CTR Trail Closure

[Done]

Sometime on the afternoon of the first day of the race, the US Forest Service decided to change the status of a short portion of the trail from "expect delays" to "closed" due to safety concerns of a contract crew removing hazardous trees.  This closure was a surprise to everyone, and the first racers arrived, quite literally, minutes after the closure had been posted.  Riding a closed trail is obviously in violation of the 3rd rule of the CTR: Don't break the law.  However, the 1st rule of the CTR is: Race ... along the entire CTR route. I was able to post an "official" CTR route change sign a few hours after the closure.  

This has been quite a conundrum as the detour is 1-3 hours faster.  I don't feel it is fair to DQ riders that rode the closed trail because they were concerned about not having an "official" time in the CTR due to a course deviation.  However, I also don't feel it is fair to give a time penalty to racers that rode the detour since it became the official CTR route shortly after the trail closure.  

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a perfect solution here.  While I know it will aggravate both sides, particularly racers that may have been leapfrogged, I have simply let the finish times stand.  Hopefully this will set the precedent for future CTRs about decision making mid-race.  As I said from my "soapbox" at the start of the race, or something similar anyway, "Imagine every racer making the same decision as you.  What is the impact?  Now imagine there are 1000 racers making the same decision.  Choose wisely!"

I'm disappointed and dismayed that some people chose to ride through the trail closure. As a former professional trail crew chainsaw operator, I think that it's worth pointing out that riding though an active cutting area puts more than just your life in danger. Dropping trees all day is extremely difficult and scary work. Trees don't always fall they way that they should, and keeping everyone safe is serious business. I simply can't over-emphasize how dangerous that sort of work is, especially in that sort of terrain (high density, steep slopes, rotten trees, wind, etc.) Imagine being halfway through a cut, and having a bike ride into the fall zone--in a panic, who knows where that tree might end up? Closing the trail wasn't a mindless decision by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats, but rather a legitimate way to keep the crew and trail users safe. While I certainly feel that everyone has the right to expose themselves to whatever danger they personally feel is acceptable, I don't think that it was remotely fair or morally acceptable to put the lives of others on the line simply so that you could stay on course.

Stefan and I had a long and respectful exchange about this issue last week. Personally, I think that people who rode through the closure should disqualify themselves rather than force Stefan to decide on their behalf. If the common-sense rule "don't break the law" ever meant anything, surely it should in situations like this. I expect that my sentiment will be unpopular, particularly with those who rode through the closure, but I hope that people take some time to think about their actions and the potential consequences. Responsibility and respect should mean something--especially when undertaking something as personally challenging as the CTR.

Before we started the race, Stefan stated: "Imagine every racer making the same decision as you. What is the impact?  Now imagine there are 1000 racers making the same decision. Choose wisely!" With those words fresh in our minds, we shouldn't have needed Stefan to post a re-route sign, or to burden him with deciding how to settle a contentious issue.

This is, of course, addressed only to those who rode past the "closed" sign, not to those who encountered the "expect delays" sign. Further, I acknowledge that riding through in the night is a gray area, as it's not unfair to assume that cutting was stopped (although I would have detoured anyway, out of respect for the crew's decision to close the trail).

Kudos to those who took the detour--may you cherish your extra karma points!

Edit: I intentionally did not check Trackleaders to see who rode through the closure.

[jp3d]

I followed the trail closure sign and Stefan's note, but there was a group of people camped out just before the closure who were telling riders passing by that there had been no cutting that day, the trail was clear and safe and we should ride through the closure area... so that made the decision a little interesting.

[aaron w]

I rode through at dusk and in the dark and kind of figured there would be no logging going on in the dark.  Was this breaking a "law" or just not abiding by some rule?  I honestly don't know.  Stephan was at the closure when I was making my decision to continue or detour.  I told him I would continue but that if he later decided that that was not within race rules that I would be comfortable with disqualification.  It was a confusing situation.  Stefan did not encourage or discourage me in deciding what to do.  When push came to shove I felt like I might never attempt the ctr again, and that missing a section of trail was out of the question.  Not that it matters but I personally am fine with Stefan's decision to just let times stand as is.

[joeydurango]

Agreed with Aaron.  1. There was certainly no one felling any trees - no trail crews at all, for that matter - at the time that I went through on the CT, dusk/dark.  2. Really not sure whether the trail delay/closed signs constitute "law" in this case, anyhow.  3. As I told Stefan, I don't really care much about the number in front of my name on the results list, but those of us who did ride the trail know how many spots we'd have gained given the significant time advantage on the road detour.  4. Disqualify myself?  Don't be silly.  I didn't see another soul that wasn't riding a bike or hiking up there, and I wasn't about to take a chance of DQ'ing myself by not riding the trail just so that I could obey an obviously not-currently-meaningful trail sign.  In the worst hypothetical case, it certainly isn't as if I wouldn't have heard a chainsaw long before coming within range of treefall.

