Rules?

[wookieone]

So Yeah this is a bit gross, but like Chris said, it has to happen as the fields for these events get bigger and bigger, and we need to preserve the DIY, get out there and be self reliant type feel that makes this so damn bad ass. So yeah I agree, don't be put off my this in depth nit-picking. Better to do so now, then when an issue arises and we are all out there pushing our limits. It is hard but I believe neccesary. And we should all be out riding our bikes!! Too bad it is starting to look like winter, oh well. (By the way Chris what happened to your ankle?) Also I would like to thank everyone for bringing up all these points, ideas, gripes, etc, I hope we can make an even better playing field for future events. Remember it was Stamstud that gave up support to to the GDR the first time giving us a clear vision to follow, DIY, human power!!! Peace Jefe

[Marshal]

Mulligan’s ?

After this (and other similar threads) thread on rules for self supported racing (SSR) I have begun to wonder if we need to change our focus and hash out the penalties for a rule infraction.  Does a rule infraction have to mean DQ?

We all seem to agree that you must do the entire route self supported.  Most agree what the ‘entire’ route means, but most do not agree what self supported means.

It seems most of the disagreements about ‘self supported’ fall into:
a) Basic rule understanding, ie I am new to the concept
b) Different interpretations of the same rule, ie I read it this way you read it that way
c) Different interpretations on the ‘severity’ of a given rule
d) Different personal SSR philosophies that lead to ‘self-selected’ guide lines vs the actual rules


Currently it seems the only ‘penalties are:
1) Self DQ
2) DQ’ed by the organizer
3) Regulated by the organizer (a form of DQ, your finish time is listed but you do not receive a ranking)

But does a rule infraction have to mean the big ol DQ?  If some less severe penalties were acceptable in SSR perhaps there would be less contention over what are really minor matters?

What if it were common practice in SSR to have ‘something’ like the following:

Significant route deviation = DQ or Regulation
Major premeditated violation of a self support rule = DQ or Regulation
Fairly major but un-premeditated violation of a self support rule = time penalty (which may or may not affect final ranking)
Minor and un-premeditated violation of a self support rule = a “Mulligan” (no change in rankings would occure from a mulligan)

Note: a Mulligan is issued at the organizer’s discretion and means he/she feels there was a rules violation.  However the violation was minor and not delibeiate .  Mulligans would primarialy be issued for a rule(s) clarification for future a race and not to affect the outcome of a race.

Persoanly I think many/most of the contentious rule argumenrts fall in the the Mulligan relm.  

[SteveW]

I think the advice we should be giving to new racers coming into this is: Aim high. Have integrity. The rules are rules, and not guidelines. There is a good reason for the rules having broad definitions and the words have been carefully thought about. If there is something you really need clarification on, please ask the question specifically. Contact the Race Director preferably to posting on a forum.

As Mike C says "With respect to the GDR, we ask that you please consider the long term ramifications of finding and using loopholes--the race will only get 'easier' and (conversely) require more rules/regulations as time goes on. This goes against all of the principles that the race was founded on." – We shouldn’t need a 200 page document covering every possible action that can just be summed up as Do It Yourself.


A relegated racer this year admitted to a course deviation, but also stated he believed he completed the race honourably. Is this personal moral interpretation based on an understanding the rules were a guideline? I myself on the Tour Divide this year met two racers cruising up a road when I and several other racers had just pushed through impassable mud for a couple of hours. The response I was getting as I tried to point out you HAD to follow the route was, ‘It’s no problem, everyone is doing it, I cut a pass in Montana too, don’t worry about it,’, while the racer indicated on his map the more direct route he was taking. They believed it was all only guidelines.

This created negative feeling from relegated racers this year post Tour Divide, and more so there were a lot of aggressive, derogatory and attacking comments by supporters and spectators. Wild assumptions were stated as fact and the racers and race director who legally completed the route were made out to be the ones lacking credibility. It’s hard to believe that statement is really true. The method of rule-breaking detection is irrelevant.

