AZTR Rules Carousel

[taprider]

Why has following debatable rules become an issue?
Maybe because it's upsetting when your hero or role model does something questionable. You look to them for examples to help make your own ethical decisions while competing.

Such as, I find that during bikepack races I am forced to frequently make ethical decisions just trying to follow a line on a GPS.  Even zooming in and out, there is still often a discrepancy between the line on the device and what I see on the ground in real life*. For the 2016 AZTR, at times, I had to wander back and forth when my GPS showed that I was off track, trying to find a corresponding track or trail, and if I couldn't find something that seemed right (for example I backtracked to go the hard way, but I am pretty sure lots of you took the double track on the wrong side of a fence down Oracle Ridge and missed a section of singletrack and a couple difficult gates), and other times deciding to follow the tracks of those that went before me even though I think they took the easier faster way. Other ethical choices occur when you leave the mapped route to go to a store (do you go back to the south corner of the parking lot or go straight to the north corner to rejoin the route?)

I think the leaders and record holders should be held to a higher standard, as in a way they are setting the standard for the rest of us**. Ultimately the style in which one completes a bikepack route is more important that how fast one completes it.





*I have done GPS events where the goal is to ride as many different mtn bike trails in North Vancouver in one day, tracked with your phone or GPS and submitted onto TrailForks. In preparation, I pre-rode to compare the differences between an iphone, ETrex and Map64 (the most accurate one with the large antennae) and likely due to the routes displayed on TrailForks being created with inferior devices, you can get widely varying results such as being credited with riding a trail you didn't or not riding a trail you did, or given a Leader Board fastest time when you shouldn't.

** Why weren't some of the leading men for the 2019 Tour Divide not held to the same standard as Lael. There are videos showing that one of the leading men had his daughter help fill a water bottle in New Mexico, and another guy's bros filmed him on course (young men commonly die showing off for their bros, so don't tell me a romantic partner implies an unfair higher level of emotional support)

[jsliacan]

Lael finished her 800 ITT a bit ago, about 2h 20m ahead of Nate's winning time from last October.
Rules. The AZTR has them and enforces them. Rule #2 explicitly states no media crews & no record will be acknowledged if a media crew is used. There's also a visitation rule which states excessive use may result in relegation. Unfortunately this too occurred over the entire 800 miles.
Lael's finish time of 9d 8h 24m will be noted, but not recognized as the record for violating the above rules.
I know a lot of you are very passionate about these events, keep it civil.

Hey John,

I just registered on this forum because it seems to be the preferred place for AZTR community to discuss things. I'd like to raise the issue of the visitation rule and to suggest changing/dropping it. Here is the bulk of my reasoning:

1. Was there consensus in the community and beyond before the rule was added? I cannot find a public discussion about this prior to 2019 change. If you're doing this for the community (thanks), maybe it's good to stay in sync with it.
2. I cannot find a justification of the rule.
3. The rule overlaps with rule 6 - no pacers. It makes the visitation rule seem like an afterthought - not even aligned with other rules.
4. The rule is very difficult to fairly apply - making it controversial at best.
5. The rule is disproportionally petty compared to other rules (e.g. no motorized transport). Additionally, it cannot be shown that visitation/media helps. So this rule is a "just in case", making its presence even more petty.
6. It goes against the principle of having "as few rules as possible" to add rules (after many years).
7. It is inconsistent to have this rule and not have e.g. rule against monetary incentives by sponsors (win bonuses). The latter clearly being a provable incentive.
8. There is no mention of good old doping (e.g. all WADA banned substances are banned here too), which is a much more serious transgression (because it's also health related) than seeing your spouse on the course. There is no mention of staying away from painkillers (or at least some sort of those) -- even UTMB has those on the banned list -- and we know that bikepacking community uses them heavily.

In short, the issue seems too inconsequential and vague to warrant a rule, especially when clearer and more impactful issues don't have rules around them (you're trying to control something of the order log(n) when exp(n) things are going unnoticed). Moreover, it's not even one of the original rules and it doesn't seem to have been discussed prior to its addition...

I think the best course of action would be to revert the rule and start working on media guidelines if we are worried about the media altering the experience too much. Regulating instead of banning seems more appropriate. This could create a workable blueprint for other events and make the community more welcoming while preserving the crux of the self-supported spirit.

I hope this does lead to some discussion.

