Rules?

[Done]

Hi Dave,

I wish that you could understand that I'm not passing "harsh judgments," "pointing fingers," or calling anyone a "cheater." it's just not true. If I wanted to do those things, I'd just cut to the chase a do it. I think that perhaps you are cherry-picking out-of-context words, and missing the forest for the trees.

I think that I am qualified to discuss the rules, ethics, and historical precedents of a sport in which I will participating in very shortly. I think it's a good thing to enter a race fully informed and engaged. Further, I don't see how I'm really messing anything up for veteran riders by making the argument that judicious use of cell phones is should be allowed because it's not likely to alter event more than some other stuff that is either currently allowed or up for consideration.

[DaveH]

I think Stefan's rules are clearly in agreement with my stance if you read both sentences in the section: "racers may not draft each other nor plan on sharing gear. Companionship, and likely some additional competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other." 

Self-support ethic aside, I think that is a grey area of Stefan's rules.  Those two sentences are somewhat at odds with each other.  It's not that clear.

[Pivvay]

Yea the "plan" word is the killer there. If I suffered 8 flats and used all my spare tubes and patches and you gave me another tube, I wouldn't have planned on that but it's definitely sharing of gear (and luck that you were there and willing to help).

[Done]

I read it as, "You can't plan on sharing gear, and you can't share it when you're traveling with someone either." Not putting self-support ethics aside seems to support this interpretation. But I freely admit that my interpretation is worth about 2 cents!

[Done]

Hi Chris,

If I gave you a new tube (which I would absolutely offer to you, and even Dave!, assuming that I hadn't ridden through the same patch of malevolent goat heads), would you accept it? Would you consider it a violation sufficient to result in a relegated status? Would you turn it down and walk into the next town?

Dave, please don't interpret this thought experiment as a dig in any way--at you or anyone else. It's not.

[krefs]

I had 4 flats the last day of the AZT 300.  Had I had another, Stefan probably would have caught me as I was fumbling with my last few patches.  Had I been out of patches and Stefan offered me a tube, I would probably have taken it, but I would have DQed myself.  While it's not technically "outside" support with respect to the race, it's about as far from maintaining the self-supported ethos as one can get.  I don't think it's kosher. 

[Pivvay]

It's undoubtedly a grey area in regards to the rules.

I suppose I would accept so long as I had done everything in my power to fix my bike myself and had brought tools and supplies in the expectation that I would be riding by myself. If I was negligent in buying more tubes in town after previously suffering multiple flats or decided I could do the race with only 1 spare tube and couple patches (I run tubeless usually), then I'd say it would be a relegating offense. If I had been prepared then the fact you had a tube, were willing to give it to me and came across me would just be considered lucky, hence trail magic I suppose.

I guess I wouldn't have a problem being relegated for this either though. I can see the other side like Kurt says.

EDIT: I never used to share food either. I like it though because it makes it more fun. I have no expectation that other racers will give me anything but if we're sitting down a water source together an someone offers a bite of something different it's nice not to have to turn it down. The "point" of the rule I always thought was to encourage everyone to pack and bring supplies as if they were riding totally alone.

[DaveH]

My stance on inter-racer sharing (of anything) during an event:  so long as nothing is planned, anything goes.  Nothing required, nothing banned.

By lining up for a bike race we accept and choose to have a different experience than an ITT.  Part and parcel of the difference is inter-racer contact.  I don't believe it is reasonable to put limits on those shared experiences.

The purist can always go do ITTs to scratch that itch.  ITTs are my preferred mode, and I find them faster, purer mentally, but certainly less social.

[krefs]

By lining up for a bike race we accept and choose to have a different experience than an ITT.  Part and parcel of the difference is inter-racer contact.  I don't believe it is reasonable to put limits on those shared experiences.

I feel like this just bring us right back to where we started.  If we accept that the race experience will be different from that of an ITT, and we allow inter-racer sharing that could clearly affect the outcome of the race, then where lies the problem in making use of SPOT tracker data during the race?  Sure, it's a different experience from an ITT, but that's what we line up expecting, isn't it?  I knew this would be the case at the AZT 300, as well as the TD.