I don't want to race against a free-for-all of rule breaking and pushing the limit of rule wording, and only responding, 'they're just guidelines; everyone is doing it. I raced honourably'. I'm not saying it's black and white, and I understand ‘spirit’, ‘trail magic’, gas station entry/exit, and the Twix versus hanger comment. However new racers have to go into this aiming high, and doing all they can to ensure there is no chance an * will appear next to their name.

Dear, new racers, please study the rules of the specific race you’re entering very carefully and be honourable. If you’re in doubt, don’t do it. Feel good about your finish, and the many months you spent training and preparing. I look forward to sharing the trails with you and some of my adventure. Cheers, Steve.

[omurphy]

I know this post has been quiet lately and I don’t mean to disturb the peace, but I’d like to add my two cents… To be honest, I want nothing to do with rules or regulations, but after sharing breakfast with Stefan the other day I realize that NOBODY wants much to do with these issues. Stefan organized the CTR out of the goodness of his heart and a passion for all things outdoors, and in doing so inspired so many others to have a go at the CTR. But now he (and other race organizers) are left holding the hangman’s noose so to speak, responsible for racer disqualifications, grumblings, route clarifications, etc. To be perfectly clear Stefan didn’t bitch, moan, or complain in the slightest about this responsibility, but it just ain’t right in my opinion. Seems like a reasonable, rationale group such as ourselves could determine a standard set of guiding principles that apply to all (or most) ultra- endurance cycling events. As has been mentioned earlier in this post, the real work has already been done by folks like Mike C, Matt Lee, and Stefan. But there obviously still remain some grey areas, which is natural as these events evolve and progress. What do you say to a community-wide bikepacking effort to develop a universal set of principles (I’m trying hard to avoid the word “rules”) that would apply to events from the Tour Divide to the CTR to the Cococino Loop? No offense intended to ANYONE. Building on past events and stealing freely from their websites, here’s my best shot. I'm sure I've missed a few items, and perhaps I'm way off base on others. Please feel free to add your own constructive thoughts…

1) Solo. The guiding principle is "Do. It. Yourself." And “equal opportunity” for all racers.
2) Support. See principle #1. These events are meant to be SOLO. Physical collusion of any sort among racers is taboo. Racers may not draft each other or share any supplies. Companionship, and likely some additional emotional support and competitive motivation, are the only things racers traveling together may provide each other. “Trail magic” in the form of unplanned, spontaneous support from backpackers, horsebackers, trail angels, etc. unrelated to the race event or effort are permitted.
3) Supplies and shelter. Pre-arranged and/or outside assistance with navigation, food, shelter, or supplies is forbidden. [[[Longer events like the Tour Divide may allow racers, in advance of the event, to mail items to post offices or public establishments along the route. Since I’ve never competed in such an event, I don’t know how necessary this provision is.]]]
4) Outside (two-way) communication. See principle #1. Cell phones and other two-way communication devices exist, but not everybody has one, wants one, or feels that they are appropriate on the trail. In order to provide equal opportunity to racers who choose pay phones (or no phones) over cell phones, two-way communication devices may only be used within town limits. “Town” is defined as any public establishment that could legitimately provide the use of telephone or internet communication. In the absence of a bona fide pay phone, racers may ask the proprietor of said public establishment to make use of their personal land line or internet connection.
5) Navigation devices. GPS and SPOT devices are permitted, but not necessary. SPOT devices are designed to provide racers and significant others with a sense of security should an emergency arise on trail. They may also be used for entertainment value and, when necessary, validation of course compliance. If you are opposed to other racers receiving information about your SPOT data via outside communications, simply turn off your SPOT device or do not post your data to a public website.
6) Responsibility. Racers are responsible for their own safety. Racers are also responsible for knowing and following all of the principles or rules that pertain to their chosen event/route. Lastly, racers are responsible for maintaining the high standards, morals, and ethics of bikepacking that inspire and motivate us all. There are bound to be issues on and off the trail. When in doubt, do as Stamstad would do.

[DaveH]

Nice post.