[taprider]

The AZTR as do most other North American bikepack races refer to the original Tour Divide rules
https://tourdivide.org/the_rules

[jsliacan]

The AZTR as do most other North American bikepack races refer to the original Tour Divide rules
https://tourdivide.org/the_rules

Thanks... Those very rules (or FAQs about them) mention that the visitation rule was not part of the original TD rules. The admin also "explains" to the person asking the Q that "rules evolve". So, in short, I am unsure what your point is since I am suggesting exactly that -- to evolve the rules further. The TD rules are fine as inspiration, they aren't god given though. And I am pretty sure all my points above (apart from the dates) apply to the TD visitation rule as well. Anyway, AZTR can do better than TD - I don't see a problem with that.

[phatmike]

Hey jsliacan.

Have you ever participated in an ultra bikepacking race? I ask because from what I can tell, there are two different points of view and it seems like the line is primarily drawn at having/not having participated in one of these events. The rules are in place to create as level a playing field as possible for the participants. Those rules might not always be congruent with the wishes of those watching or rooting for participants. You might then ask why isn't there something in place to prevent doping then? Well, as has been shown in the pro sports/peloton, that is very hard to control even with an organizing body and lots of money. It's just not realistic. The presence of a media crew doesn't require testing somebodies blood or urine.

Ultimately when it comes to these events, integrity, honor and self-policing by the participants of that particular event should have the biggest vote in the room. If the participants don't like it or the application of the rules, there is nothing on this beautiful earth preventing them from creating their own event with rules that are more suitable for their style and objectives. It's not about gatekeeping or agendas. It is about preserving the integrity of the particular event.

[jsliacan]

Thanks for writing phatmike.

I've done a couple of events, none in the US.

The rules are in place to create as level a playing field as possible for the participants.

I think this is disputable, given how uneven the emphasis is over many troubling topics. Some don't make it into the rules, some do. The rules are clearly not evolving (except for the odd addition of the visitation/media rule), so we can't just wave it away as being a "process". Also I think what you mean is that the race rules just try to create a level playing field on the day. Because sponsorship, past doping, wealth, religion, citizenship, etc. all affect one's chances to even be at the start line. But I accept that that's what the rules try to do. Sure.

Well, as has been shown in the pro sports/peloton, that is very hard to control even with an organizing body and lots of money. It's just not realistic.

As you point out later in your post, policing the rules is mostly based on people's integrity (self policing). So we could easily have a rule that is hard to check. Caches are basically impossible to check, yet the rule exists. And finally, if people thought doping mattered, they could at least have a rule to auto-DQ convicted dopers coming from other sports (e.g. pro peloton, XC skiing, etc.), since their integrity - the cornerstone of bikepack racing -- cannot be relied on. This info is usually publicly available, yet no such rule exists.

The presence of a media crew doesn't require testing somebodies blood or urine.

You'd think, right? Yet at TD 2019 Josh Ibbett had a personal film crew, rode at Lael's pace, and doesn't have any mention of this next to his finishing time in any results I could find. Clearly there are *some* problems with applying this rule even if it should be easy to uphold. So I am not sure easy/difficult to police should bear so much weight when designing the rules.

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

That's not a fair suggestion though. If one event already exists, you won't create another one which is a copy of the first except for the rules. It would split the community, dilute the racing scene, confuse the public, and it would just be bad taste in general. It is much more sensible to work towards some middle ground about the 1 event that already exists and grow the enthusiasm towards it.

It's not about gatekeeping or agendas. It is about preserving the integrity of the particular event.

If the rules were balanced in their reach, emphasis, coverage, and application, then yes. This way it, at the very least, looks bad. I am also not understanding how a respectful media crew infringes on the integrity of the event. I don't think it has been explained anywhere (or I failed to find it), and it is not obvious.

[phatmike]

Agree to disagree on media (especially dedicated media following a specific rider) being support. Seeing a friendly face my partner's face along the length of the route would be a huge boost for me - thus my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly that if media rules are applied differently in the same race (your example about TD 2019 - of which I don't know the details enough about to speak intelligently) then that is a major problem and not OK. That being said, I think the AZTR has been managed and "officiated" fairly since its inception. The fallout - primarily by people who have never participated in an event - against John has been disgusting and uncalled for.  This has split the community and created a bad taste more than anything else in this entire fiasco. Lael, et. al. have accepted the * and at the end of the day it doesn't impact their objectives in any way. They also didn't do anything to speak out about the behavior of their supporters. They got their content and web clicks. John got dragged by the masses and I will never be OK with that.

[TailLights]

Thanks for writing phatmike.

