Rules?

[ScottM]

I agree with both Matt and Marshal.  I also like the simplicity of 'nothing required, nothing prohibited.'  I do think that nearly all SPOT concerns go away with 'nothing required.'

Matt's point about 'trappings' is a good one.  In reality most of this stuff just makes you slower.

[Pivvay]

Like Marshall's thoughts here.

[Jilleo]

It seems to me like this debate comes down to purists vs. progressives. As in most aspects of life, it's pretty much impossible for these two groups to come to an agreement, but I'm glad to see y'all are trying.

I'm a progressive fast-tourist, attracted to the ultraracing genre because I prefer camaraderie to solitude and defined challenges to vague journeys. I want the rules in the events I choose to participate in to be consistent and fair to all participants, but I don't want them to attempt to dictate what kind of experience I should be having.

A lot of the purist arguments really are trying to establish a greater level of fairness, but there also are some that are simply trying to establish an unrealistic fundamentalism, that at its extreme suggests that people should cut off most if not all interaction with the outside world, limit interactions with other racers and pretend they are moving through a bubble of complete self-support. Suggestions to ban hotel stays and censor topics of conversation with family members point to this kind of extremism.

It seems to me that the solution is to let each organizer of their own event lay out their own rules. Maybe the days of a singular self-support standard are done. If each race has its own set of rules, those of us who have particular hopes and expectations for an event can choose accordingly. For example, I'm in love with the route and conditions of the Iditarod Trail, but I might not enter the actual race again as long as SPOTs remain banned. To me, many of the arguments against false communications ring somewhat hollow. All I see is the race organizers telling me what I can and cannot communicate with my friends and family, generating a (in this day and age) false condition of being completely cut off from the world and thus trying to dictate what kind of experience I should be having. That's fine if you want to keep your old-school "The cowards won't show and the weak will die" stigma around your race; it's just not for me. I'll do something else, and when I'm strong enough and experienced enough, I'll come back to the trail outside the confines (and comforts) of the race and experience it on my own.

In my ideal race, the rules would be:

1. Nothing required, nothing prohibited. Carry all the junk you like.
2. No preplanned support. No accepting support from people you know. No begging for support. No support from SPOT-stalking fans. Otherwise, trail magic is OK. (Admittedly, still gray areas here, places where you have to make a judgment call.)
3. All sharing/support among racers, as long as it is established after the race begins, is fair game. You decide whether or not you want to help your competitor.
4. Free speech. All communications are fair game, unless they are being used to arrange outside support. (In which case the communications still aren't banned, but the resulting support will net a DQ)
5. Technology changes. Utilize it or not; that's your decision.
6. Follow the course with reasonable completeness ... reasonable meaning if you go into one entrance of a gas station and out another, thereby missing six yards of the actual "course," you won't be disqualified, but will if you veer off for several miles and never backtrack.
7. Shipping OK to commercial addresses.
8. Use of private addresses, to sleep or eat, even in the case of unplanned trail magic, should be banned, unless the private residence is established as a race checkpoint before the race.
9. In case of emergencies, you can be transported off route - doesn't matter if it's forward or backward or somewhere in outer space, but you must return to exactly where you left the route under your own power, even if you were taken hundreds of miles away.
10. Other areas I'm missing. I'm kinda doing this off the top of my head right now.

But that's just my ideal race ... not that I'm ever going to create one. Maybe someday I will help my ex develop a 100-mile trail run along the ridges of Juneau, but that's a completely different game.

Thanks for keeping the discussion going. I think it's constructive. OK, back to making newspaper pages for me.

[DaveH]

I think the major (admittedly not all) of Dave’s concerns about ‘racing’ vs ‘fast touring’ can be addressed by simply not carrying a Spot (or not making the track public) ie: Nothing Required

That doesn't quite do it.  If one rider does not carry a spot because he/she doesn't wish to be tracked, but everyone else does - that's lopsided.

I should also be clear:  SPOT use is not something I am against for riders, its the dissemination of real-time data to riders that I am against.  It is very difficult to understand how this could not be construed as outside support - again, the CTR finish this year is the prime example.

[DaveH]

It seems to me like this debate comes down to purists vs. progressives. As in most aspects of life, it's pretty much impossible for these two groups to come to an agreement, but I'm glad to see y'all are trying.

