Rules?

[DaveH]

Pretty much.  I've never thought about it this hard before - rules that is.  The one change I'd make is cell phones ok in towns too to alleviate the time to find or altogether lack of pay phone availability.  

[Marshal]

 
Can you tell I hate rules and laws?  
Rules are good for boardgames.  The prisons are overflowing with good people that broke stupid rules.  The world I dream of has no rules and restrictions, just like my best bike rides.  If you are scared of getting beat by a spot stalker then you need to buck up and ride faster.  
I don't know Toby Gadd but he has exposed mtb ultra rules for what they are.  
Personal guidelines and ethics....

Philosophy –now we be way off route---
I can understand hating rules, lots of rules laws etc out there that I don’t agree with.  However I would hate to live a world with none, that’s just a ‘might makes right’ world and till we are all perfect angles it would be hell.

Anyway with regards to self supported racing.  I agree that we all have our personal “guidelines and ethics” ie disagreements on the ‘best’ set of rules.  But I completely disagree with the suggestion that we all get to ‘pick and choose’ based on those disagreements.

The rules are the rules.  We can pick and choose which race we participate in but past that, we have agreed to ‘honor’ and follow the rules for that event.

In other words if we line up at the same race I expect you, me and the other racers to follow and honor the SAME set of rules.  

[Marshal]

Dammit!  Why can't I ever learn from others pain?

http://www.greatdividerace.com/pages/info_rules.html

We are well on our way to reinventing the GDR rules.

The general idea is to race from Canada to Mexico, under only your own power, and to be self supported between towns. In towns you can buy a meal, stock up on trail grub, even get a room for a shower and some quality sleep.

 

like i said before--MC is laughing as he reads this thread

[DaveH]

If it is win-win, where is the conflict of interest?  And on the contrary, conflicts of interest are all about integrity.  If you trusted us, you wouldn't need to mention it.  Whether you realize it or not, I think you are just trying to invalidate our arguments.  IMO, debate is free and we shouldn't be telling people to stay out of it.  Evaluate the ideas, Dave, not the person behind them.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest:

"A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other.
A conflict of interest can only exist if a person or testimony is entrusted with some impartiality; a modicum of trust is necessary to create it. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety. Therefore, a conflict of interest can be discovered and voluntarily defused before any corruption occurs." [emphasis added]

Hopefully that helps.  If not, I'll dissect it.  It is the very trust you speak of that creates the COI.  

Really, I don't care that much.  In 2010 AZT300 will prolly allow full use of communication devices at any point and TU it will be limited.  In both cases we get to ride till we puke.

[ScottM]

Yes, but the concern is that corruption may occur.  And that is the trust I'm talking about.

What about my point of evaluating ideas instead of motivations/conflicts?  I still think it is bogus for you to tell us to take a back seat.  Address the ideas, not the person.

As for "I don't care much", agreed 120%!!!  This issue is very small!  I said the same exact thing 7 pages ago, but you responded that it was a mammoth issue, following up with suggesting you may as well allow support crews and caches the way "things are going."  I think you're all over the map, honestly, as Kurt pointed out a while back.  No biggie, though.

[DaveH]

Whoa.  It IS a mammoth issue.  It still blows me away you don't see it.

I don't really care if you think there is no conflict of interest and remain active in this conversation.

When a conflict of interest occurs, there is only one way out - to remove oneself from the position of acting on potentially conflicted motivations.  That's face value COI.  You can make it personal if you wish, but it is not.

[Done]

Since all of the rules are upheld by personal integrity and the honor system, it seems reasonable that competitors could be trusted not to use their phones for things that would give them an unfair advantage. So, banning cell phones wouldn't be necessary once people agree on what qualifies an "unfair advantage."

Could a business call really be defined as an unfair advantage? I think that anyone using a phone to deal with outside issues (family, business, etc.) is probably doing so reluctantly, and with the full realization that the distraction sucks--but that it's only hurting them, not other riders.

There are certainly other ways that cell phones could be used to enable unfair advantages. But if banning cell phones is necessary because people don't trust each other not to use them to cheat, then I think all is lost. It probably wouldn't work to enforce mandatory Spot usage to verify route compliance--trust seems to work well enough. It probably wouldn't work to supervise town visits so that nobody spends the night at a buddy's house--trust works well enough. Drug testing wouldn't be popular--I'll trust that nobody is using amphetamines to avoid sleep. And so on. Fortunately, I think that most people try to play by the rules, which is one reason why MTB endurance racing is so attractive to me.

So all that needs to be done is to determine what constitutes "unfair cell phone use." While it's easier to say what WON'T help, it's hard to say what WILL--especially since I haven't even done a race yet. So I don't have anything relevant to add there. But I don't think that a blanket device ban really makes as much sense as banning specific uses--and trusting people to abide.

I hope that I haven't said anything inflammatory here--I'm really trying not to!

[DaveH]

The no cell phone concept between towns is just simpler.  There is no grey area. 

[krefs]

Minimize grey areas and minimize rules...let's keep life as simple as possible out there.