The concept I grapple with is how these events have changed since Stamstad's early ITTs.  They are no longer ITTs.  When starting with ~40 other bikepackers in a *race* start we no longer can say these are solo pursuits. This being the case, we need to define what is and is not acceptable change, how we can interact with our fellow racer, and to what extent we are willing to let our fellow racer interact with us.

By your rules definition #2 the physical support is clear.  The hangar vs. twix issue evaporates, neither are allowed sharing.  This is exactly the type of clarity we need - and pretty much what I was "fishing" for up thread.  I think the reason nobody voiced it is because everyone (except for perhaps you LOL) has at one point shared a twix on the trail.  I didn't want to be the one to present it...thanks for that.  On this matter there are only 2 options as I see it.  Either as you have stated it, or there are no limits to rider  unnplanned interactions/sharing.  Anything less than black and white = gray.

There is still some gray area in terms of verbal communication - what about discussing the upcoming route with your current ride partner?  Discussing mechanical details/problems?  Can those be construed as support under this rule set? 

The communications rule #4 is also clear I think - except I'd add an allowance to ask to use a cell phone also at public  locations.  Plesko's difficulty calling from Gary's place in Del Norte comes to mind as it is a standard stop on the TD/GDR route but his "landline" is actually a cell. 

In #6, "racers are responsible for maintaining the high standards, morals, and ethics of bikepacking", I think it's a given this occurs 100%.  Not everyone agrees on what these are though.   It was simple when there was one guy doing ITTs, not so simple now.

I've got some creative solutions to these issues as I'll apply them to Trans Utah.  The end result is much like the Coconino route - ITTs and races will be timed differently, each with different rule sets.  Races are not ITTs.

[bmike-vt]

I'm curious how #2 plays out. There is a huge emotional boost by simply being with other humans out in the wild... especially if the weather is crap, the trail is crap, and the last chance for food was closed down for the night. Companionship and emotional support are just that... and there is probably no way around it happening - but how do you codify or suggest what the proper balance is?

Strategizing about a route / terrain over dinner is OK, or not?
Or only OK if each racer has their own map out, and you are not looking at someone else' GPS (because you are not carrying one)? Or discussing a sleep / ride plan to deal with nasty weather, perhaps sharing data on wind, rain, trail conditions, etc. with a rider who is local to the part of the trail you are on...?

Gray, for sure.

[omurphy]

So the key concept to keep this post moving forward and save the world is to provide constructive feedback. If you see an issue differently, don't hesitate to offer up an alternative solution. To me, #2 is fairly clear -- no PHYSICAL collusion or support. That includes anything you can touch, or would touch if your riding partner didn't touch it first: food, parts, batteries, tools, chain lube, tires, tubes, patches, glue, water bottles, water filters, stove, maps, compasses, band aids, tourniquets, back scratching (you know that part between your shoulder blades that you can't really reach on your own?), shelter, plastic baggies to wrap your cold feet in, rubber bands or zip ties to hold your helmet light in place, clothing, etc. However, discussion or shared meditations about any of the above items, strategy, saddle sores, medical advice, weather, or anything else is totally permissible. I acknowledge that emotional support and companionship are potentially huge factors with regards to surviving vs. thriving in an event like the CTR, but we're all friendly folk and we like to talk. When you toe the starting line with other people, you should expect to share the experience along the way. Like Dave mentioned above, an event with 40 other riders is by default a different animal than a true ITT... The hard part is nailing down a set of guiding principles that keep the group aspect from taking over the solo aspect. Or not -- that's just my opinion.

[Mathewsen]

Not that Mike C wants to help weave this thread, but i would like to hear what he has to say about the direction and meaning "group ITT" has traveled since he was the first to organize one (to my knowledge). Some see the label as a clear misnomer--and yes, group and ITT are different birds, but what are the consequences of further driving comparisons btwn the two apart? Do we really need/want to maintain separate title belts? If the group races have their rules belts radically tightened, maybe they'll begin to resemble ITTs enough to satisfy those who insist they're too different to compare.