I have trouble understanding an argument that in one context says the nature of the beast is being changed yet (i.e., no real-time SPOT data usage) in another says that we can't expect this nature to be invariant (i.e., allowing unplanned sharing between racers).  I always thought part of the rationale between so-called group ITTs was to provide a more competitive atmosphere to drive riders to cover more ground faster, as well as potentially inject a social aspect to the whole endeavor.  These goals do not implicitly allow for anything more than riding the same course at the same time under the same conditions, possibly in the vicinity of other racers.  Real-time gaps to nearby riders and two riders moving along together, pushing the pace and enjoying some company seems reasonable to me.  As soon as more inter-racer interaction is permitted (sharing tools, leg massages, etc.), then the nature of the experience starts to change, especially for other racers that may be chasing alone toward the back and have only a minuscule chance to get help from another racer if they break down.

I realize we're probably not going to agree on this issue, but the purist argument in one aspect of ultra racing and a more progressive argument in another was unexpected.

[DaveH]

Continuing to use Scott and I riding together at CTR - the race was 2 days in front of us.  We were far from racing.  It's humorous to reflect on now as we spent 5 hours farting around in Silverton eating, shopping, lounging in the park in the afternoon sun.  

Had we been really been racing we probably wouldn't be riding together.  Had we really been racing the one riding issue-free would have likely just dropped the other.

So, I don't think this stance on sharing has any bearing on the front of a race.  In these events there are differing demographics.  It's my observation that the front of the race typically has some hard charging riders going solo while behind them most everyone teams up.  Few (if any?) riders go solo for 20th place.  The leaders are busy putting the hurt on each other, the rest of the racers are surviving or enjoying some hard social riding.  I just don't see how it hurts - I think it's the best of both worlds so long as any sharing is unplanned - with the exception of TU in which I make allowance for a team to share whatever they desire.

On the other hand, SPOT data access directly impacts the front of the race and the race experience for everyone.

It's OK if we disagree.  This is just background on my rationalization for having both progressive and purist leanings.  

This is clearly another area that needs to be cleaned up in race rules as we've got interpretations all over the map.

[Done]

Hi Dave,

Looks like we may finally see eye-to-eye on a few issues. Cool.

Cheers,
Toby

edit: added cheers icon, 'cause it's cool.

[Jilleo]

Few (if any?) riders go solo for 20th place.

(Adverts eyes and raises hand)

Every one of us has different motivations. In my eyes, that's the beauty of this community.

I haven't had a chance to tear through this whole mammoth thread but I really like where you guys are going. Lots of this stuff does need a clearer definition, or else you have some racers running down cars and begging for handouts while others disqualify themselves for accepting an orange from a stranger. It may seem laborious right now, but I'm guessing everyone will be better off when all of us and our wide-ranging motivations are on the same page.

[krefs]

I don't know, Dave.  Now it seems like the race field is being sliced up, with the front perhaps following the rules word for word and the back just kind of doing their own thing, supposedly not affecting anyone if they don't quite follow the rules to a T.  I could argue that SPOT data might affect the leaders of the race who are gunning for one another, but in the rear, riders are simply curious about whether they might run into a fellow sufferer later that day with whom they can stop and share a frosty chocolate milkshake.  I don't think that should release anyone from the rules. 

Additionally, the idea that the guys at the front are hammering after one another solo isn't always true at all.  Take the TD this year when Chris, Joe, and I were "chasing" Matthew through the bear-infested hills of Montana.  Joe's derailleur hanger broke off.  Say I had one of those nifty little Wheels Manuf. emergency hangers that clamps into the quick release and I donated it to Joe's cause.  Joe's bike then works pretty well, and he doesn't have to stop in Lima, but rather call and get some spare parts shipped to the next bike shop.  He keeps riding with Chris and I, and eventually only has to spend a few hours in a shop instead of >24 hours in Lima.  He may well have beaten me, and by me giving him that part, I accepted the potential outcome.  But what about all the riders behind him who stood to move up in the standings from the damage the mud did to Joe's bike? 

