Rules?

[Done]

I'm not trying to be a rule Nazi (or a renegade), just hoping to clarify the rules of endurance races, such as the Colorado Trail Race. At first glance, the rules seem pretty simple--and the theme seems consistent: ride without support. But here's the catch: many write-ups posted by competitors detail examples where they either received or granted support, had supplies shipped to hotels (instead of Post Offices), etc.

So, here's the question: Are the rules actually rules, or are they simply guidelines? Or perhaps it's really up to each rider to decide--which seems to be the unwritten reality?

I'm hoping to have a better understanding of this before attempting my first races next summer. I don't want to be thought of as a jerk if were to refuse to help another rider with a mechanical issue (my inclination would be to help!), but I don't want to be cheating either (which is important when "racing" compared to "touring"). In short, I need some help understanding what's appropriate so that I can fit in and do the right thing. Thanks!

[wookieone]

Hey Toby, I am not an expert on "rules" but there is some room for what folks deem "trail magik" yet the basic premise is that everyone has egual footing, so no prearranged support, no caches, you can buy things at commercial establishments, get stuff sent to post offices, go to bike shops, but there is some grey area in there if you ask me. I tend to stay on the safe side, or perhaps anal indy diy style, and I don't except any help from anyone, no hotels, no bike shops, no food/beverage from other trail users. But that is just me, there are others out there, some are doing the cococono ride, that can give you a better idea about this stuff. Coolio, jefe

[dwj]

in my opinion having something shipped TO somewhere other than a post office would be pre-arranged support. since it would be an advantage to have access to a resupply at say 3am when everything else was closed.but shipping something FROM a hotel would be fine in my interpretation of the rules. as far as the ctr goes this would only be an issue in leadville, buena vista or silverton, and not that great of an advantage anyway. the real crux of the biscuit for the ctr is between buena and silverton anyway and no one is shipping anything to or from any part of the trail in between those two points. i finished the ctr with everything i started with and only resupplied at grocery stores. it may come down to a matter of style or personal ethics. i'm sure stefan will chime in with his thoughts.

[bmike-vt]

Perhaps a look at brevets / randoneurring would be a good place to start if things start to get 'codified'. Search for www.rusa.org would be a good place to start. But - rando events are not 'races' (although you can qualify for RAAM on the longer events) - so there is a bit more friendliness and helpfulness throughout the field. Los of folks will help others with a mechanical - and you can live off the land - gas stations, official bag drops, bike shops, etc. Etc.
The only place you can get support other than what you carry or find is from and organizer on route - or at a control where friends / family / team car can meet you - but I've been on a few events with outside support arranged for a few riders and it kind of took away some of the spirit for me. 

[tRoy]

I just do NOT get the "No Prearranged Support", but you can "send stuff to Post Offices".  By sending stuff to a post office then you are prearranging support. 

[Done]

Thanks for the responses. Seems like many people take the rules with a grain of salt (as evident in several blogs), while others follow them more literally. I suppose that this parallels the ethos of "disorganized" racing, especially since this sport is so new and relatively informal. I expect that the rules will become more defined as time passes. A race, after all, wouldn't be much of a competition unless everyone played by the same set of rules--if, of course, the competitors really care that much about relative versus personal results.

That said, I'll be following a literal interpretation of the rules next summer. Not because I really care that much about my performance compared to others (I don't expect to do well enough to care!), but because it's a race!. Attempting to deliver an optimal performance in the confines of sometimes arbitrary rules is just how it works. Otherwise, we might as well all strap on motors and hire Sherpas .

[Pivvay]

Toby,

The rules are the rules. The Tour Divide/GDR ruleset makes this pretty clear. Almost every other race uses the same rules with small tweaks depending on the race/organizer.

The idea is that there is a level playing field so that publicly accessible services are used by all.

[Done]

Hi Pivvay,

I agree that "the rules are the rules." But I noticed that many riders don't follow them terribly closely--as detailed in their blogs/stories. It's just something that I caught my attention, and I wanted to get clarity before attempting my first races next summer. I intend to closely follow the rules because they make sense, and they add to the adventure of racing. I suspect that those who don't perfectly adhere to the rules aren't doing so in an effort to unfairly crush other competitors and attain everlasting fame and fortune ( ), they just take a more relaxed view of the whole event. They obviously don't worry too much about (minor?) infractions like shipping supplies to hotels (instead of the Post Office), giving/receiving mechanical assistance to/from other riders, accepting food from backpackers, etc.--or else that wouldn't write about it. I haven't read about anyone doing anything more major, such as taking shortcuts, hitching rides, etc. though, so it seems that many riders make a distinction between the importance of the rules. Those who truly cheat probably don't publicize it (if it happens at all), while those who do publicize "minor" infractions probably don't see them as a big deal. At least this is what I'm seeing...