I've done a couple of events, none in the US.
I think this is disputable, given how uneven the emphasis is over many troubling topics. Some don't make it into the rules, some do. The rules are clearly not evolving (except for the odd addition of the visitation/media rule), so we can't just wave it away as being a "process". Also I think what you mean is that the race rules just try to create a level playing field on the day. Because sponsorship, past doping, wealth, religion, citizenship, etc. all affect one's chances to even be at the start line. But I accept that that's what the rules try to do. Sure.
As you point out later in your post, policing the rules is mostly based on people's integrity (self policing). So we could easily have a rule that is hard to check. Caches are basically impossible to check, yet the rule exists. And finally, if people thought doping mattered, they could at least have a rule to auto-DQ convicted dopers coming from other sports (e.g. pro peloton, XC skiing, etc.), since their integrity - the cornerstone of bikepack racing -- cannot be relied on. This info is usually publicly available, yet no such rule exists.
You'd think, right? Yet at TD 2019 Josh Ibbett had a personal film crew, rode at Lael's pace, and doesn't have any mention of this next to his finishing time in any results I could find. Clearly there are *some* problems with applying this rule even if it should be easy to uphold. So I am not sure easy/difficult to police should bear so much weight when designing the rules.
That's not a fair suggestion though. If one event already exists, you won't create another one which is a copy of the first except for the rules. It would split the community, dilute the racing scene, confuse the public, and it would just be bad taste in general. It is much more sensible to work towards some middle ground about the 1 event that already exists and grow the enthusiasm towards it.
If the rules were balanced in their reach, emphasis, coverage, and application, then yes. This way it, at the very least, looks bad. I am also not understanding how a respectful media crew infringes on the integrity of the event. I don't think it has been explained anywhere (or I failed to find it), and it is not obvious.

I like the idea of evolving rules too.

[SlowRide]

I thought it was her spouse, Rue, photographing/filming her?

Visitation is not permitted, so just her partner being there is enough to be relegated. Case closed in my book.

"Media crew" is just an extra thing that happened and quite honestly is inconsequential when there's already a visitation rule that was plainly and provably broken.

I have nothing against Lael, and I would support John in this decision with any racer.  I, for one, think this decision supports the integrity of this great race and those racing this trail past and present and keeps it in it's current state of being an excellent event, my favorite event of the Triple Crown. Lael is one heck of racer, as are you Sarah. I hope Lael gives it another go without visitation and kills it again. But this attempt was plainly outside of the rules for the event and I'm glad John is our new RD and is not afraid to enforce these few and simple rules. Quite honestly, from what I have seen, the only people who seem to think they aren't simple are those who haven't raced under them, and those trying to bend them, as I have seen in all of the races I have been in.

Agree to disagree on media (especially dedicated media following a specific rider) being support. Seeing a friendly face my partner's face along the length of the route would be a huge boost for me - thus my opinion.

I absolutely agree with this. Even for fast racers, having your partner following you and knowing you're going to see that partner day to day is a huge motivator. And even if it isn't, visitation is against the rules. Once again, case closed.

[jsliacan]

Agree to disagree on media (especially dedicated media following a specific rider) being support. Seeing a friendly face my partner's face along the length of the route would be a huge boost for me - thus my opinion.

"huge boost", just how huge would it be? 10min? 2h? 1d? And would it actually be a boost or just a pleasant distraction? It's so subjective that it reminds me of that one person in every classroom who insists it's too cold/warm and has to close/open a window for everybody.

But more importantly, what proponents of the visitation/media rule fail to address time and again is the disproportionate attention they put on this one issue, in the midst of more serious and provably impactful issues surrounding bikepack racing. Let's hear something about this inconsistency please. Surely, if you think seeing your partner is a boost, you must think doping is a boost, painkillers alter race results, etc. Yet there is absolutely no effort to make rules around these and other issues.

[jsliacan]

And even if it isn't, visitation is against the rules. Once again, case closed.

Hence the discussion to evolve the rules. I don't know how to make this any clearer, sorry.

[bikelite]

"2. No support crews, this includes pre-arranged camera/media crews. The AZTR views this as support. Feel free to self-document all you like. If you want a camera crew to document your ride, either do it on your own or expect an *, no record times will be noted for media support."

I am appalled that a racer would not read the rules before a race..lol. Dang *lael*

[SlowRide]

Hence the discussion to evolve the rules. I don't know how to make this any clearer, sorry.