I don't think it matters if your racing for the course record, the win in a particular edition of an event, or 20th place in a field of 23.  If a rider participating in a race but not truly racing (interpret that as you will) and following the race rules, then that rider shouldn't show up on the same list as the riders who rode the course and stuck to the rules as they're written.  Not everyone has the ability or desire to chase records or leaders, but there are plenty who still desire to test themselves under the same conditions, mentality, and approach.  It's not up to us to decide if the "outcome" of a race should be regarded as the fastest 25% of the field, all finishers, or all starters.

[mnmtb]

OK I'm just having fun here, but how does one interpret tandems.  Are the limits of support different?

FWIW I don't think a tandem would survive CTR but they sure did well on the GDR

[DaveH]

Same ruleset to everyone - from the leader to DFL.  There are no selective rules.  How they impact different parts of the race is what I am referring to - and of course it's a generalization based on how riders tend to group (or  not).  SPOT data shows all...there are always exceptions, like Stefan and Jefe riding the last 2 days together on CTR in 2 editions.

Say Joe didn't break his hangar.  Say you two went toe to toe, upping the ante every day, until you passed Matthew while he snoozed (let's just assume he sleeps, not sure if that so but...).  Neither of you would have done that had you been solo, neither of you would have gone that fast if you were in ITT mode.  Is that kosher?  What about food sharing?

Everyone I know is following the rules to the best of their knowledge and conscience.  What is inconsistent - leading to the OPs observations - is the interpretation of those rules.  There are plenty of gray areas, and not everyone thinks alike.

So where do you draw the line between a twix and a hangar?  

[DaveH]

OK I'm just having fun here, but how does one interpret tandems.  Are the limits of support different?

FWIW I don't think a tandem would survive CTR but they sure did well on the GDR

To be perfectly honest, this style of racing is raw, fresh outta the womb.  Something like that for which there aren't rules you can just show up and state your intentions, although it seems Matthew may have amended the rules for them? 

The Petervary's rock, no doubt about that!

[Marshal]

1

[Marshal]

1

[krefs]

Say Joe didn't break his hangar.  Say you two went toe to toe, upping the ante every day, until you passed Matthew while he snoozed (let's just assume he sleeps, not sure if that so but...).  Neither of you would have done that had you been solo, neither of you would have gone that fast if you were in ITT mode.  Is that kosher?  What about food sharing?

This is what I was referring to a few posts about the nature of group ITT racing - we all know and expect it'll result in faster performances in most cases compared to a solo rider truly ITTing the same route under the same conditions.  That's one of the goals of group ITTs, no? 

It's when the group dynamic starts to change the outcome in any other way that I become reticent about particular rules or the potential interpretation of them.  Giving Joe a replacement hanger would clearly affect the way the rest of the race played out, whether other racers had a say in it or not.  I believe Matthew would have been quite annoyed if he found out I had given a spare part to Joe, allowing him to continue, force me to go faster, me in turn forcing him to go faster, and ultimately catching Matthew as he slept.  On the other hand, had Joe's bike not broken and he and I made it to the front of the race using nothing other than camaraderie, Matthew probably would have been pleased as punch at the way we rode (but probably not at the fact his lead had vaporized). 

Do you see my point here?  We all know group ITTs changes how (and how fast) we race courses.  Sharing emergency parts changes the dynamic in an entirely different way. 

Sharing food is another issue...trading a couple chips for a cookie likely isn't going to change anything except causing a few taste buds to get excited.  Trading a Twix for an indigestible Clif bar could be questionable.  Someone misjudging how far it is to the next town, running out of food, and taking donations from another racer definitely crosses the line. 

[Done]

Now that the conversation has moved toward addressing the actual point of my original post, I feel a sense of vindication. I am delighted that people now understand that I didn't appear on this board simply as a troll to raise hell. Rather I yam what I yam, which is a confused newbie trying to sort this stuff out. But I still freely admit that I didn't frame the original posts as carefully as I could have, especially considering my outsider status.

That said, I didn't bring up the specifics from Dave's blog in order to attack him. His was just one example that I came across, and I mentioned it specifically because we were getting rather "engaged" in the discussion--and I decided that it was acceptable to use his blog to illustrate my observations. So, please, I hope that this post doesn't become an attempt to parse Dave and Scott, but rather an effort to parse specific rules and community ethics.