[Pivvay]

I think if you read the rules carefully and apply them to specific instances, blog or whatever, you'll find that they are either against the rules or not. There is rarely a gray area. Shipping supplies to hotels vs a post office depends on the race and trail magic isn't against the rules.

I think that saying riders don't follow the rules very closely isn't accurate at all. In fact I'd say most riders pay very close attention to the rules. In the Divide, most competitors that broke the rules, DQ'd themselves. They may have finished the course which is fine but are relegated finishers vs an official finish.

[Done]

Could you define "trail magic?" for me?

Please note that I've been very careful to note that "many" racers seem to stretch the rules. This doesn't mean "all," or "most." It seems fairly common, but it's far from comprehensive.

[Pivvay]

You used the word many. I disagree and would expect specific examples to back up such a claim. I don't feel like many riders stretch the rules.

trail magic - totally unexpected and unplanned support on the trail. IE. a random person giving you a coke or an orange. Finding a gel on the side of the road. Also the trail angel tent on the southern part of the Colorado Trail this year.

I am unwilling to accept trail magic from any person I know though if it's totally unplanned I don't know that it's against the rules.

Self supported racing is primarily self policed and you need a firm understanding of the rules so that you know you don't break them.

[Done]

Hi Chris,

I'm not going to post specific links to blogs--it would feel like I'm unfairly singling out individuals for something that seems somewhat common.

Finding examples isn't really that hard, though--which is why they caught my attention. I wouldn't have started this thread otherwise. Again, I'm not accusing anyone (generally or specifically) of cheating, so there's no need for anyone to be defensive. There seems to be a range of what people find acceptable, and I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what drives people's decisions.

Most sports have written and unwritten rules, guidelines, ethics, etc. As a climber in a previous life, I am all too familiar with the battles that raged over bolting ethics, first ascent styles, etc. I always thought that it was cool when new climbers tried to figure out (usually by asking locals) what was acceptable behavior in certain areas before jumping into the fray. I'm attempting to do the same here, so as to avoid saying and doing things that cause undo stress.

I can see that you take the rules very seriously, although "trail magic" certainly certainly allows for some slightly gray areas. I like the expression, and I can see how it would be hard to codify such situations into an rule--although I can also see others deciding that accepting aid from a "trail angel" is akin to accepting outside support. Not sure yet whether I'd accept the goodies or not, which is why I'm posting on this forum.

Thanks for your guidance, Chris.

[Pivvay]

Finding out about the rules is good. Walking in and claiming a large percentage of people cheat is not good. Read here: http://tourdivide.org/the_rules

Post specific examples. Change the race, the participants name, whatever. I disagree that cheating, even in a minor ways is common place. Self DQ for minor infractions is far more common in my readings.

I agree that trail magic can be a grey area. Accepting NO trail magic certainly would be easiest way to handle it. However if all race participants and perhaps extend that to SPOT followers really understand the rules it doesn't seem to be a big deal. It's hard not to feel like a dick turning down an apple from someone in the middle of nowhere when you're obviously hungry although I have done it. You just explain the rules or ethics of what you're doing and it's all good.

[dwj]

Finding out about the rules is good. Walking in and claiming a large percentage of people cheat is not good. Read here: http://tourdivide.org/the_rules

Post specific examples. Change the race, the participants name, whatever. I disagree that cheating, even in a minor ways is common place. Self DQ for minor infractions is far more common in my readings.

I agree that trail magic can be a grey area. Accepting NO trail magic certainly would be easiest way to handle it. However if all race participants and perhaps extend that to SPOT followers really understand the rules it doesn't seem to be a big deal. It's hard not to feel like a dick turning down an apple from someone in the middle of nowhere when you're obviously hungry although I have done it. You just explain the rules or ethics of what you're doing and it's all good.

if you had seen what the trail angel had left for us at the end of sargents mesa you wouldn't even consider uttering the words "accept no trail magic"

[Pivvay]

haha I totally agree. And since you guys had NO IDEA it was going to be there, then that's trail magic. Awesome, wonderful and amazing.

[Done]

Chris,

I have given some examples of things that I've read. Add to that the following: sharing navigational information with other riders, and receiving tracking information on other riders from friends back home. Both of these seem to fly in the face of the concept/rules of self-sufficiency.