OK Jill, since I am the only one calling out SPOT use as problematic, I must be the purist.  Never thought I'd wear that handle...

I do think you have applied a gross generalization in this case based on experiences with other events and organizers, and also that you miss the heart of my concerns.  In general I like your rules for the dream race, especially #9.

[bmike-vt]

For a good story of Jilleo's rule #9 (aside from getting back to the course under one's own power) - check out a PBP rider who stopped on course, passed out, went to a French hospital, passed a kidney stone, pulled his IV, got a cab back to the town he thought he left, found his bike, and still finished within time limits. Link to the RUSA site with story.

[DaveH]

The primary use is spectators, clearly.

Then limit access to spectators!  According to Matthew it sounds like you have the know how.

Right, and you agreed that calling LW, whether from payphone or cell phone is also outside support.  Yet you aren't arguing that that be banned. 

One step at a time.  I do not need cell phones in a race and if they were banned that'd be fine by me.  The rest of y'all would go nuts, so I'll concede the point.  Your point in bringing this up is murky at best.

We've been through this before, and I find your argument hollow, in other words.  I am not saying there isn't a good argument for not allowing SPOT talk out there, you just haven't found it.

We as in you and I?  I don't recall that conversation.

As for the hollow argument, you still have not addressed what you think about the AZTR finish this year.  So Kurt getting the beta and motivation from Maggie that spurred him onward to win was not outside support?  I am asking you directly Scott.

 
It sounds more and more to me like the root of your issue is with the group ITT setting. 

Ah, that's right.  I had forgotten we called these group ITTs.  A paradox, no?  It's  high time we stop hiding behind that skirt, it's fooling nobody.  Group starts are races.  They are most certainly not group ITTs.  CTR - what does it stand for?  GLR - acronym for???  Your own AZT300 was the AZTR  until you got concerned over the 'race' moniker.  But this is yet another issue in a confusing thread.

I had hoped by this point in the conversation we would start agreeing rather than further disagreements.  But with the varying agendas, beliefs, needs - it's one complicated ball of string.  Not something we'll figure out in a day or week...

[Mathewsen]

In general I like your rules for the dream race, especially #9.

the rule of no (forward) advancement on route when being extracted under powers other than one's own (by vehicle or stretcher) was designed to prevent a racer from gaining advantage by seeing the route ahead (preview). i must admit that in the case of serious injury or health concerns, fanatical adherence to this rule doesn't make sense if the only ride out to the hospital is forward. i would be inclined to cut a TD racer a break if such a preview took place from a stretcher or gurney.

[ScottM]

One step at a time.  I do not need cell phones in a race and if they were banned that'd be fine by me.  The rest of y'all would go nuts, so I'll concede the point. 

Right, I still don't understand if you're really against the dissemination of SPOT data, or against its availability due to cell phone usage.  It seems like the phones are really the issue here for you, since you said logging into a public computer to check the tracker is OK.

So if you're going to concede that point, what are we talking about?  Limiting topics of conversation?  How else do you suggest we prevent the info from reaching racers?

Your point in bringing this up is murky at best.

I don't think so.  If you are going to go with a purist view of outside support, I'll do the same.  Not everyone has an enthusiastic S.O. to call from the next payphone.

The point is that already the common rules for 'self support' allow certain types of outside support (calls home, food from racers, trail magic).  Arguing that something is outside support isn't especially relevant here since getting SPOT info isn't a gross / huge form of outside support (like getting a ride, getting supplies delivered, drafting, etc).  What is relevant is whether it should be allowed or not, and why.  I guess what I want to hear are concrete reasons why SPOT info shouldn't be allowed.

We as in you and I?  I don't recall that conversation.

Sorry, I meant in this thread, and yeah, between you and I.  You agreed that calling an SO from a payphone was outside support.  Your argument against getting SPOT info was that it is outside support.  So, why ban one and not the other?  Just asking for a reason beyond "it's outside support."

As for the hollow argument, you still have not addressed what you think about the AZTR finish this year.  So Kurt getting the beta and motivation from Maggie that spurred him onward to win was not outside support?  I am asking you directly Scott.

I thought I did -- I said I was stoked that something inspired him to race faster and take even more time out of my record.  To me it's not much different than using another racer's physical presence to inspire a better performance -- i.e. racing with others.

