how a new racer can be directed to ask a question in a public place, and would they actually do it?  It's so much easier to just reach out by means that are private and then it becomes a big burden to try to present things assumed to be private into the public sphere.
 

If that significant consequence is fair and to-be-expected, then isn't it good if it deters people from behaving in unacceptable ways? You said that some people might be worried to speak up publicly because they could be cancelled. Then you gave an example of someone being cancelled hard. So... if the cancellation was justified (fair), then why would that cause anyone to be afraid of being cancelled unfairly? If your comment is to make sense, it does imply that either the cancellation was unfair, or that a fair cancellation can make people afraid of being cancelled unfairly -- which doesn't seem likely. Also, and this would be ironic, I wonder whether the content of the exchange would be the different if it had been public (e.g. here) and whether it would then lead to cancellation. I suspect not, but that's just speculation of course. 

I'm curious, given what you know -- do you think the hard canceling was fair (justified) or not?  Why?  I don't really know what information is out there.

It's just bizarre for me: imagine you care about self-support so much that you scold a stranger for an inconsequential nonsense, yet you yourself do the same in the same race and then ignore self-support ethics on other occasions. Surely you can't think self-support is the ultimate thing on Thursdays and completely forget about it on the other days of the week...Let me stress it again: this is just an example - there's nothing interesting about this case, just that it's on record so we can discuss it.

Yes if you twist the facts far enough you've found yet another teeny tiny inconsistency.

But let's unpack it a bit.  Brian's comment to the wife was aimed at getting her to stop physically following the race, that they avoid the appearance that the rider is getting support on route.  The rules say to avoid such things.  The rules for TTW and TD say nothing about sending supportive internet messages from a different continent.  Brian also never said all forms of emotional support are banned, right?  In fact in his supposed "scolding" he didn't even mention emotional support.

I really think you need to dial down your inconsistency detector.  This one is especially weak and irrelevant.

I thought it mattered that one person does it for a living -- that's what I was addressing:

Get me to write enough words and not all of them will be 100% consistent, yes. 

I think it actually matters what the false claim was about. Imagine Lael would use e-bike to do an FKT. When she'd be called out, everyone would just laugh at her for thinking that it could possibly count as a self-supported FKT. Nobody would say a word about the rules or the RD. But she was called out because there was a media crew meeting her at various points on the route (not providing her with any tangible support, as far as we know). Why didn't her "false claim" seem absurd to everyone? Could it be that we're taking ourselves too seriously in our bubble with these emotional support rules? And the rules seem more absurd than the athlete's claim? I think athlete can lose reputation big time if the false claim is significantly false. Plus they can lose sponsorship = livelihood, as you said. So there's a lot at stake for the athlete, provided the rules don't come across more absurd than the transgression. I don't know if like that expectations are much greater on the athlete. I do agree, however, that if you (whoever you migh be) are making a claim, you have the responsibility to be able to support it.

Careful, I never said anyone made a false claim.  Let's not jump recklessly between generalities and specific cases, please. 

All you are saying here is that there were nuances to Lael's ride and it wasn't clear.  We all agree on that.  99% of support wasn't on either side. 

Back to the main point at hand, I now think it's not that relevant whether expectations are higher of an athlete or RD.  Both should communicate effectively and behave honorably in an ideal world.  Let's agree on that and move on.

[ScottM]

My feeling is that admiration and can do no wrong perception of RDs are definitely strong within the community. The traces of this can actually be found throughout all of the above discussion. When Scott says that my expectations are to high (to an objection of a very obvious inconsistency), it's just a rephrasing of the "RD can do no wrong" attitude. But it's not just from him (an RD himself, or former). There are also many instances of admiration showing through, e.g. the fact that unless you begin a paragraph with thanks to the RD, you get reminded that RD puts huge amount of their own time and effort into a volunteering position. We could go on. I am actually pretty impressed by how respected an RD role is in the community.

