CTR Rules

[Marshal]

Many Rules Interpretations?  Hardly

It’s been tossed out in a different thread that there are lot’s of ways to interpret the ‘rules’ for self supported racing.  While I recognize there may be some inconsequential ‘gray areas’ in self supported racing I fundamentally disagree with the general premise that the rules require much, if any ‘interpretation’.

My view on self supported rules:
A rule is like a wall, you are either on the ‘right’ side of the wall or you are on the ‘wrong’ side of the wall.  Sometimes you are on the wrong side of that wall side by choice (shame on you), sometimes by accident (been there done that), either way you have broken the rule.

An important Qualifier:
In self supported racing some competitors choose to ride further from that ‘rules wall’ than the rules actually require.  It needs to be pointed out that this is not an ‘interpretation’ of the rules per say, but rather a philosophical choice.  One example of this is the personal choice to not stay in a hotel; this is a philosophical choice, and not a rules ‘interpretation’.  I contend these many (and sometimes down right interesting/puzzling) different philosophical choices can be confused for different rule interpretations, by both the novice and experienced self supported participant.


So, lets get focused and drill down to some specific Q&A’s.  Lets just use the CTR set of rules to start off with.
Here they are in all their complexity (+ link to 6 FAQ with answers):

CTR Race Rules:
Race from Denver to Durango, self-supported, under only your own power, along the entire CTR route.

No pre-arranged support, with the exception of maildrops to a post office.

Don't break the law.

Not clear enough? Read the CTR rule FAQ. http://www.climbingdreams.net/ctr/ctr_rules.html

So, with out mentioning any names, someone give me an actual example of where one of these CTR rules was ‘interpreted’ incorrectly??  Or someone make up a reasonable hypothetical example to discuss.

[ScottM]

I agree with you that the core rules are pretty clear and not open to interpretation.  But I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Quick example is sharing food or gear with other riders.  It happens in nearly every race to my knowledge.  My interpretation is that it is OK, but if you read Stefan's FAQ item:

Companionship, and likely some additional competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other.

Or navigational info.  I've yelled at people or told people about upcoming turns/conditions/etc.  Literal interpretation of the above would say that's not allowed.

I think it is pretty clear we need to spell out a few situations like these and definitively say yes or no on them.  Of course this can be done on a per race basis, so there may be differences.

 

[Done]

Clarifying the rule that Scott quoted would really help me as a newbie.

Here's a specific example that would help: If my bike breaks, and someone comes along with extra tools that I don't have, and perhaps a spare part or two that I really need, is it OK for me to accept help? The rule makes it pretty clear, I think, that the answer would be no. Tools and parts aren't really companions, right?

Along the same lines, would I be breaking any rules if the reverse situation were to arise--and I had tools and parts that would get someone back in the game?

Cheers,
Toby

[Marshal]

I agree with you that the core rules are pretty clear and not open to interpretation.  But I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

Quick example is sharing food or gear with other riders.  It happens in nearly every race to my knowledge.  My interpretation is that it is OK, but if you read Stefan's FAQ item:

Companionship, and likely some additional competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other.

Or navigational info.  I've yelled at people or told people about upcoming turns/conditions/etc.  Literal interpretation of the above would say that's not allowed.

I think it is pretty clear we need to spell out a few situations like these and definitively say yes or no on them.  Of course this can be done on a per race basis, so there may be differences.

 

Well, it’s Stefan's rules for the CTR and I will defer to any answer(s) he may chime in with but I do think you have already answered your own questions.  

Anyway I will give my take on these two questions.

1: I do think the sharing of food and gear with fellow competitor(s) is a Very Clear Cut Violation. (in all but the most silly examples).

2: Sharing ideas, comments like “Navigational” help is not so clear cut imo, especially if you spend more than a short time riding along with a fellow racer.  But, here is how I personally parse verbal Navigational aid:

Receiving Nav Aid:
a) If I have to ASK for help then  Clearly I am No Longer Racing Self Supported.
b) If a fellow racer volunteers unsolicited trail information you have not violated any rule, after all you had no choice but to ‘hear’ the info, so it’s yours now.