I think the decision to ride the trail, given the time of day and lack of any "official" direction, made perfectly reasonable sense.  I also think that those who took the detour after Stefan posted the CTR detour sign made perfectly reasonable decisions.  Ideally, to level the playing field, I think an average time difference should have been applied to all, one way or another.  But of course it is what it is.  No problem.  All I really wanted was to finish, and I did.  Good karma or something...

[DaveH]

I'm disappointed and dismayed that some people chose to ride through the trail closure.
...
I think that people who rode through the closure should disqualify themselves rather than force Stefan to decide on their behalf.

Just because Stefan did not take your advice doesn't make it legit for you post inflammatory opinions here.  Imagine you just rode the ride of your life, came here to chat some stoke and then found what you just wrote instead.  Unreal.

Please, show a bit more respect for your fellow racers.

[Done]

As I previously stated, I think that riding through at night is a gray area. It was probably a safe bet that the crew wasn't working, so the danger was reduced or non-existent. It would have been far better if the Forest Service had posted active hours rather than just force a blanket closure. That said, we really don't know why the trail was closed at night, and they could have had legitimate reasons.

One question that we need to ask ourselves is what we expect to occur if he choose to ignore Forest Service regulations/laws/rules like this. While Stefan has done a terrific job of damage control this time around (thanks, in no small part to his positive relationships with the FS and Colorado Trail Foundation), I fear for the future of the CTR if we refuse to obey a huge "trail closed" sign. Hell, even if the regulations are completely idiotic (not that I think they were in this case), do we really want to risk the CTR in protest?

A lot of bike-friendly organizations (including the Colorado Trail Foundation) work very hard to keep trails open for biking. One of the biggest challenges they face is making sure that land-use agencies don't have justifiable excuses to boot mountain-bikers from public trails. I can't think of a way to provide some anti-bike bureaucrat with a good excuse than to have a bunch of riders from a non-sanctioned event ignore well-posted regulations. You might as well just paint a target on our collective butts!

[Done]

Just because Stefan did not take your advice doesn't make it legit for you post inflammatory opinions here.  Imagine you just rode the ride of your life, came here to chat some stoke and then found what you just wrote instead.  Unreal.

Please, show a bit more respect for your fellow racers.

Dave, I posted this with Stefan's blessing. He had a tough time with the decision, and I respect his efforts to find come to the conclusion that he did. As I've told him off-line, I'm not sure that I would have made a different one as an organizer. But as a rider, I did make a different decision--and I think that it's fair to discuss it.

I absolutely respect other riders. But I'm challenging a few of them to consider the consequences of this particular predicament. It was potentially very dangerous, and it could end up shutting down the CTR. Keeping the CTR viable IS RESPECTFUL for the next 1000 riders who want to get out there and give it a go.

Dave, you seem more intent on arguing for argument's sake, and taking it to a personal level, than actually addressing or discussing the issues. It's obvious that you won't agree with me on anything--and I really don't care anymore. If you want to rip me, please just do it offline from now on--our personal exchanges really don't add anything to this forum...

[TruthRider]

I took the detour down to the Dredge.  There wasn't really any question I was going to - I came through the next morning, the trail was clearly posted as closed, and there was a note from Stefan saying the official route was to detour.  I can't speak for everyone who hit it the night before when it was confusing/ambiguous.

I think the "don't ruffle the FS feathers" argument is far stronger than the safety argument - chainsaws are loud.  The FS closure might not constitute "law" but regardless, the situation - CTR riders ignoring the closure - has by now surely been discussed amongst local FS management, and hopefully won't have any future repercussions.  However, as I said I came through late morning on Day 2, so I clearly wasn't in contention for any type of top finish in this race, and I'm not going to judge any riders who made their own decisions.  Agreed that asking riders to disqualify themselves is unreasonable, especially given that Stefan already ruled on Day 2 that either choice (ride closed trail or detour) was acceptable.

