Rules?

[ScottM]

Marshal--

Go back and read what I wrote about CTR '09 earlier in the thread.  I'm happy to be DQ'd by Stefan if that is what he decides.  He read both of our reports, so it's not news to him.  It's great for others to read the CTR rules (which were heavily reworded for '09), interpret them and judge us by them, but it's up to Stefan. 

I do not think Dave was suggesting that because we were 'fast touring' the rules somehow did not apply.  I certainly don't think that.  He was making generalizations to support an opinion for how rules should be worded in the future, nothing more.  Neither of us have claimed that it was OK because it was "our understanding" or our "personal take" on the rules, either.  If you got that from my reply earlier in this thread, or from recent comments on 'good samaritan', you need to read more carefully.

It may be clear to you that we broke the rule, but that's your opinion.

~--~

While we are in the game of ball busting and interpretations of Stefan's rules, take a look at what he wrote for services:

Q: Does self-supported and no pre-arranged support mean I cannot stop for food or a motel?

A: The guiding principal is "Do. It. Yourself" and "equal opportunity" for all racers, regardless of whether you live in a town the CTR passes through or on a different continent. So, gas stations, restaurants, hotels, campgrounds, and any other commercial services along the route are fair game as long as they are not pre-arranged. Friend's houses, sag wagons, pacers, food-caches, etc. are obviously not commercial sources equally available to all racers, and absolutely are not allowed.

The emphasis on commercial is Stefan's.  If you read that closely, it says that the trail angel tent is not kosher.  It was not a commercial service (though I did offer money, it was refused!).   The following sentence, though mentioning 'available to all racers', still says commercial, again.

So, lump nearly every CTR finisher into the possible relegation category.  I'll bet Jefe didn't take anything from the trail angel, but most others did.  I did, and, again, if Stefan wants to DQ me for it, A-OK with me.  It is admittedly a gray area.

[krefs]

Interesting!  Not too much room for trail magic in that wording...

Does the mention of "pacers" suggest that having a friend meet you to ride for the afternoon on day three would be against the rules?  That's how I'd interpret it.  Perhaps Stefan was way ahead of us all and just outright banned all these things from the start, but we were just to hung up on other details to even catch on...

[Jilleo]

Scott makes a really good point - when it comes to rules, the devil's in the wording. Wording them more specifically so they're not as open to a huge range of interpretations is key, and I'm grateful that the people who have put their heart and soul into this genre are open to reworking them rather than treating the originals like unammendable, absolute tenets. Because, as most rules stand now, it's perfectly understandable that some participants grumble about racers sharing stuff between themselves while they themselves take trail magic favors, and others shun trail magic favors but think it's OK to call their mommy from the top of an 11,000-foot ridge in New Mexico because the pay phone in Horca, Colo., wasn't working (averts eyes and raises hand.) The results are that accusations are thrown around (and the continual mention of the inhaler on the CTR is exactly that), and suddenly gray light is thrown on everybody's hard effort. When in fact, none of these practices are outright against the rules as they are written.

This stuff is important.

I agree with Dave. These aren't ITTs, and they're not compeltely self-supported. Groups that travel together have an advantage over soloists no matter what they're passing between their bikes. Arguing whether something could or could not change the outcome of a race is moot - it's totally subjective. What could make all the difference in the world for one person could be meaningless for another. That doesn't mean I'm an advocate of full-out RAAM-style support, but I do think the race rules could use more clarity.

 I do think racers should be allowed to help each other out without restrictions, because any restrictions are subject to interpretation (hanger versus Twix) only serve to sever ethics and raise ire. Sure, helping out another racer with a mechanical affects the people further back, but so does everything the leaders do, including choosing to ride together and spur each other toward harder efforts. It's a race, after all. If you want perfect, self-supported conditions, I think you should do an ITT instead. And, since it's important to this community, perhaps the two should be judged differently.

I also think the "self-supported between towns" mentioned here is a good rule. After my experiment in the Tour Divide this year, I actually came to accept and support the cell phone ban of the GDR. I only used mine to communicate with my family (and make a couple of TD call-ins, usually while standing next to a broken pay phone). But something felt strangely off about reaching out in that way, and was usually more of a downer than anything. That's why I'm such a big SPOT advocate. It allows communications with loved ones without constantly cutting into the spirit of the experience.

But I guess we all have different views about this, and all most of us are really doing is just pulling out the soap box on a random Web forum. But I'll be interested to see what changes are made to the rules lists come 2010.

[DaveH]

Twix vs. hanger:  everyone draws the line differently.  Scott & I actually had a similar discussion at 12k' on day 4 (or was it 5?), and for sure, it is really difficult to make sense of gray rules when all available oxygen is in your legs.  It should be clear how we interpreted the outside support rule for CTR - our actions and public announcements on the blogs make it obvious.