Semantics - a good place to start (Owen has helped push it this way) crafting a self support racing framework is by coming up with very strict definitions of the terminology it will use to frame up "the challenge". It may help eliminate some of the gray matter that keeps coming up. We are doing a terms glossary for TD rules--I hope it helps. Terms like, Shelter vs. Lodging, Commercial (vs. non) Services, Trail Angel, Trail Magic, Pre-arranged, Outside (support), Resupply, Towns vs. Outpost all seem simple enough to understand but interpretations/assumptions can change their meaning significantly--particularly when used together. FAQs are not a bad idea either.

Whatever the framework becomes, it needs to have some wiggle room for individual race promoters to make allowances for course intricacies and grandfather-isms.

Also, what about water? water is pretty sacrosanct. I would like to see greater lenience on "outside assistance" w/ water resupply than with food resupply. Any comments there?

[wookieone]

DaveH, curious how you would time ITT's diferently than races? Also this whole "rules" debate might make some sick but I just love seeing that others have so much passion for this stuff, love that, you all are a special kind of human, peace Jefe

[Pivvay]

I would hate the fun of giving up the sharing of food but again that's how I viewed it when I started (no sharing allowed) so it's not that big a deal.

[Done]

Hi Owen,

There are several exchanges regarding cell phone usage, but I'm still not sure why some people have problems with judicious, non-race-related use of them on the trail. Since your proposed rules include limiting cell phones, I'm hoping that you can help me understand why.

From my current (and admittedly limited perspective, at least when it comes to ultra racing), using a cell to take a business call, to discuss a child's health with a spouse, etc., won't give a rider a competitive advantage. The previously-stated concerns about outside callers inadvertently sharing relative times and locations can be addressed by #5 (turn off the Spot), or by simply asking callers not to discuss race-related topics. I simply don't see how a cell is really going to make a difference other than to slow someone down. Further, if we can agree with Dave that riders follow high standards 100% of the time, then I think we can trust everyone to not use cell phones for inappropriate purposes--just as everyone is trusted not to take shortcuts, mail stuff to hotels, trade equipment, share tents, etc.

Other than obvious issues with Spot tracking, the only two arguments that I've read against cell phones is the contention that anyone who needs to take a business call simply isn't properly committed to race, and that "outside" verbal support might make someone ride harder. I'm not buying the former argument, for a number of reasons--one of which Scott previously addressed. And the latter argument seem a little silly, especially when it's actually expected that other riders will encourage each other--which would probably provide a far more significant boost in morale that talking to a business colleague about a marketing budget!

I suppose that it could be argued that cell phones inherently suck, and people have become pathetic slaves to their gadgets--and that they should be shunned from respectable events like the CTR. Well, I'd unfortunately have to agree with that one!;) I don't like cell phones either. I also don't like it when people chew gum in meetings, fail to wash their hands after using the bathroom, spit when they talk, and wear men's cologne. But I'm not sure that banning those behaviors on endurance races would serve much purpose, other than to impose my petty tastes on other people, which seems like a very bad idea.

So if riders can be trusted to use their cell phones judiciously (and such usage doesn't offer a competitive advantage), then why outlaw them on the trail?

This is a legitimate, non-hypothetical concern. I'm looking forward to racing next year, but I'd rather not end up with an asterisk next to my name because I had to talk to a client about a business strategy (assuming, of course, that I manage to finish at all!). But if everyone agrees that cell phone idiots like myself deserve to be relegated, then I suppose I'll just have to live with it.

[omurphy]

Hi Toby. I don't think any less of you for having a cell phone. Got one myself. I was just trying to find a guideline that would satisfy all parties involved (from those that abhor cell phones to those with cell phone implants). Of all the events that I'm aware of in the lower 48 states, you should be able to hit a "town" or "outpost" nearly every day to make a call. But if you really need to make a business call more often than that, no one's really going to stop you. Please just don't do it within my earshot!... And that's where principle #6 comes into play. Be respectful of others on the trail and be honest about any outside aid you might receive. That's my take.