   I'm Chuck Janecek - 33rd overall (I think, including ITTs) and damn proud of it.  Toby you passed me through the burn up from the river on Day 1 and told me I looked very very hot (I was wearing a bright green jersey).  This wasn't news to me; I felt very very very hot.  That climb pretty much established me at the rear of the pack for the rest of the race.  But it's all good!  As Dave H said, this was indeed the bike ride of my life, and I can't worry about all the RIDICULOUSLY STRONG riders who were in front of me - mega props to everyone.  I'm not sure if I'm in for next year - this ride took the majority of my waking thoughts for about six months - but I'm wistful and nostalgic that it's already becoming a fading memory.  That bomb down to the Junction Creek TH at dusk, self-satisfaction coursing through my veins, was so much fun.

[DaveH]

Dave, you seem more intent on arguing for argument's sake, and taking it to a personal level, than actually addressing or discussing the issues. It's obvious that you won't agree with me on anything--and I really don't care anymore. If you want to rip me, please just do it offline from now on--our personal exchanges really don't add anything to this forum...

Not a chance.  In this case, your suggestion that *half the field* DQ themselves because they made the wrong moral decision shows much disrespect to the field.  It's caught some riders off guard with disgust but of course they aren't about to chime in here.

Even if one was to buy into your original argument, what would possibly be gained from riders choosing the DQ?  Absolutely nothing - except a bitter aftertaste for the riders.  What you really want is to go back in time and have those riders choose your view of the "morally correct" path.  But, then that takes away the free will part of self-supported racing.  Tricky.

I'm not saying this is an inappropriate topic to discuss.  I'm saying that telling half the field to DQ themselves after an amazing performance is a buzz kill, ill-timed, puts a damper on post race euphoria, and is the absolute wrong way to go about your concerns.  

Making folks mad just makes them mad.

As an aside - this sort of thing is not without precedence.  Tour Divide/GDR is full of similar circumstances.  Take for instance the time JP blazed right through a construction zone getting the flaggers all riled up for the next riders to arrive...that was intense.  He rode on to a record time, man on a mission.

[Done]

Hi Chuck,

I remember you well out there! When I passed you in the burn, I was feeling cool and strong--mostly because I dunked my jersey in the river. But I was pretty worried about how hot you were. Funny how things turned out in the end: you succeeded; I failed. You have every right to be incredibly proud of your finish--especially for having the fortitude to overcoming a rough first day!

Here's my reasoning for suggesting that people DQ themselves:

Stefan faced real quandary, and either choice was likely to be problematic and unsatisfactory. If he had chosen to DQ racers, he would have faced the wrath of a lot of high-profile riders and good friends--thereby putting the reputation of the event on the line. On the other hand, but letting the infractions slide, he is exposing himself and the CTR to undesirable scrutiny from the Forest Service. Further he's condoning the behavior and establishing a dangerous precedent whereby it's acceptable for future racers to ignore FS regulations--which will, almost guaranteed, result in the FS shutting down the race. In short, he was damned if he did, and damned if didn't. It's for that reason that I can honestly say that I'm not sure that I would have made a different decision. I feel that Stefan put a lot of hard thought into his decision, and I respect his process a great deal.

So, rather than force Stefan to take the hit, I figure that it would be more honorable for the people who chose to put the future of the CTR in jeopardy to simply DQ themselves. They would be sending a very strong and clear message to the FS that they understand and take responsibility for their actions--which would let Stefan and the event off the hook. Further, it would also serve as a positive reminder that people shouldn't do similar things in the future--a credible and positive precedent.

Maybe this is all moot, and the FS doesn't really care if their postings are ignored (unlikely, but possible). Or maybe they'll let it slide this year, and demand that Stefan enforce regulations next year (more likely, but it'll unfairly add to Stefan's burden). I have no idea. But I do know that pissing off the FS (who have very graciously turned a blind eye to this event for a few years) won't be a good thing in the long haul.

Something will change after this. We can decide what that change will look like. Maybe disqualifications are too harsh, and there's another way to let the FS know that we actually do respect their authority and the safety of their crews. I'm not a fan of the guy who gets caught with his fingers in the till and then promises not to do it again (yeah, right). I'm even a less of a fan when a guy claims that someone else gave him permission, so it's not his problem. But I am a fan of the guy who is willing to stand up and say, "yep, I blew it, and I'm willing to take personal responsibility for it."

[Done]

Dave Harris has just threatened (offline) to take this thread down. That is, of course, his prerogative as a moderator.

I've been a positive contributor to bikepacking.net for some time now. 95% of what I post is non-controversial and positive. Yes, sometimes I post things that raise tough questions, and I even occasionally piss some people off (although that's rarely been my intention). Passionate topics aren't always pretty, but I've tried hard (and generally succeeded) to focus on ideas, not specific individuals.