By saying "right" I was agreeing that it is outside support.  Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Ah, that's right.  I had forgotten we called these group ITTs.  A paradox, no?  It's  high time we stop hiding behind that skirt, it's fooling nobody.  Group starts are races.  They are most certainly not group ITTs.  CTR - what does it stand for?  GLR - acronym for???  Your own AZT300 was the AZTR  until you got concerned over the 'race' moniker.  But this is yet another issue in a confusing thread.

Not that it matters, but it's always been the AZT 300.  IMO, AZTR is only appropriate for the full meal deal...

I think the group ITT is still a useful concept, but, yes, I agree they are very different from an ITT, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I had hoped by this point in the conversation we would start agreeing rather than further disagreements.  But with the varying agendas, beliefs, needs - it's one complicated ball of string.  Not something we'll figure out in a day or week...

We may need to agree to disagree on this relatively small issue.  Different races can have different rules.  I'd still do, say, TU, if SPOT intel or cell phones are not allowed.  We all get to ride bikes and push limits (if we want to).  All is well.

[Jilleo]

OK Jill, since I am the only one calling out SPOT use as problematic, I must be the purist.  Never thought I'd wear that handle...

I do think you have applied a gross generalization in this case based on experiences with other events and organizers, and also that you miss the heart of my concerns.  In general I like your rules for the dream race, especially #9.

Sorry, Dave. I had no intention of singling you out. I was really just referring to the general (I agree, overgeneralized) conflict, dating all the way back to the Great Cell Phone Debate, that new technologies/participants/paradigms might detract from the "spirit" of ultraracing.

Mostly what I do not support are blanket bans on SPOTs, sat phones, cell phones, etc. I do see your point on the public dissemination of information affecting the outcome of races. What I fail to see is how SPOT information is really all that different than the old forms of relaying race info, such as the GDR call-ins. In the 2008 Great Divide Race, Geoff would call me from pay phones in towns and I would relay to him everything I knew about where his competitors were. He didn't have a cell phone and I didn't have SPOT info, but it was still the same general practice that could, I agree, affect Geoff's behavior and therefore the outcome of the race. You could ban this type of conversation to prevent this from happening, or ban all public dissemination of race information, but that's the slippery slope of fundamentalism that I don't like.

Lawmaking is a slow, painful process for sure. Have you ever sat through a legislative committee meeting? Ugh. And I'm certainly not a lawmaker; I'm just a concerned citizen throwing out my two cents from the back row, because the outcome of the rules debate may effect my future participation in events (as it already has in the Ultrasport.)

[Marshal]

That doesn't quite do it.  If one rider does not carry a spot because he/she doesn't wish to be tracked, but everyone else does - that's lopsided.

I should also be clear:  SPOT use is not something I am against for riders, its the dissemination of real-time data to riders that I am against.  It is very difficult to understand how this could not be construed as outside support - again, the CTR finish this year is the prime example.

Well Dave!, you purist you…….just joking, now a Real purist would never set up an event like the TU and then offer up GPS tracks to follow….

Back to your main point about how getting real time Spot data could be construed as getting outside support…humm I was expecting a argument about how such info would impact or not impact race ‘tactics’ and to what degree.  But your point strikes straight to the heart of the self support ideal, hey nothing ‘construed’ about it, it would/is be a form of outside support.  I just hadn’t quite thought of it like that.

Anyway, I really don’t have a good counter argument to your point.  And I will say that I personally would rather deal with some cumbersome, possibly even un-workable rules to somehow ‘forbid’ giving racers such info rather than exclude Spot info for spectator use.  Watching Spots is just too much fun imo.

I see either a ‘compromise’ on a pretty fundamental self support tenant, a total Spot ban or a fairly complex ‘work-around’

Anyone have some easy to implement/enforce/understand suggestions??

edit: I do see that Scott and Jill just made a good pretty "Matter of Degree" argument

[DaveH]

Right, I still don't understand if you're really against the dissemination of SPOT data, or against its availability due to cell phone usage. 

I'm against the real-time availability of SPOT data to riders.  It acts as an external motivator, and alters the course of races - including the finishing order. 

How a rider receives that data is another story.  It could be a cell phone, it could be a friend SPOT stalking to relay info, it could be an iPhone, it could be a public computer, it could be...