Also, if you can run a business on your own AND race the CTR, more power to you. I could learn a thing or two from you!

[bmike-vt]

To me, #2 is fairly clear -- no PHYSICAL collusion or support. That includes anything you can touch, or would touch if your riding partner didn't touch it first: food, parts, batteries, tools, chain lube, tires, tubes, patches, glue, water bottles, water filters, stove, maps, compasses, band aids, tourniquets, back scratching (you know that part between your shoulder blades that you can't really reach on your own?), shelter, plastic baggies to wrap your cold feet in, rubber bands or zip ties to hold your helmet light in place, clothing, etc. However, discussion or shared meditations about any of the above items, strategy, saddle sores, medical advice, weather, or anything else is totally permissible. I acknowledge that emotional support and companionship are potentially huge factors with regards to surviving vs. thriving in an event like the CTR, but we're all friendly folk and we like to talk. When you toe the starting line with other people, you should expect to share the experience along the way. Like Dave mentioned above, an event with 40 other riders is by default a different animal than a true ITT... The hard part is nailing down a set of guiding principles that keep the group aspect from taking over the solo aspect. Or not -- that's just my opinion.

Got it, and I would agree. Wasn't trying to argue in my previous post, just to get a clearer sense of where you were headed with that.

I do wonder how a maintenance situation would go. Maybe my chain wraps round my cassette. I've brought my own chain tool and pliers on a multi tool - but I've never fixed this before. The gal or guy I've been riding with stops with me as they want the company for a long night stretch... while fumbling with my tools Rider 2 talks me through getting the repair done (since I'm not in town and can't call up Sheldon Brown's website or the Park tool site on my iPhone). They never touch my tools, or offer one to me... but... they certainly are sharing data - and its only friendly bike talk... the data would be worthless if I didn't bring the tools - but since I have the tools - but don't have the more important part of the equation... hmm.

Curious is all. Seems that in this case, I didn't bring the knowledge of repair (or maybe water filtration, reading the weather, knowing how to traverse a snowy slope, start a fire, etc) - and the other rider did. Since I didn't start with it... can I use it?

Physical trading is easy to say no to.
Emotional and knowledge based is definitely a tougher area to discuss.

[DaveH]

DaveH, curious how you would time ITT's diferently than races?

It's my opinion that ITTs and races are two entirely different animals.  To reflect that in results, the TU event (hypothetical example) may have a rule allowing a rider one stop during the event in which the clock stops ticking for some reasonable time period - similar to the Coconino stage race.  Only in this case, the location is the riders choice.

Apart from "muddying" the results enough to warrant separate race and ITT timing, this would be a real head game during the race.  Nobody would know who won until the calculators came out.  It might not be the first across the line.

I've done quite a few ITTs and races and embrace the difference.  It's all good.

[DaveH]

But if you really need to make a business call more often than that, no one's really going to stop you. Please just don't do it within my earshot!... And that's where principle #6 comes into play. Be respectful of others on the trail and be honest about any outside aid you might receive. That's my take.

Um...doesn't that take us back to post #1 in this thread?

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?

Tough rules require tough love.  Just ask Matt Lee.

[DaveH]

Not that Mike C wants to help weave this thread, but i would like to hear what he has to say about the direction and meaning "group ITT" has traveled since he was the first to organize one (to my knowledge). Some see the label as a clear misnomer--and yes, group and ITT are different birds, but what are the consequences of further driving comparisons btwn the two apart? Do we really need/want to maintain separate title belts? If the group races have their rules belts radically tightened, maybe they'll begin to resemble ITTs enough to satisfy those who insist they're too different to compare.

Consequences...that is a great question and one that was floating about my cranium while out on the bike this afternoon.  I wasn't thinking along the lines of separate results though, more about liability.  It hurt my head so I stopped thinking about it.

The overwhelming difference between ITTs and races is not incidental sharing of the odd twix - it is the motivational aspect.  Real time availability of SPOT data puts it under a magnifying glass, but take the SPOT away and that motivational aspect remains. 

