Rules?

[dream4est]

I think in light of what I observed at this years CTR, If I were Stefan I would change the following for next year:

1. No trail magic/inside support. Just ban it all. Too much temptation and too much interpretation. This would encourage less "partnering up" and eliminate all grey areas. Stamstead did it that way so should we. Fix your own bike, sleep in your own bivy, etc. No grey areas.


2. No cell phones. Eliminates grey areas and interpretations and Spot stalking.

3. No provisional finishes for using alternate detours. It affects other racers in various ways when a competitor is planning on riding less than the full route.

4. No drafting on Hwy 285.  The best alternative is putting the Tarryall Detour back in. This would space out the pack quicker and put the hurt on people (no day 1 resupply), making the idea of what happens IF you run into a situation like a racer who needs mechanical help a moot point anyway (cause you got more important things to worry about- your own pain!).


I had a great time out there, but some of the people I rode with early on were not out there to finish. I wish that people would worry more about things like commitment and personal fortitude than what sections should we ride or what level of inside support/trail magic is acceptable. This is kind of a jab at about half of the CTR entrants, those who never really had plans of riding fully SS and/or finishing the complete race route. Those people really should have ITT'd the route outside the group ITT event.

I would like to see this thread move into a positive direction of clarification, because it is detracting from the super-awesomeness that is the CTR/CT ITT. For us regular guy trail day-riders, it is the Everest of the sport.

Mark C.

[Mathewsen]

Matt,

Don't take the crazy word too strong from me, you know I respect you and the discussion I only wish that we can stay as close to the "elevate ourselves to the level of the race as possible" vibe. I know some extra rules are unavoidable with the larger fields but to me, those rule suggestions struck me as going too far.

My food sharing experience is not ever one of "gaining" food, merely sitting out enjoying the view for a minute, and trading half a Twix for a few chips in return, a net zero calorie trade if you will. Gaining a "dinner" certainly wouldn't fly with me. If we have to legislate that into the rules then I would prefer not to deal with it at all and give up sharing.

i hear you brother, but we are just that, brothers. meaning, our SS history is pretty insular, our understandings of the rules are insular, this rules thread is pretty insular, even MTBR is insular to the outside world. the SS discipline is attracting those outsiders and certainly voyeurship grows annually. you wouldn't believe the emails i got from race fans during last june alone re tourdivide rules and compliance. these types look to the few events we have going to send clear and just messages. try as we might to keep rules short and sweet, doing so might only make more work for race organizers on the back end--which in my mind is antithetical to participant-organizer racing such as we have.

[Pivvay]

I totally understand that Matt but if we want to keep it plain and simple then at least eliminating internal racer sharing seems far simpler to me than putting limits on the number of interactions or calories traded. It still leaves the trail angel option available, meaning someone that's not in the race. Perhaps we have to define SPOT stalking as well. You can ride together but you can't share any physical assistance be it food, a tube, tools or an extra physical hand with fixing a bike problem. You can share companionship and knowledge. At least that seems simple and concrete to me. To others?

[Majcolo]

yeah, i was wondering when you were going to defend your post majcolo. i thought is was a fair way of saying, times-a-changin'.

Thanks, was afk riding my bike! And call me Mark. Majcolo just seems so...formal.

[Marshal]

Is it?  Trail angel Apple knew we were coming, was following the tracker, stayed later (in our group's case). 

Not sure that qualifies as completely outside the race. 

I did not know that.  He wasn’t at his tent when I came by, had he been there and mentioned he had set up in essence an ‘aid station’ just for the CTR racers I would like to think I would have declined, but very well might not have, that tent really was magic to me.  Just thinking about it brings up pleasant memories.

However this does bring up a good point, I think the right approach to Spot stalkers is the “look but don’t touch” idea, from both ends.

[ScottM]

In light of what I wrote earlier today about KTR and what dream4est and others (from Colorado) say, I do see that banning both sharing and trail magic may make sense for the CTR.  I think some of the disagreement here is that some of us are speaking about SS racing in general, others are focused on the CTR only.

CTR had nearly 40 people, and maybe more next year.  It's large enough, dare I say 'cool' enough that I think it may make sense to tighten it down a bit.  But I don't know.

Yes, Matt, I think the trail angel was borderline.  Since Harris and I are the continual targets of this thread, I do feel it necessary to say that I think what we got from the trail angel was much more questionable, and makes me feel less purely 'self supported' than jumping in Dave's tent for ~1 hour as a light storm passed us by (I did not sleep a night in the tent as previously reported and I carried more sleeping gear than any previous CT bikepacking trip, of which I have done several in much worse conditions).

The fact is that the trail angel was providing the crux service (food) during the crux section of the route.  I cannot say that I would have finished, for certain, without the calories I got at the tent.  I can say for certain that I would have finished had I not used Dave's tent.

Hair splitting is fun, isn't it?  I'm off for the week to design/layout one of the last pieces of AZT.  I'll catch up with the thread later on...

[Marshal]

I totally understand that Matt but if we want to keep it plain and simple then at least eliminating internal racer sharing seems far simpler to me than putting limits on the number of interactions or calories traded. It still leaves the trail angel option available, meaning someone that's not in the race. Perhaps we have to define SPOT stalking as well. You can ride together but you can't share any physical assistance be it food, a tube, tools or an extra physical hand with fixing a bike problem. You can share companionship and knowledge. At least that seems simple and concrete to me. To others?

I strongly concur.

I have been laboring for several yrs now under the mistaken impression that this was a commonly accepted norm for SS racing.  Of course now I know better but I really do think you have hit the nail on the head.