"Evolving rules", so how would we keep records then? Each time the rules change, the race changes and the racers are no longer racing the trail under the same rule set. To me, that sounds like something that would degrade the integrity of the race and be a record keeping nightmare since you can't in good faith say that the racers are racing under the same set of conditions. The current rule set is simple, I've raced the whole Triple Crown and there's no grey area unless you're trying to bend the rules. Get out there, do it alone, without visitation or support. I did it, so have many, many others.

[phatmike]

Hence the discussion to evolve the rules. I don't know how to make this any clearer, sorry.

I forgot, this is the era of "everyone gets a participation trophy". Evolving the rules until everyone is happy ensures that nobody is happy. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people doing these events are attracted to the "do it yourself" ideology. Evolving the rules to move away from that is a disservice to those looking for that experience.

To get a non * time, document your effort yourself. I've seen beautiful photos, and engaging videos (look up Aaron Johnson's 2014 AZTR video) from participants. It can be done.

[jsliacan]

"Evolving rules", so how would we keep records then? Each time the rules change, the race changes and the racers are no longer racing the trail under the same rule set. To me, that sounds like something that would degrade the integrity of the race and be a record keeping nightmare since you can't in good faith say that the racers are racing under the same set of conditions.

The course itself changed recently and the visitation+media rule was added around the same time, am I correct? Surely, you must have objected to it when it happened (by your reasoning above). What did they tell you in defense of suddenly changing the rules & the route after so many years?

[jsliacan]

The current rule set is simple, I've raced the whole Triple Crown and there's no grey area unless you're trying to bend the rules. Get out there, do it alone, without visitation or support. I did it, so have many, many others.

The visitation rule wasn't there 3-4 years ago (and 2 of those years were pandemic years). Let's treat this rule as what it is: a new addition. BTW, there's plenty of grey areas, read my posts above - I mention some of them. It seems that the grey area that some mind is media crews/visitation. The other grey areas are fine to keep.

[SlowRide]

The visitation rule wasn't there 3-4 years ago (and 2 of those years were pandemic years). Let's treat this rule as what it is: a new addition. BTW, there's plenty of grey areas, read my posts above - I mention some of them. It seems that the grey area that some mind is media crews/visitation. The other grey areas are fine to keep.

The visitation rule has been in effect for all of the Triple Crown races since their inception. This is not a new thing.

The course itself changed recently and the visitation+media rule was added around the same time, am I correct? Surely, you must have objected to it when it happened (by your reasoning above). What did they tell you in defense of suddenly changing the rules & the route after so many years?

There have been no rule changes since the course change that I am aware of. This is the same rule set I raced the 750 under in 2015.

I forgot, this is the era of "everyone gets a participation trophy". Evolving the rules until everyone is happy ensures that nobody is happy. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people doing these events are attracted to the "do it yourself" ideology. Evolving the rules to move away from that is a disservice to those looking for that experience.

To get a non * time, document your effort yourself. I've seen beautiful photos, and engaging videos (look up Aaron Johnson's 2014 AZTR video) from participants. It can be done.

I agree with this 100% and had mentioned Aaron's awesome video in an earlier post here, it was one of my main sources of stoke while training for the 2015 AZTR750. I must have watched that video 100 times.

[jsliacan]

Evolving the rules until everyone is happy ensures that nobody is happy.

So why did the rules evolve as late as 2019 to include the visitation/media rule? Why draw the line right after that change but before the next one?

I would venture a guess that the vast majority of people doing these events are attracted to the "do it yourself" ideology. Evolving the rules to move away from that is a disservice to those looking for that experience.

As I said above: including the media/visitation rule is moving away from the original rules (which did *not* include this one). And all that was done very recently without any public discussion that I can find. I think it's only fair to have a chat now (and possibly revert the unfortunate rule and replace it with some rules about "how to" document and visit/spectate, instead of an outright ban).

I am repeating & rephrasing myself a lot in an effort to get the point across. Yet all the reactions are tangential or borderline off topic. Can we go back to the 8 points I carefully compiled in my 1st post above? Thanks!

[TailLights]

This thread has been an interesting read, much like the bikepacking.com article. Thank you all for sharing your perspectives on all the rules.

I'll be riding my triple crown outside of the official events/grand departs.

[jsliacan]

The visitation rule has been in effect for all of the Triple Crown races since their inception. This is not a new thing.

TD's visitation rule was added well after its inception: http://tourdivide.org/td_rule_2_faqs#comment-3852. It would also be great if John Schilling chipped in, because I'm sure he can confirm that the media rule for AZTR was only added recently. This doesn't seem to have been against the rules in 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diZgO_oZBZU.