I'd suggest to those who don't like my perspective or reasoning might simply ignore my posts. Or, better yet, throw a dissenting opinion out there (as some others have respectfully done). This obviously isn't good enough for Dave, he apparently believes that other members are too sensitive to make this decision for themselves.

This will be the last thing that I post on this forum for awhile, perhaps forever. This site is a private entity, and Dave Harris, as a moderator, is fully within his rights to censor me. To be honest, I'm not eager to stick around anymore though, knowing that Dave is literally itching to throw me out.

Cheers for now,
Toby

[DaveH]

Toby, I simply asked you to respect the positive experiences of your fellow racers and avoid insinuating all those that rode the closed trail are morally bankrupt and should be DQd.  Slander is offensive, and what's worse, to send it out right after the finish can tarnish the wonderful experience that is the CTR finish.

Debating the trail closure is one thing - gross insinuations/accusations are entirely another, and are counter to what bikepacking.net is all about.

[Mathewsen]

Toby, I don't know you personally as some who may have raced with you, but my take (assertions of trolling aside) is you're just a bit too emotional with your posts. Less is more here. Maybe time away will cool the jets.

[Joliver]

Toby,

I rode through that section sometime late in the afternoon on that first day with several riders who, I was aware at the time, were certainly capable of challenging for the overall, and who ultimately did.  What I can say about those riders is that they impressed me throughout the race with not only their superior riding, but also with their integrity and sporting ethos. 

The decision to ultimately proceed on the trail was made for several reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: 1.  We knew the first few guys had taken the trail; 2.  It was late, hikers were on the trail and it was pretty clear the forest service was not up on the trail working; 3.  If anyone were to challenge for the victory or the record, we wanted to ensure that there would be no dispute; and 4.  We didn't really understand what the heck was going on, as it was a complete surprise.

With that in mind, we proceeded.  Too, I understood that I would likely be passed by numerous riders from behind, as the detour was likely 2-3 hours faster and perhaps more when considering energy expenditure.  Regardless, I immediately accepted that whatever decision any individual rider would make, it would not be an easy one.  That is sport.  That is life. 

Later, I told Stefan something to the effect that, in the end, if it was determined that I would hop someone who finished ahead of me but who took the detour and suffered some type of time penalty for doing so, that I would not want to jump them in place, because I know that racing is not always as simple as time on a watch.  In other words, perhaps they would have beaten me anyway, regardless of the detour, had they been aware of where I was on the course.   Maybe they would have pushed harder in that last section or slept an hour or two less towards the end.  Who knows, especially when dealing with riders and humans of this magnitude.

In sum, whether it is rock climbing, mountaineering, skiing or mountain biking, I believe fundamentally in doing those things properly and in good style, whether or not that makes me first or sixth or 25th.  In this instance, I know that the guys that I rode with who took the normal route rode that race in beautiful, good style.  I also believe that those who I did not ride with, and decided to stay the normal course or took the detour, too, did so honorably, in good style and with the best of intentions. 

You may disagree, and for me, personally, I don't give a damn.  I am only speaking up for the other riders that I know suffered immensely to finish and to finish in the right way.   

-Jerry Oliver

Postscript:  I only hope that Stefan's integrity is not somehow questioned by some dipshit in a suit, at a desk, in front of a computer, in a big city...as I know that he does not deserve that.

[Done]

Toby, I simply asked you to respect the positive experiences of your fellow racers and avoid insinuating all those that rode the closed trail are morally bankrupt and should be DQd.  Slander is offensive, and what's worse, to send it out right after the finish can tarnish the wonderful experience that is the CTR finish.

Debating the trail closure is one thing - gross insinuations/accusations are entirely another, and are counter to what bikepacking.net is all about.

Damn it Dave, you can purge this thread, call me names, whatever. But I'm not going to let you mischaracterize my position or my words.

First off, I did not SLANDER anyone. Ever. Look up the word before you go slinging it around. In order for slander to occur, I will have had to say something untrue about someone. It is not debatable that people rode through the closure, and therefore it's not slander--it's a fact.

Secondly, I have never said that anyone is "morally bankrupt." I have said that choosing to ride through the closure was problematic and likely to result in sever consequences. I have even gone so far as to say that exposing someone else to danger is morally unacceptable. But that's a hell of a long way from declaring that anyone is "morally bankrupt." I think that we've all done stupid things that are morally unacceptable at one time or another--and it doesn't mean that we're morally bankrupt, just that we all screw up sometimes. Most of us make amends and move on.