Perhaps our disagreement is with the word "many." In an effort to learn more about endurance racing, I have enjoyed reading "many" (as many as I could reasonably find) blogs and stories. I was surprised to see read as many (often enough that it started seeming common) examples of people not complying with a strict interpretation of the rules. I suppose that I could go back and determine a precise percentage, and then we could see if that fulfills the requirement for the dictionary-definition of "many," but that seems like rather neurotic and stupid exercise. By "many" I mean more than "several" and less than "most." Maybe something akin to "a lot." Yes, a "large percentage" seems right, if a "large percentage" means more than 10% and less than 20% of blogs/stories.

I'm sorry if you think that my "walking in" and asking about this is somehow inappropriate. Perhaps we should both drop this discussion, or pick it up over a beer sometime. While it may take many beers to figure this out, the real question might be whether 3-4 beers qualify as "many" or if it takes 6-8. And, of course, whether the quality of the beer (Fat Tire or 5 Barrel versus Coors or Miller) alters the meaning of "many."

I will hereby refrain from using the word "many" for the next 24 hours.

[Marshal]

Hi Chris,

I'm not going to post specific links to blogs--it would feel like I'm unfairly singling out individuals for something that seems somewhat common.

Finding examples isn't really that hard, though--which is why they caught my attention. I wouldn't have started this thread otherwise. Again, I'm not accusing anyone (generally or specifically) of cheating, so there's no need for anyone to be defensive. There seems to be a range of what people find acceptable, and I'm just trying to get a better understanding of what drives people's decisions.........................
......................

Hey, are you sincerely asking or just sincerely trolling?

Imo opinion finding examples of ‘cheating’ really IS hard. I just haven’t seen them in the blogs I read.  Also, you might not think you are “accusing” anyone but the overall ‘tone’ of your post(s) say otherwise.

So, if you are sincere about not understanding a particular CTR rule, get specific and ask detailed question(s)

And if you ‘disagree’ with a specific rule(s) explain why, discuss, give a solution etc.

Also you might consider the following as a framework for any comments or questions on event rules.

Basic “Drop Dead Principles” for you, me and all event participant(s):

When we “choose” of our own free will to participate in a particular event (any event for that matter--self supported or otherwise) we have by default agreed to be aware of and follow that event’s particular set of rules.  Even if we do not ‘agree’ with each and every rule we have nonetheless agreed to follow each and every one of them. (And for a self-supported event if we realize we violated a rule, even one we might not personally agree with, we will DQ ourselves)

Nothing less is fair or equitable to all the participants.

[Done]

No, I am not a troll.

I'm going to drop the subject, as it seems to be doing little more than generating a number of unintended and emotional reactions. I never intended to put anyone on the defensive, which is why I didn't post links to specific blogs. I truly wanted to understand the rules as they related to seemingly minor interpretive variations that I have read about fairly often. There was nothing accusatory about my questions, and I have not claimed--nor am I presently claiming--that anyone has cheated. I Just made some observations that raised questions that I thought might be answered on this forum. Apparently a bad idea, so I'll dodge out before anyone decides that I deserve any more beatings.

Last thought: all of the rules seem appropriate and likely to add to the adventure. Again, I've never stated otherwise.

Cheers,
Toby

[Pivvay]

I think if you study the Tour Divide rules and GDR rules, you'll find that things that seem like violations perhaps are not. Self supported certainly has different rules in different sports. If this were polar travel, they'd laugh at our "solo, self support" I think. But for ultra cycling we've been playing by the same rule book pretty much since day 1. It's become more "spelled out" over the past few years due to all the new people involved. Some things, SPOT tracking and stalking have led to some new issues. There may be further clarification in the future as it's growing.

I think you are feeling that people aren't "playing by the rules" when perhaps you just haven't read up on the rules and history and how exactly they apply in those instances.

A group of people that will eliminate a awesome record of their own accord due to a small unintentional error (ex. Owen Murphy Colorado Trail ITT 2008) do take cheating and rule following seriously. To state repeatedly that you see something different is inflammatory no?

You said:
"But I noticed that many riders don't follow them terribly closely--as detailed in their blogs/stories"

Regardless of the use of the word many, this statement is pretty counter to the ultra MTB racing scene as a whole so it's got to be backed up or made due to misunderstanding.

And if you want to chat about it in depth, come on down to Westy. I'm laid up in bed with a broken ankle but we can have some pizza and beers (if I lay off the drugs) and I'll share anything with you that I know, from rules differences between the races to gear to whatever. It's not that we take the questioning personally but what you are stating is claiming that some people have violated the rules, unintentionally or not, and they don't care. That is a big claim and a big deal. Otherwise Matt wouldn't bother to relegate anyone in the Tour Divide and take the flack that comes with it.

[Marshal]

 1