Giving Nav Aid:
a)   Don’t do it unless asked, and if asked 1st make sure the person asking understands the rules.
b)    However as far as I can tell it is NOT against any rule to give out Nav aid, solicited or otherwise.  In other words you are safe to give it out if its truly wanted and asked for but probably bad manners at most to volunteer it unasked.

[Marshal]

Clarifying the rule that Scott quoted would really help me as a newbie.

Here's a specific example that would help: If my bike breaks, and someone comes along with extra tools that I don't have, and perhaps a spare part or two that I really need, is it OK for me to accept help? The rule makes it pretty clear, I think, that the answer would be no. Tools and parts aren't really companions, right?

Along the same lines, would I be breaking any rules if the reverse situation were to arise--and I had tools and parts that would get someone back in the game?

Cheers,
Toby

1) imo, No, as you said, you can not use someone elses tools, gear etc.

2) if a fellow racer asked and used your tools he is Not back in the game, you however imo still are



ps: thanks for helping out and asking specific questions

[ScottM]

I believe that nearly all food sharing is innocent -- not bailing people out.  The fact that it is optional (no racer is obligated to share food) means you can't count on it, so it helps no one to try to 'plan' on it.  It seems silly to not allow sharing of a tasty treat while out there.  My opinion.  For my races this is allowed.  Stefan may have a different take.

The possible 'loop hole' here is a weaker rider riding with a stronger rider and having that person carry and share food.  But this goes away by saying you cannot plan to share things in advance.  No pre-planned support.  

Glad you agree that navigation/course info is a pretty gray area.  If someone wonders aloud, "how many miles to Copper Mountain" are they really asking for help?  How about "what's the trail like ahead?".  No one is obligated to answer.

Personally I think there's a limit to where you define the truly 'solo' aspects of this, and accept that there are differences between concurrent ITT's and true ITT's.  The fact that other racers are there (to follow, to race, to talk to, to observe) makes them fundamentally different.  

One thing is clear -- there are different understandings of these and other issues, so the 'rules' can be improved.

[Done]

Something that has been said a few times in this forum seems very confusing. To paraphrase (so as not to name names): "if it's not planned or pre-arranged assistance, then it's trail magic and therefore acceptable."

This would suggest that it's OK to receive unplanned tangible items, not just companionship and motivation, because it's "trail magic." Yet if it's planned, then it's not OK. Yet the written rules don't make any such distinction, instead simply defining the transfer of any tangible items as forbidden.

It seems to be that the concept of self-sufficiency, and the written CTR rules, would dictate that planned or unplanned assistance is unacceptable. So I need some help understanding the distinction, since I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps trail magic supersedes the written rules? Thanks.

[Done]

One more issue: Is somebody a jerk for refusing to share an extra spoke or role of duct tape with somebody on the CTR, when the rules state that it's not allowed? Personally, I'd feel like an absolute turkey if I came across somebody who I could help this way, and I refused. But if doing so disqualifies the other rider if they accept, then I'd also feel bad for offering to help! Arrghhh!

Am I just worrying to much?

[ScottM]

Something that has been said a few times in this forum seems very confusing. To paraphrase (so as not to name names): "if it's not planned or pre-arranged assistance, then it's trail magic and therefore acceptable."

I don't agree with that, at least not in blanket form.  To me there's a difference if someone asks for something or it is offered.  Trail magic has to be offered, not asked for. 

When it comes to spectators following the race (whether SPOT stalking or not), clearly there is nothing serendipitous happening, so IMO it doesn't fall under trail magic.

I cannot speak for Stefan on this, and since the title of the thread is CTR rules, it does matter. 

[Marshal]

One more issue: Is somebody a jerk for refusing to share an extra spoke or role of duct tape with somebody on the CTR, when the rules state that it's not allowed? Personally, I'd feel like an absolute turkey if I came across somebody who I could help this way, and I refused. But if doing so disqualifies the other rider if they accept, then I'd also feel bad for offering to help! Arrghhh!

Am I just worrying to much?

per the CTR rules:
Q: What if my bike breaks beyond repair?

A: If your bike breaks and you wish to continue the race, you must hike, walk or crawl to the next town to get it repaired. Once fixed, you must return, under your own power, to the exact spot you left the route. This is a completely self-powered race. If you get in a motorized vehicle, your race is over.