When I was a complete rookie I'd roll around with the sensation of total isolation from the rest of the world.  If I saw campers on route I'd avoid them like the plague - to the point of being rude.  I just figured interactions with others was dangerous and could be construed as something I didn't intend.  Maybe that was correct and we need to extend that to other racers...yet there is still this existing paradox of group ITTs providing race altering motivation.

This conversation is going to take some time to work through, no doubt.  What we need to come up with is a framework for rules that each race organizer can take and adapt to their specific situations or ideology.  That is more or less what has been done thus far, with GDR rules as the framework, but the gray areas are still too many.  I'd suggest as a starting point we take a close look at all existing rules sets. 

I'll think about this, if only a little, while I punch out 235 miles this weekend, solo, ITT style 

[Done]

Cell phones.

I hate my cell phone. It's a modern-day equivalent of a ball-and-chain, designed to prevent enslaved workers from escaping the reaches of their masters.

Alas, I'm one of the slaves. As a business owner, I really, really, really need to be in touch. My clients can be very demanding, and some of them throw tantrums if they can't get hold of me. Tantrums are bad.

I suppose that I could be the first guy on my block to renounce cell phones and tell my clients to chill until I get back from a soul-cleansing ride through the wilderness of Colorado. But that's not likely to happen, because they will leave to find someone else who can help them--and then I wouldn't be able to buy new wheels for my bike, or pay my mortgage. So, I reluctantly carry my cell, growing even somewhat accepting of the reality that the stupid thing actually may be my friend. Without it, I'd likely be stuck in the office, tied to a land-line--which would be far, far worse that looking like a dork for taking a call in the middle of the wilderness!

Now, taking a business call probably doesn't qualify as outside assistance, especially if I inform those most likely to call that they can't talk about race-related subjects (which specifically still need to be defined, as per the Spot tracking conversations). I don't think that judicious, self-governing use of cell phones really gives a rider an advantage, and might actually do the opposite. As in, "Uh, sorry, I really don't have time to take part in a three-hour conference call today. Can we move it to next week, after I've had a chance to get a better perspective from 12,000 feet?"

It's been suggested in this thread that anyone who needs to bring a cell phone for business reasons just isn't ready to commit to a multi-day race. I think that argument is silly, since we're all racing with different limitations, and for different reasons. Trust me, my cell phone won't prevent me from finishing CTR--I have bigger potential limitations!

Sorry long post. Here's the point: Does anyone want to keep people from using cell phones for non-race-approved purposes?

Thanks,
The Enslaved

[DaveH]

One more thing:  this needs to be an open discussion.  As the OP found out it is often difficult to get a point across using abstract or hypothetical situations.  We are bound to use real world race examples as a basis for discussion.

Talking about relegations or rule infraction accusations will serve no useful purpose, and ultimately act as censorship.  We should all feel free to discuss our actual experiences without fear of being attacked.  Interpretations differ.  In claiming to finish an event, a rider believes to have followed the rules of the event - that's a given.  And, but accepting said rider's finish in the event, the promoter implicitly accepts said rider's actions for the duration of the event.

The CTR translation is that Stefan implicitly accepted the race time interactions between Scott and I.  It was all on our blogs before he made his final decisions, and I know that he read them.  Whether or not he believes those actions to be "in the spirit" of his ruleset, or allowable because of gray areas, remains to be seen as he reworks his ruleset for '10.

IOW, do unto others...keep it civil, keep it open.

Agreed?  

[DaveH]

Here's the point: Does anyone want to keep people from using cell phones for non-race-approved purposes?

Yes.  Making cell phone allowances presents gray areas and also requires a form of censorship.  I am firmly against both gray areas and censorship.

[Done]

Preventing cell phone conversations is censorship, no?

Trust is a good thing, and it's at the heart of all solo, self-supported competitions and adventures. If you can't trust riders to self-govern something as simple as cell phone conversations, then all is lost.

[DaveH]

Gray areas.  Interpretation thereof.  Let's not add to them.

Also, take another look at my proposed ruleset for TU.  Under that ruleset you can send whatever you want to any destination at any time.  No censorship required.

Receiving information is an entirely different matter and introduces GRAY.

Sounds like the CTR is your goal.  The point is moot for multiple reasons.  Not every race promoter will adopt a limited cell use area.

[bmike-vt]

"Absolute virtue is as sure to kill a man as absolute vice is, let
alone the dullness of it and the pomposities of it” -Samuel Beckett

[DaveH]

If you can't trust riders to self-govern something as simple as cell phone conversations, then all is lost.

Real world implications make this an identical sentence:  if you can't trust riders to interpret gray areas of rules in an identical manner, then all is lost.

[Done]

One more thing:  this needs to be an open discussion.  As the OP found out it is often difficult to get a point across using abstract or hypothetical situations.  We are bound to use real world race examples as a basis for discussion.