I never suggested that RDs can do no wrong.  They can, have and will.  You just seem unable to grasp how unrealistic and entitled your expectations are, and I'm done trying.  You want 100% consistency (look at how absurdly you called Brian out just now) and I'm fine with ~90% (for everyone, RD, athlete, commentator), allowing for human error.  

[jsliacan]

I never suggested that RDs can do no wrong. 

Not explicitly, no.

You just seem unable to grasp how unrealistic and entitled your expectations are, and I'm done trying.  You want 100% consistency (look at how absurdly you called Brian out just now) and I'm fine with ~90% (for everyone, RD, athlete, commentator), allowing for human error. 

My expectations are intentionally comical for the sake of the discussion. I think the community is not getting how ridiculous these visitation and emotional support rules look/are. So if RDs try to oversee such minute details of people's races via rules, then let's also look at the minute details of how the RDs are applying them, for instance. But then that's called "unrealistic" and "entitled".

But let's unpack it a bit.  Brian's comment to the wife was aimed at getting her to stop physically following the race, that they avoid the appearance that the rider is getting support on route.  The rules say to avoid such things.  The rules for TTW and TD say nothing about sending supportive internet messages from a different continent.  Brian also never said all forms of emotional support are banned, right?  In fact in his supposed "scolding" he didn't even mention emotional support.
I really think you need to dial down your inconsistency detector.  This one is especially weak and irrelevant.

Brian was originally given as an example of how having a visitation rule leads to very awkward situations (imo) if you mismanage it: (1) he was racing, his wife met us (also him) on the course multiple times, and (2) some guy racing, and his wife met (not him) us on the course. (1) was ok, (2) was called out. Over here, this was brushed off by saying that he's neutral as an RD (clearly not if he's racing; but RD can do no wrong). So when I came across more background I pointed it out to suggest that it is not unlikely he was actually inconsistent by calling out that lady. He did that with something like "we don't want people to suspect you of helping your husband" (there's a FB link higher in the discussion already). Surely then, messaging a TD leader would warrant a comment along the lines of "we don't want people suspecting you of passing vital route information to your friend". I don't see how this line of argument is "absurd", it's analogous if anything. And saying that TD doesn't have any rule about messages is besides the point -- it was said here 100x that it's the "spirit" of the rules that matters. And "no outside support" means no intel on the conditions, route, state of other racers, and as it turns out, no emotional support either. All of these can be passed on by a text message from the other side of the world. If you don't like the "emotional support" part of he story, the analogy still works even without this sub-point. That said, I think if emotional support in general is curtailed in some forms at TD (which it is), then surely he should've refrained from messaging -- he knows better than a first-time dotwatcher. BTW, my family are instructed to use separate group chats (without me) when I race so they can freely discuss things without worrying that some useful info would leak to me. And I definitely hold others to lower standards than Brian does, i.e. I would forbid a strict subset of what he forbids, or I would never scold that lady.

In hindsight, I made a mistake by bringing this topic back. It's too much discussion about Brian - almost looks personal! And the inconsistency was trivialized then, so I'm not sure why I thought this new story would sway it.

Back to the main point at hand, I now think it's not that relevant whether expectations are higher of an athlete or RD.  Both should communicate effectively and behave honorably in an ideal world.  Let's agree on that and move on.

Great, thanks.

I'll answer your questions in the morning, 1am here.

[jsliacan]

OK, I see what you are saying.  I've already agreed it's a good goal to strive toward.  I'm just not sure what that looks like.  I don't know where these public discussions should take place.  Only a small percentage of the community is on these forums or even knows about them.  Social media is not it.  I'm trying to imagine how a new racer can be directed to ask a question in a public place, and would they actually do it?  It's so much easier to just reach out by means that are private and then it becomes a big burden to try to present things assumed to be private into the public sphere.