So, it goes well beyond cell phone use.  Receiving that data goes beyond cell phone use.  I can't think of a valid reason to carry a cell phone in these races (aside from Troy's pseudo spot use in Trans Utah) - but then again that debate has been played out, and get's  emotionally charged.  I only saw a few posts in that but do recall something to the effect of "you can't tell me I can't talk to my family!" and I respect that argument. 

So if you're going to concede that point, what are we talking about?  Limiting topics of conversation?  How else do you suggest we prevent the info from reaching racers?

Matthew introduced a few new ideas earlier up thread.  Blocking iPhone apps was one, night time blackouts...I don't know.  But I do know that you have created a program that completely changes the game.  You can't pass it off as insignificant - it has already altered race finishes (yours). 

Trackleaders came out and generally, most were enthusiastic about it.  Non-racing racers, racer's family members, friends, all get to watch race progress and that is super fun.  Blue dot addictions result.  Those not racing still get to participate, it's good for all, right? Yet it changes the game...nobody has stepped up and said "hey, is this beyond the bounds of self-reliant racing?", or, "hey, is this right?"

We're having that conversation now.  It's been brewing in the back of my mind ever since reading Kurt's AZT 300 report.

 

The point is that already the common rules for 'self support' allow certain types of outside support (calls home, food from racers, trail magic).  Arguing that something is outside support isn't especially relevant here since getting SPOT info isn't a gross / huge form of outside support (like getting a ride, getting supplies delivered, drafting, etc).  What is relevant is whether it should be allowed or not, and why.  I guess what I want to hear are concrete reasons why SPOT info shouldn't be allowed.

1. externally derived motivation = outside support.
2. potentially generates race altering tactics.  You downplay this - but this is HUGE.  If it's a close race and somebody is cracking...it all shows in the tracker.  It's already happened...

We may need to agree to disagree on this relatively small issue.  Different races can have different rules.  I'd still do, say, TU, if SPOT intel or cell phones are not allowed.  We all get to ride bikes and push limits (if we want to).  All is well.

It's not a small issue - it's a mammoth.  And since by default you are in charge - it's a tall responsibility.  These events are for the riders.  Creating an avenue for spectating is a wonderful twist - so long as it doesn't change that which is watched.

[DaveH]

I don't think so.  If you are going to go with a purist view of outside support, I'll do the same.  Not everyone has an enthusiastic S.O. to call from the next payphone.

Still not sure I addressed this quite enough...

Again, I don't know why you are bringing this up.  If I understand you correctly you are trying to press me to push for a cell phone ban?  Or do I misunderstand?

A cell phone ban is fine by me and such a rule would not prevent me from doing an event.  I'd actually prefer a no cell phone rule.  But...who would come to TU if I banned them?  Not gonna happen.

[ScottM]

Again, I don't know why you are bringing this up.  If I understand you correctly you are trying to press me to push for a cell phone ban?  Or do I misunderstand?

Sorry, notice how I said "next payphone."  The point is that we agree getting SPOT info is outside support, and also that calling your SO from a payphone is outside support.

Both are:

1. externally derived motivation = outside support.
2. potentially generates race altering tactics.

You are for banning one, but not the other.  Just pointing out an inconsistency and looking for concrete reasons why tracking intel should be banned.  I suppose the reason calling in is allowed is that it would be unreasonable to ban it.  That's pretty much the pro-cell phone argument too.  Both are outside, game altering support, but they are allowed.

Is it reasonable to ban tracking intel?  I don't know.  What are the potential benefits?

1) better performances - is this not one major motivation behind a group race?
2) fun / entertainment for riders.  These races are not for millions of dollars, are not the world championships, and in general I am against anything that makes 'fun' illegal (e.g. sharing of food between riders).  It was fun / inspiring knowing how unbelievably far Owen Murphy was ahead of us in the CTR.
3) more camaraderie -- makes it easier for riders to ride together if they so desire, again one of the points of group racing
4) ease of dealing with the rules -- no off limit topics or complex rules necessary to ban it

What are the disadvantages of allowing it?

1) It changes the race, possibly in profound ways.  A rider may be 'found/stalked' when they didn't want to be. 
2) It's outside support

What else?

[Marshal]

Wow, I am not keeping up, even here in data race land,  but………

I can’t really argue that getting “Location Info” (how ever you get it, cell phone/Spot or other wise) about a competitor isn’t a form of “out side support”.  