Simplicity is beauty of ultra racing, no?  I think we can all agree on that.

[ScottM]

I don't really care if you think there is no conflict of interest and remain active in this conversation.

Great, thanks.

When a conflict of interest occurs, there is only one way out - to remove oneself from the position of acting on potentially conflicted motivations.  That's face value COI.  You can make it personal if you wish, but it is not.

I didn't say it was personal, simply irrelevant.  You sound as if I have some kind of power, or position on a voting board, or something.  I don't think you'll argue that I cannot control the rules in my own races, but likewise I have no say over how you or Stefan run yours.  It's a free system.  We are just debating topics academically, which makes the concept of COI wholly irrelevant.  Again, the ideas are what are important here, not where they came from.

[Done]

Seems like there are two important considerations. Simplicity of application and personal responsibility.

Which rule is simpler:

1. Don't use cell phones except in town. While in town, cell phones may be used for XX purposes, but not XX.
2. Cell phones may only be used for non-race-related purposes.
3. Cell phones may be used at all times, no restrictions.
4. Cell phones may only be used in towns. Towns are defined as XXX. While in town, there are no restrictions on cell phone use.
5. Cell Phones may be used, but not to track other racers.
6. Cell phones are banned at all times.

Now, which rule actually best represent the ideal of personal integrity by not:
a) being overly restrictive and limiting personal freedom,
b) eliminating person responsibility and mutual trust.

Seems to me that #2 does a pretty good job of balancing both needs. #3 and #5 are decent too, although they serve different purposes--and other issues would need to be resolved before choosing one over the other.

I've always admired rules that impose a very limited number of necessary restrictions, while still remaining simple. I think that the proposed partial ban is rather like using a machine-driven sledge hammer to drive a thumbtack. It's, cumbersome, invasive, and overkill. Freedom and responsibility are good, hammers are bad.

edit: Machine-drive sledge hammer? Did I actually write that? Wouldn't that just be a jackhammer? I do need to simplify!

[Marshal]

Here's the deal:  Matthew and Scott have introduced trackleaders this year, and this technology has changed the game.  It quite possibly impacted the result of your AZT 300 ride.  We all agree on that.  I'm also pretty sure everyone agrees it's a great thing from a spectator standpoint.  I haven't heard anything to the contrary.  The elephant in the room nobody seems to be looking at is whether or not this is an acceptable level of increased intellectual support for riders.  Accessing trackleader intel in towns really is no different than what we've had in the past via call-ins and the like, but on the trail?  That is very different indeed.

At the end of the day it's up to race promoters to decide.  But, as our genre in actuality lies somewhere between supported and  self-supported,  promoters' decisions will be impacted by what the community at large constitutes as the meaning of self-support in our context.

With all due respect to their long standing experience as leaders in the genre, I also think Scott and Matthew need to take a step back and let this discussion take it's course.  They both have a lot to gain by it's acceptance - it is a business model after all.  

I'm not just passing time between work tasks.  I'm passionate about this stuff.  As Dicky once said, anything worth doing is worth over-doing.

Good questions, here is my take on them

I don’t see an elephant but certainly the use of a cell phone to access trackleader data is important enough to discuss.  

So--I think most of the ‘for and against’ arguments about using cell phones to get trackleader data have already been mentioned several times, with that in mind, the bottom line for me is that allowing it Is Acceptable, ie: to use current tech to gather trackleader data.  Basically, I do not see allowing this would have a fundamental impact on the self supported mtn bike race genre.

As far as Scott and Matthew stepping back form this discussion?  I disagree, strongly.  Imo significant conflict of interest concerns do not exist here.  Sort of reminds me of when someone told Matthew he shouldn’t participate in the TD because he is the organizer.  I understand the argument(s) but do not think its significant enough, in either case, to exclude their active participation(s).

[DaveC]

I'd like to applaud all of you on this whole exchange.  With no irony, it's great: a group of serious, seriously smart folks engaging full-throttle with the issue.

For me, personally, that answer's been obvious for a while: get rid of the SPOT.  I think PLBs or Sat phones are more appropriate (if you must).

[DaveH]

Let's get specific.  Here's a proposed rule set for Trans Utah.
Race from St George to Boulder, covering the entire Trans Utah route under your own human power, self-supported between towns.

No pre-arranged support, drops, caches, or maildrops.

Use of personal devices enabling 2-way communications may be carried.  You may send one-way communication at any time from any place; the reception of communications is limited to specific regions on the route delineated by waypoints in the route GPX file:
  - start to beginning of dirt (~10 miles)
  - Virgin +/- 1 mile
  - Cedar City
  - Virgin Rim above Navajo Res
  - Any portion of hwy 89
  - hwy 12 from Cannonville to Tropic
  - Powell Point (it is best shared)

Examples of sending communications:  sending a text message, enabling a SPOT tracker, blog post via Peek.
Examples of receiving communications:  web page via iPhone or similar, voice conversations to remote user(s), satellite weather radio, receiving texts, checking voicemail messages.