I really think the time has come to view the differences, accept them, and move on - with the understanding they are different.  We don't need more rules for racing, we need less.

[omurphy]

Dave H: Um...doesn't that take us back to post #1 in this thread?

Personally I think that INTENT is everything in a situation like this. Some might construe cell phone use as a performance aid, but Toby just needs to keep tabs on work. No questionable intent or unfair gain... Similarly, some people might construe the use of bronchial dilators as a performance aid (especially at altitude), but you just used it to survive during the CTR. (I know how this works -- I've had a strange recurrence of asthma for the past month and use my inhaler nearly daily right now). But if a healthy person uses an inhaler, or an asthmatic uses it above and beyond their needs, then in my mind that constitutes questionable intent.

Rather than bringing us entirely back to post #1, I think this brings to the last and over-riding principle that I suggested above "...racers are responsible for maintaining the high standards, morals, and ethics of bikepacking that inspire and motivate us all. There are bound to be issues on and off the trail." When in doubt, use good judgement and INTENT.

We all realize by now (15 pages later) that there will never be total agreement among us. But I think that a basic set of guiding principles is possible.

[omurphy]

Ummm... after a bit of reflection on the bus ride home, I think I need to amend or even retract my previous post. Sorry, my fingers typed faster than I could pull my thoughts together (and I type really s l o w).

Did I really question Dave who was supporting a principle that I actually proposed earlier (limited cell phone use), then fall back on the INTENT clause, and close with a plea for all of us to get along?... I'm afraid I did. If you haven't chimed in on this post yet and wonder how hard it could possibly be to hash out a solution, I strongly suggest you jump in the ring (if only to make me look a little less like an ass).

Dave is absolutely right: rules are rules. And if one carefully written rule can clarify an issue for 99% of the bikepacking community and save us all a bit of grief, then I think it should stand even if it offends or inconveniences the remaining 1%. It's called compromise, and it's often used in situations like this. Limited cell phone use (within "town" limits) is a compromise, unlimited cell phone use is not.

Sorry to have digressed. It's late and I'm tired. Good night.

[Done]

Does my taking a non-race-relayed business call truly diminish your ride and the CTR to such a degree that it should earn me a relegated status?

[mnmtb]

If you haven't chimed in on this post yet and wonder how hard it could possibly be to hash out a solution, I strongly suggest you jump in the ring (if only to make me look a little less like an ass).

Hey I'm willing to looklike an ass, so here goes.

I posted several pages back about the rules and have kept my mouth shut since I really wanted to learn from all the experience present on this board.  After all the posts thus far I have an observation, those with the most stringent interpretation of the rules tend to be the "racers" (those who are going for the ITT record or can at least challeng for it)  the second group are the "riders" (those who probably won't challenge for the ITT record but want to set a PR).

I too have a consulting business and forsee the need to carry my phone for fear of losing clients.  In my mind carrying a cell phone and using it on the trail, outside of a town does not give me a competitive advantage. But, and this is a big BUT, this is probably because my goal is 51/2 to 6 days, this will not set an ITT record.  This puts me firmly in the camp of rider and not racer.  Over tha past several weeks, I have had to modify my thoughts about this race and remember the earlier statement about elevating yourself to the race.  It is with this statement that I have come to realize that my belief of using a cell phone on the course does not elevate me to the race and to the other riders.

When I line up in 2010, I want to line up with 40 other racers, not 40 other riders.  I want to pass some and know that I will get passed by others. I want to be 100% true to myself and the other racers.  If I wanted a ride I would get a group of friends together and go ride.  I want to be pushed both internally and externally.

I agree with Dave that fewer rules are better than more rules.  I think any rules or interpretation therof should assume that we are all racers who all have the same advantages/disadvantages when we line up (what you do before or after is up to you bike, prep, $$, etc) and don't change untill we get to Durango. This is the conclusion that I have reached and and I expect others to have a different view as evidenced by 15 pages of posts here.

So am I an ass or simply brilliant

Jeff