If the issue moved to working out the practicalities, then that's great. There are public forums like this one. If pointed here, to a thread set up for that purpose, I don't see much problem with this. To the contrary, it's great that it's not a monstrous website like Facebook hosting these discussions - eliminating peoples hesitations to join in many cases. There are also other forms of discussions, e.g. IRC channel or something for discussing more transient matters would work OK I think. As for the cases who reach out in private - deflecting them to one of these places wouldn't work? Most likely, someone knowledgeable would help answer their questions without the RD having to type a single character. And for the few odd cases, the RD could chip in with a decision or something. It'd be more complicated than this in reality, I understand, but probably not much more? Over time, community could help compile a few kinds of FAQs (about rule clarifications; preemptive answers to personal questions e.g. deferrals for discreet reasons; organizational FAQs; etc.). The RD would basically move to a role of the editor for these places. If they don't want to read everything, others might be happy to help. Some such distributed approach I imagine would make the event even more community-like and it would help spread the organisational load? Then the RD would be left with "tough" decisions which have already been pre-discussed and the actual logistics of the race (routing, admin, ...). Plus if the website was moved to some wiki or Github-ish format -- this would allow changes to be sent as requests directly, leaving the RD with only the responsibility of review & approval. Reviews could also be multiple (by trusted moderators 1-2), taking even more burden off of the shoulders of the RD.  Anyways, these are just ideas - details would have to be worked out. But does it sound implausible/naive?

I'm curious, given what you know -- do you think the hard canceling was fair (justified) or not?  Why?  I don't really know what information is out there.

I listened to Gear Junkie podcast with Jay almost specifically about this (https://gearjunkie.com/podcast/jay-petervary), I read articles in Radavist by Rue, as the TD19 was happening. And I saw Rue's movie from that year's TD. The rest of the info I have is second-hand, so best discarded I assume. Anyways, from this, I did think the consequence was harsh but I don't think it was unfair.  Unless they treated a similar case differently before/after this one (that would be bad). A person whose status in the community depends a fair bit on endorsements used that status to weigh in on an issue in an unfortunate way (my email to Lael would not even make it past the spam filter, so that status matters). That salsa wanted to distance themselves from this isn't all that surprising I think. But yes, I only know very little from the public domain. If salsa was unhappy for other reasons and only used this as a pretext, then that's unfair. And there could be 1000 other ways in which it could've been unfair. I wouldn't know. It just doesn't seem necessarily unfair from what's easily findable online.

Careful, I never said anyone made a false claim.  Let's not jump recklessly between generalities and specific cases, please. 

I don't think I said that you referred to someone's (Lael's) claim as false. I just applied your general statements to that particular case and made my point on that example. But as you say, let's keep general and specific points separate, I agree that that's wise. Let me quote what I was referring to:

On the other hand, a volunteer RD is forced to respond when an inaccurate or dishonest claim is made.  An athlete making a claim potentially gets exposure and money.  An RD responding at best maintains the integrity of a free event -- they put their neck out just to protect something they believe in.  I still stand by my statement that the expectations should be much higher on the athlete.

Now let me rephrase what I wrote to a theoretical form:
"I think it actually matters what the false inaccurate or dishonest claim is about. Imagine Lael a racer would use an e-bike to do an FKT. When she they'd be called out, everyone would just laugh at her them for thinking that it could possibly count as a self-supported FKT. Nobody would say a word about the rules or the RD. But she was if they were called out because there was a media crew meeting herthem at various points on the route (not providing her them with any tangible support, as far as we know). Why didn't her "false claim" seem absurd to everyone? We know from a specific example that such a claim didn't seem absurd to many people. Could it be that we're taking ourselves too seriously in our bubble with these emotional support rules? And the rules seem more absurd than the athlete's claim? I think athlete can lose reputation big time if the false claim is significantly false. Plus they can lose sponsorship = livelihood, as you said. So there's a lot at stake for the athlete, provided the rules don't come across more absurd than the transgression. ..."

All you are saying here is that there were nuances to Lael's ride and it wasn't clear.  We all agree on that.  99% of support wasn't on either side. 