For those not familiar with the route, the spacing between cell allowed areas is slightly less than 1 day on average based on Troy's finish this year.  Thanks Troy for pointing out where cell reception is on route

Too loose?  Too restrictive?  Just right?

Let's hear it.

edit:  2-way communications has been replaced with "receiving communications"

[naked indian]

Sounds good I reckon.

Considering I know zero about the route.

I like the SPOT thing, it makes it Spectator friendly.  People enjoy it, they get into it and I think that sometimes thats where the lack of success has been for any kind of MTB racing, spectators just cant get into it, and people go crazy for the blue dots.

Personally, as I raced my last race, I kept my phone off and sent some text out to fulfill certain requirements of the race, i.e. checkpoints.

I was there to race though.  And I wanted no distractions. 

SO, back to your questions, it sounds good. Real good, RACERS should not know where the other guy is, by accessing the web, they should know by saying, Hey, Im in front and no one has passed me, till this guy passes me and he is in front, LOL, Technology can make things fun, but it can also kill the fun.

Dont even know if I made any sense..

[DaveH]

Here's the visual of cell allowed zones.  All but the 3rd (beginning from the West) are included in allowed zones.  This is Troy's pseudo-spot data from this years event.

[Done]

I realize that most racers choose to avoid the distraction of using cell phones, but I don't understand why judicious use for non-race-related purposes is something that needs to be banned. The rule seems complicated and capricious.

[DaveH]

It's a compromise - and hardly capricious.  The text descriptions along with the GPX file nails it down to precise locations.  "Self-sufficient between towns" requires some definition for a particular course.

You don't have to like it - and it may even prevent you from doing the route in a *race* setting.  I contend that if you can't leave the phone alone for a day at a time you are not ready to race anyway.

Before I did my first self-supported event I had a biatch of a time wrapping my head around the rules.  MC and I went round and round about the no drafting bit.  I simply couldn't understand how you could have a mass start race yet prohibit drafting.  Once I started actually racing these things, all the pieces fell into place.  Things get a lot clearer when you are out there hammering alone for long periods.

I encourage you to give it a whirl.

[DaveH]

I don't understand why judicious use for non-race-related purposes is something that needs to be banned.

Allowing phone use for non-race related needs at any time, but forbidding certain types of conversation or certain call recipients - that is fraught with grey areas, censorship - that will lead down an emotional path and end ugly.  Guaranteed. 

What if you make a business call to someone who also knows you personally (like an employee) and they say "great job, you are only 2 hours from the lead!" or "dude, have you seen the weather forecast?  You are about to get pounded!".

Imagine how ugly it would get by saying "you can't call family members for support in times of need".  That's what Kurt did in AZT, yet he agrees it is outside support that should not be allowed.   

[Done]

Hi Dave,

I am definitely looking forward to giving it a whirl. Thanks for the encouragement. I also totally agree that I'll have much better understanding of the dynamics after next summer. I'm truly looking forward to adding more soul-searching adventures to my life.

I don't understand your repeated contention that anybody who might need to take a non-race-related business call isn't "ready to race anyway." Sure, needing to answer the phone during a conventional time trial might be a problem. But really, why would a few 5-minute calls over the course of several days really mean that somebody isn't ready to race? Does this also mean that someone who need/likes a few more minutes of sleep isn't ready? That somebody who wants to carry an extra pair of cycling shorts isn't ready? I'm trying hard not to take offense at your comment (despite my previous response, where I was clearly offended), but it's kind of hard not to read it as a condescending and dismissive comment. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and assume that you would apply this same criteria even to a very experienced racer too. Regardless though, it's pretty harsh.

You're correct that I may end up as the first rider to be relegated for using a cell phone of the CTR adopts your proposed rules. I can see the little asterisk by name now: "relegated for accepting a business call at mile 216." Amusing, and I suppose that it shouldn't bother me--but it does, if for no other reason that it seems unjustified.

Please, please, don't take offense at my next question. Absolutely none is intended, and I'm really not trying to take anything away from you or any other riders. I am honestly just trying to understand how you--as a very experienced and influential rider--define and apply endurance-racing rules. For most newbies, "monkey see, monkey do" is a pretty good way to begin, and riders like you are role models for newbies. So here goes: Why is it OK for a rider to accept mechanical assistance and other devices from another rider (which has decent odds of altering the outcome of a race), while it's not OK to do something that is highly unlikely to alter the outcome, like taking a non-race-related phone call? Again, truly no offense intended--I'm just still grappling with trying to figure this out.

I do agree with your last post that cell phones do somewhat increase the odds of a caller inadvertently relaying race-related information--not unlike the odds of receiving precisely the same information from a hiker, trail angel, etc. But I think that it's really very small, especially if riders act responsibly and ask those who are most likely to call not to discuss the race. Yes, there's trust involved here, but the whole darn enchilada is based on trust, right? I don't think that anyone really cares to construct a system of rules that replace personal integrity with enforceable legislation.

Lastly, I realize that the no-cell rule isn't really yours, as it's imposed in other races too. So I'd like to hear from other riders too. Thanks.