Talking about relegations or rule infraction accusations will serve no useful purpose, and ultimately act as censorship.  We should all feel free to discuss our actual experiences without fear of being attacked.  Interpretations differ.  In claiming to finish an event, a rider believes to have followed the rules of the event - that's a given.  And, but accepting said rider's finish in the event, the promoter implicitly accepts said rider's actions for the duration of the event.

The CTR translation is that Stefan implicitly accepted the race time interactions between Scott and I.  It was all on our blogs before he made his final decisions, and I know that he read them.  Whether or not he believes those actions to be "in the spirit" of his ruleset, or allowable because of gray areas, remains to be seen as he reworks his ruleset for '10.

IOW, do unto others...keep it civil, keep it open.

Agreed?  

Hi Dave,

If someone wants to use their experience as an example, then that seems fair. But I'm not sure that it's polite or useful to use someone's story without permission, or unless they deeply engage in the discussion. I don't think that "naming names" will get personal and nasty very quickly. This sport is, from what I can tell, largely based on self-regulation and personal integrity.

So, along those lines, I question whether it's Stefen's job to relegate riders from his event. Since everyone knows everyone, it puts him in the awkward position of having to pass judgment against friends. Not a great place to be, especially in such a small community. Personally, if I were to organize an event like this, I'd post the rules and then let people decide for themselves whether they followed them or not--which seems to be what happens. Again, trust and personal integrity seem more compatible with this sport than isolated judgments from dictatorial race directors.

But if it is incumbent on a single race organizer, then I think an appeals process must be put in place to ensure true equality and fairness. And that would require some sort of rules committee, etc. Yikes, I suspect that not very many people would like to ride down that road. Not me, anyway...

[DaveH]

Study up.  Tons of precedent this year alone for promoter relegations.

[Done]

Sounds like the CTR is your goal.  The point is moot for multiple reasons.  Not every race promoter will adopt a limited cell use area.

Hi Dave,

One or two goals at a time, for me. Koko and CTR next summer. And then, to quote Buzz Lightyear, "To infinity and beyond!"

Plus, I agree with your earlier comment that a race template is a good idea--which suggests an effort to generate some basic commonalities between races. I'd hate to see other organizers adopt your cell-phone stance, as it would limit the participation of people who need them for legitimate, non-race-related reasons. While I think that it's appropriate for an organizer to define rules for an event, I think it's heavy-handed to impose one that doesn't have a bearing on actual results. And I seriously question any rules that undermine trust and personal integrity in the name of convenience.

[Done]

Study up.  Tons of precedent this year alone for promoter relegations.

I have, Dave. And they are usually contentions, sometimes arbitrary, and often conflicted. The overwhelming majority of DQ seem to be self-imposed and very reasonable.

Let's get specific, since you seem OK with it. Are you arguing that it's up to Stefen to decide whether you deserve a * next to your name?

[DaveH]

I am ok with this conversation among my peers.  You are not one of them.

Furthermore, you have entirely missed my point and continue to shape things to your own agenda. 

[Pivvay]

Let's get specific, since you seem OK with it. Are you arguing that it's up to Stefen to decide whether you deserve a * next to your name?

I'm not DH but...it's up to the race promoter and I'm okay with that. While Matt and Stefan have had to relegate people, I haven't seen anyone relegated for anything they didn't deserve. Usually it's been a significant course infraction which is pretty clearly, not a grey area. Relegation to this point has not been taken lightly. It's been self enforced or from a clear rules violation.

Can we get an example of an arbitrary one?

[Done]

My agenda? Pray tell Dave, what is my secret (even from me, apparently) agenda? I think that I've made it pretty clear why I'm here.

Again, you're taking this too personally, Dave. I'm not suggesting, in any fashion whatsoever, that you (or anyone else) deserves an *. Truly. If you say that you finished fairly, I'm not going to argue--now or ever. That's my point--that I respect YOUR decision! And it seems that the ethics of this sport indicate it's incumbent on riders to validate their efforts, not to impose that burden on race organizers. Although race directors can, if they so choose, relegate anyone they want for any reason they want. I'm trying to confirm that this is a correct assessment.

While I'm a newbie, I do have a vested interesting is sorting this out, at least in my own mind. I'm not going to enter a race unless I know how it works. So far, it seems pretty damn unclear. And I'm concerned about the proposed cell-phone ban because it may very well effect the races that I can even enter without automatically being assigned a * for talking to a biz colleague.

When will I be one of your peers? After the CTR? Koko? Do I have to flail through a few races first, relegating myself when I don't need to, being relegated when I shouldn't be, not relegating when I deserve it, etc.?

[timroz]

I'd guess 99% of the *'s have been self imposed.  The rare case where an organizer forces a * on somebody is usually when they cut course without realizing it, therefore didn't self impose the *.

There are very, very few examples when the * is not agreed to by both parties.

It's an honest group.

[Pivvay]

FYI, Stefan has even relegated himself in the CTR...