Lastly, I am asking people to consider DQing themselves in order to prove to the FS that we can actually read and obey a reasonable regulation--so that they don't have justification for shutting down the CTR in the future. There's nothing more to it.

Other than hoping that people will take responsibility for ignoring a valid trail closure, I am not trying to take anything away from anyone. I know how hard the CTR is, because I finished it last year. Yes, I would have been bummed if I later realized that I screwed up and needed to DQ--but I'd always have the fantastic experience of completing the CTR to hold onto. Those who completed the CTR, detour or not, have the right to be incredibly proud of their accomplishment, and nobody can take that away from them.

So quit trying to frame me as something that I'm not so that you can earn imaginary points (or whatever it is that you want).

[riverfever]

Makin' friends 24-7.

[tubeSSnapper]

By the time I got there, Stafan had posted a note. Thus it was a no-brainer. I am still very amazed and impressed that Stefan went way up there for that. Never-the-less I gave the situation much thought. Especially when I looked up and saw bike-lights on the ridge. I REALLY wanted to ride the whole CT. But that's the way the cookie crumbled. As far as "time" goes, the other 400 miles of trail condition had a bigger effect. An afternoon in the muck "could' cost you more hours than that little bit of closed trail.  For instance,I vividly remember following inch deep tracks as I rode on dry hard  ground and thinking how "that rider" had tougher conditions than I did. However I did not think for a second it was unfair. It was just the way the cookie crumbled.
Next year it may happen somewhere else...to any of us...front, back or middle of the pack.
If I had encountered an "expect delays' sign I would have taken the trail.
If I had encountered the "trail closed" sign without a hand written CTR note...it would have been tough, but I'd choose to detour out of respect for the CTR and maintaining good relations with the powers that be. I'd rather risk a DQ for trying my best follow the CTR 'ethos' than a DQ for for intentionally breaking a stated rule.

The best thing to do now is reflect on how it went and plan on how to deal with such things in the future.

[timroz]

Lastly, I am asking people to consider DQing themselves in order to prove to the FS that we can actually read and obey a reasonable regulation--so that they don't have justification for shutting down the CTR in the future. There's nothing more to it.

Does the FS have the authority to keep anyone off of the CT?

[DaveH]

Toby, you frame yourself.

I'm disappointed and dismayed that some people chose to ride through the trail closure.
...
I don't think that it was remotely fair or morally acceptable to put the lives of others on the line simply so that you could stay on course.

You claim riders made morally unacceptable decisions.

I think that people who rode through the closure should disqualify themselves

 

...the people who chose to put the future of the CTR in jeopardy to simply DQ themselves.

You claim ... exactly what you wrote, I think it speaks for itself.

It is not debatable that people rode through the closure, and therefore it's not slander--it's a fact.

That's only part of the story.  The reality is - and its really odd you miss this - is that until Stefan had posted the CTR specific signs, riders were faced with breaking the race rules no matter which way they went.  Given that the first event rule is "Race from Denver to Durango, self-supported, under only your own power, along the entire CTR route" is it any surprise it worked out the way it did? 

It is your *opinion*, not actual fact,  that riders made morally unacceptable decisions.  Indeed, if they had gone awry of the rules Stefan would have had no choice but to DQ them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

Your posts are highly inflammatory and fit that definition dead on.  On the flip side, the quandary riders were faced with, the structuring of the event rules, and potential impacts are large concerns.

As you are a previous CTR finisher, I really thought I could make an appeal for decency to you.  These topics are not going anywhere soon, a "month grace period" would sure have gone a long ways to showing goodwill and allowing everyone some time to reflect on how it all went down.  Throwing out insinuations in the face of extraordinary performances and experiences while riders are still recovering amidst a sense of hard earned accomplishment...that's just unconscionable. 

You could have framed your post much differently without imploring riders take a DQ and questioning their morals.  But then you wouldn't have gotten the desired reaction, eh?

The experiences lasts roughly a week, while the memory of it lasts a lifetime.  Aside from the general inflammatory nature of your original post, the reason I jumped into this thread is that I understand how hard the CTR is, what it takes to do it, and what it means afterwards.  That lasting memory is worth protecting.  I am still in awe of how strong and tenacious this year's crop of riders turned out to be and can't sit idly by while you question their ethics & morals and right to a finish. 

[DaveH]

Does the FS have the authority to keep anyone off of the CT?

Stefan can correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it there is a hard limit of 75 participants before an event must become permitted.  CTR thus far has been well within the limits.  Until now that's been the primary concern.

Keeping folks off the CT?  That's really hard to imagine in this country.