I was rather trying to use the fallout as evidence that maybe we're losing the big picture and getting caught in details of self-support that seem unnatural from afar.

BTW, I did the homework and listened to the podcast with John Stamstad. Two ideas stood out. One was his view on the style of ITTs as you pointed out, and the other was on "the experience of TD" (or other similar races). I largely agree with how ITTs should be done, but that doesn't help here because it's exactly in the grey area what the problems arise. I don't see how "doing it the same or harder way" as the previous FKT holder is sustainable. I am always going to take a rain jacket, regardless of the mistakes of the previous person. I won't only ride vegan, even if the previous holder did that (and it might be harder!), and I won't stop for prayers 2x a day even if that was the restriction for the previous person. I also won't ride it singlespeed, etc. It's about drawing lines -- what has an impact on the FKT and what doesn't, but also, what is a reasonable restriction to dwell on, and what isn't. The other point that I remember John made was along the lines of having some of the rules in place to ensure people have the right experience of the race. I've seen this elsewhere (podcast with Jefe?) and frankly, I don't understand why it's a good thing. Everyone can have any experience they want, as long as they don't spoil others' experiences -- I'd think. Yet some of the self-support rules are trying to ensure that people feel sufficiently alone and remote in the race. If I want to feel truly solo, I don't jump into a grand depart with over 100 people. As usual, there can be no visitors in order for racers to be forced to behave responsibly (no worst-case scenario back-ups), but it's OK to know the whole race that you have heaps of people (other racers) that will find you within hours if you need help on the route. So yes, these were the two things that I couldn't resolve easily after listening to the podcast. Thanks for the tip, John is nice to listen to.

[davew]

The thread name change was the best laugh I have had for quite some time. Chapeau to that person.

[taprider]

 

[ScottM]

The thread name change was the best laugh I have had for quite some time. Chapeau to that person.

Yes, well played, well played.  It wasn't me.

To be fair, that's how these threads usually go, ad naseum, round and round.  But it does feel to me like it's about time to wrap this one up.

[jsliacan]

To be fair, that's how these threads usually go, ad naseum, round and round.  But it does feel to me like it's about time to wrap this one up.

Done! Thanks for your time and good luck at TTW if you decide to go, it's pretty cool.

[ScottM]

Likewise thanks for your time and energy here.  I do hope to ride TTW at some point.  The private land access that Brian has negotiated is extraordinary, so it's something you can't just tour on your own.

My short summary of this discussion:

It needs to be clear that only personal media support is limited.  Some forms of media have and still are allowed.  There's a limited framework where events and athletes can be covered without affecting the event in major ways and without providing too much of an unfair advantage.  Usually this is worked out case by case.

There seems to be broad support within the community for continuing to curb (limit, not ban) visitation, media or not.  Even new bikepackers formerly against it seem to change their mind.  The reasons are many (in order of importance): 1. limiting the footprint or impact of the event, 2. that it can provide a bailout and thus affect decision making/risk taking and 3. emotional support for an unfair advantage.

None of these reasons or visitation rules are new -- they've been with us more or less from the beginning.  Media is just a clarification -- that just because you call your visitors 'media' doesn't mean they get to break the visitation rule as much as they want.

I appreciate and don't mind the overall framework here being scrutinized to a certain extent, and Jakub has done that for us (thank you!).  My takeaway is that I'm more confident than before that the rules are in a good place.  Not much here (especially not small inconsistency of the rules or small inconsistency of the humans implementing them) has presented a compelling argument against them.  Meanwhile we've run into more and more support for them: 1. podcasts with new racers, and even hosts coming around to curbing visitation 2. several other events that take just as strict or a more strict stance, including events outside the US. 3. Running FKT rules that also consider visitation to be support.



CTR is coming right up!  Time to focus on the riding and the racers and hopefully minimal rule and SAR issues.

[dp]

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

100%

[ScottM]

Just a quick note of relevance here: the AZTR rules have been updated.

https://azt300-800.com/rules/

Thanks to John for all the work on them.