1) If someone has to use your spare spoke, chain breaker tool, or even some of your food  to Continue he is OUT, anyone disagree?

2) But I see nothing in the CTR rules that says you can not give aid someone in distress.  It’s perfectly ok to aid someone and this does not DQ you, anyone disagree?

Think about giving aid like this:
There is no racing advantage to the giver in a ‘one-way’ giving of aid.  The only one advantaged is the person receiving the aid and the instant they consciously accept your aid they are no longer your competitor.


IMO it would be unethical to have a rule that said you could not help someone in distress and that if you did You would be DQ’ed

[Marshal]

Something that has been said a few times in this forum seems very confusing. To paraphrase (so as not to name names): "if it's not planned or pre-arranged assistance, then it's trail magic and therefore acceptable."

This would suggest that it's OK to receive unplanned tangible items, not just companionship and motivation, because it's "trail magic." Yet if it's planned, then it's not OK. Yet the written rules don't make any such distinction, instead simply defining the transfer of any tangible items as forbidden.

It seems to be that the concept of self-sufficiency, and the written CTR rules, would dictate that planned or unplanned assistance is unacceptable. So I need some help understanding the distinction, since I'm obviously missing something. Perhaps trail magic supersedes the written rules? Thanks.

per the CTR rules:
If you can't do this ride without outside or pre-arranged support, don't enter the race.


You mention the word “assistance”.  Trail Magic is not assistance except in a ‘hair splitting’ sense.  

So, if a stranger offers you an orange while you chat with each other during a break and you accept, that’s trail magic, in other words you really didn’t ‘have’ to have the orange, it was just some nice unexpected, unasked for magic.

If you are broke down on the side of a trail and can not fix your bike by yourself and then a local mtn bike rider comes by and loans/fixes your bike with his tools/parts that’s unplanned “outside assistance/support” and you should DQ yourself.  

Comments?

[Marshal]

I believe that nearly all food sharing is innocent -- not bailing people out.  The fact that it is optional (no racer is obligated to share food) means you can't count on it, so it helps no one to try to 'plan' on it.  It seems silly to not allow sharing of a tasty treat while out there.  My opinion.  For my races this is allowed.  Stefan may have a different take.------------

--------------------  One thing is clear -- there are different understandings of these and other issues, so the 'rules' can be improved.

Ya it’s a ‘short’ rules wall but…….

Personally I agree that food sharing is usually ‘innocent, ie: inconsequential to the outcome of a race in all but the most outrages cases.  Who really cares if I trade some sweet Oreo’s for some salty chips? 

That said let me gently say I think sharing food between racers is a clear, if minor ‘technical’ violation of Stefan’s CTR rules.  Would this type of violation warrant a DQ? I would hardly think so, not even close imo, but that’s not my call.

My real concern about this particular example is, if we are not willing to police ourselves in regards to fairly inconsequential rules where do we draw a line?  Who then gets to say what is or is not a significant rules violation?  Imo it’s just better/clearer all around to try our best to fall on the right side of any rules wall, tall or short.

[ScottM]

Agree that it is a slippery slope and the rules should be stated clearly, and followed.  I did not realize Stefan worded his FAQ towards not allowing sharing of food between racers.  Ignorance is no excuse, but I would like to clarify that point with him.

For the events I'm involved with I intend to clarify and explicitly spell out some of these issues.

[riverfever]

Well....I don't feel comfortable mentioning any names but I "heard" of some knucklehead that actually left his credit card in the back of his wifes vehicle before the start of the race. After dreaming of ice cream for section 3 and the final push into Bailey, he was kicked in the nuts whilst trying to pay for said ice cream. I happened to be there to witness this comedy of an error. The look on this poor saps face when the cashier politely asked him to put the Bomp Pop back in the freezer was like the little kid who's standing on the porch watching the ice cream truck slowly head down the street as that melodic song fades.

It should be noted that this guy (after much debating about options) did decide to have his wife meet him at the top of Kenosha Pass to hand said credit card off. He did DQ himself but stopped to ask each passerby if they had any ice cream for the remainder of his trip.