Real Time Location Info itself seems irrelevant in that it’s just one more piece of race info.

I am not saying it would have no impact. However what I mean is that strategies (and counter strategies) would be successfully (or unsuccessfully) employed, ie: there would be winners and losers just like there are now.  At the end of the day it’s just one more factor that would be dealt with. Ie: It is after all a ‘group race’

However, to me the ‘bigger’ issue is if this type of ‘outside support’ should be officially sanctioned as acceptable?

Would sanctioning real time location info cause fundamental harm to self supported racing?  Or would it be an acceptable bow to ever-changing technology?

Or looked at another way, can we expect to ever put this genii back in it’s bottle?  From a purely practical point of view I don’t think we can.

So, now I am personally back to the ‘nothing required, nothing prohibited’ concept as a simple but workable rule.  

Albeit one that would color just a bit the self supported concept

[ScottM]

It's not a small issue - it's a mammoth.  And since by default you are in charge - it's a tall responsibility.  These events are for the riders.  Creating an avenue for spectating is a wonderful twist - so long as it doesn't change that which is watched.

I disagree that it's a mammoth issue.  There are still far more similarities between us than differences.  And like I said, I'd still do TU without SPOT intel.

As for spectating changing that which is watched, I think you are setting an impossible standard.  Just carrying a SPOT and knowing that others are spectating changes the race in a fundamental way.  There's the uncertainty principle again.

[Pivvay]

But doesn't the choice of the SPOT keep it from affecting the race outcome? If you're chasing hard or running from someone, turn it off.  I know I've turned mine off a couple times. I don't think it really changed anything but it was part of my "race strategy" for better or worse. If you fail to turn it off and your competitor finds out where you are and that's enough to motivate them to catch you, you miscalculated. I think most of the time people won't turn them off because it's not likely to make a difference but I do concede that it could like this years AZT.

That leaves only the self support argument, which for me, isn't that strong since we already allow certain aspects of the races that are also technically not self support. How is eating in a restaurant not outside support?

Law making sucks :p

[DaveH]

What are the disadvantages of allowing it [SPOT intel]?

1) It changes the race, possibly in profound ways.  A rider may be 'found/stalked' when they didn't want to be. 
2) It's outside support

What else?

You need more than the first item (which is actually 2 separate issues)? 

It changes the race, possibly in profound ways.

Wow.

Now, there are what - 4-5 of us engaged in this discussion and hundreds of self-support riders out there.  So the vast majority is unaccounted for here.  But those that are expressing opinions here seem to be fine with trending away from self-sufficiency in the name of comfort.

At least we are calling these things races now.  The group ITT label is misleading and utter nonsense in its current context.

Two more:

3.  SPOT intel is entirely focused with the other rider.  Everyone knows their own location.  SPOT intel draws focus away from one's self and onto others.

4.  In a race setting, SPOT intel reduces the level of unknowns.  Managing unknowns is an integral part of the genre.

#3 is counter to an ITT - group or otherwise - and counter to a self-reliant pursuit.  The fact that we are having this basic disagreement tells me that the vocal parties in this discussion really want something else.  Something more involved with others.  Something less self-reliant.

So, what I really favor:  2 types of events.  An ITT that follows the familiar rules with a cell phone ban from anywhere but in towns, and a *race* where anything goes so long as you do all the pedaling.  Drafting, drops, support - sure why not?  It's a race.

[ScottM]

That's quite a jump to go from knowing where your competitors are to allowing full on support crews and caches.  I'm not seeing it--still don't understand how getting SPOT intel is even in the same realm.  We can disagree, though.

[tRoy]

In MY mind:
1) A strict interpretation of every current rule in every current ultra would DQ most riders that have been considered finishers.  Yeah I know that statement was very TobyGadd but it would also strike my name from TransUtah, AZT300, and AZT777. 

2) Leveling the playing field can not be done, and if you really want to try and level the field then all riders need to be kept in a vacuum for 1 year and given the same amount of elements, then blindfolded and taken to the race start, striped of all possessions (including bike and clothes) then given a map.  GO!

3) If I want to do the ride faster then I need to change the way I prepare (Prearranged) for the race.
 
4) Rules/laws are for religions and governments.

5) How can I get our names back on the current finishers list?  One simple rule for now but even it will become obsolete.


Complete the ENTIRE route under your own HUMAN power.