[Marshal]

Since Harris and I are the continual targets of this thread, I do feel it necessary to say that I think what we got from the trail angel was much more questionable, and makes me feel less purely 'self supported' than jumping in Dave's tent for ~1 hour as a light storm passed us by (I did not sleep a night in the tent as previously reported and I carried more sleeping gear than any previous CT bikepacking trip, of which I have done several in much worse conditions).

The fact is that the trail angel was providing the crux service (food) during the crux section of the route.  I cannot say that I would have finished, for certain, without the calories I got at the tent.  I can say for certain that I would have finished had I not used Dave's tent.

For what ever it’s worth my views on your and DH’s CTR inside support have completely changed.  I edited out my earlier “pot shot” even before Stefan’s somewhat delayed clarification, where he clearly confirmed neither you nor DH violated the CTR rule set.  

I will admit I was quite surprised that he meant to allow inside support but that was clearly my misunderstanding.  If your and DH’s actions were ok per the CTR rules -- end of story in my book.

However Stefan also said he to is debating the inside support (his term) issue for future CTR’s.  And while I can only speak for myself I think most of the more current posts are not targeting you or DH but rather engaging in a subtle, sometimes difficult general debate, about inside support and if it should be allowed in future SS Races.

Enjoy that nice AZ weather, snowing here.......

[dream4est]

To be clear Scott I am referring to actual rules violations I saw at the back of the pack (or heard eyewitness reports of). The stuff was really unacceptable and I will not name anyone but people really need to understand how important it is to follow the rules. You cannot draft. Nor can you plan to share sleeping gear and asking for water from a day rider is not trail magic.

Apple the USFS guy was a wild card- his actions seem to contradict the rules (Spot stalking) but since no one knew he would be there or was waiting for anyone that IMO food taken from him falls under the pre-race discussion of the rules (being able to accept trail magic). I would say his actions (Spot stalking) should exclude him from interaction with next years racers (even though I ate and was grateful).

Scott and DH sharing the tent and the inhaler fell under the current rules IMO (not pre-planned). I saw several other instances of spontaneous sharing like this that I feel were also legit under the 2009 rules. But I also observed a clear example of pre-planned gear sharing on night #1. In order to eliminate future problems I think for the CTR all this stuff should just be banned.

Mark C.

In light of what I wrote earlier today about KTR and what dream4est and others (from Colorado) say, I do see that banning both sharing and trail magic may make sense for the CTR.  I think some of the disagreement here is that some of us are speaking about SS racing in general, others are focused on the CTR only.

CTR had nearly 40 people, and maybe more next year.  It's large enough, dare I say 'cool' enough that I think it may make sense to tighten it down a bit.  But I don't know.

Yes, Matt, I think the trail angel was borderline.  Since Harris and I are the continual targets of this thread, I do feel it necessary to say that I think what we got from the trail angel was much more questionable, and makes me feel less purely 'self supported' than jumping in Dave's tent for ~1 hour as a light storm passed us by (I did not sleep a night in the tent as previously reported and I carried more sleeping gear than any previous CT bikepacking trip, of which I have done several in much worse conditions).

The fact is that the trail angel was providing the crux service (food) during the crux section of the route.  I cannot say that I would have finished, for certain, without the calories I got at the tent.  I can say for certain that I would have finished had I not used Dave's tent.

Hair splitting is fun, isn't it?  I'm off for the week to design/layout one of the last pieces of AZT.  I'll catch up with the thread later on...

[ScottM]

Cool.  Yep, most posts are debating the issue in a general sense, but a few recent posts have referenced DH and I both directly and indirectly.  I don't have a problem with it -- it's a fresh example I guess.  Cheers all.  Have fun with the debate.

[Majcolo]

I totally understand that Matt but if we want to keep it plain and simple then at least eliminating internal racer sharing seems far simpler to me than putting limits on the number of interactions or calories traded. It still leaves the trail angel option available, meaning someone that's not in the race. Perhaps we have to define SPOT stalking as well. You can ride together but you can't share any physical assistance be it food, a tube, tools or an extra physical hand with fixing a bike problem. You can share companionship and knowledge. At least that seems simple and concrete to me. To others?

I like it. I would assume this means that accepting support means relegation, but offering support for emergency or safety reasons would not.

I would suggest that the trail angel, which is essentially neutral support, should also be banned. It sounds and feels crappy to say, but it's the only way to be sure that the benefit of that angel is truly available to all racers.

No hair splitting this way, either.

[DaveH]

This thread is a great learning experience.  As a racer and organizer, like it or not this is a topic I have to consider in detail.  Issues I thought were clear really are not - and everyone has their own interpretation in most cases.  Although much focus has been put on myself and Scott, that's ok by me as it highlights these problem areas.

It's hard to imagine a consensus is going to be reached on an open forum.  There's good reason these things have been decided among steering committee members.  The OP should by now understand the answer to the original query:  yes, the rules are rules, and the rules vary by event.  Know the rules for the event of your choice, ask specific questions for said event (to organizer) if there are unclear sections to those rules.

Marshal:  in your recent post you implied that the only valid reason to do an ITT was if you thought you had a shot at the route record.  Otherwise the group ITT is the only option.  If that is wrong please clarify...this doesn't make any sense to me.  However, if this the consensus of the majority of riders that changes this debate considerably.

[timroz]

Hmmm.  Isn't the trail angel just like a convinience store?  What if someone opened a snack shop at Kenosha parking lot?

[Done]

@TobyGadd

Easy there, big fella. I can understand why you feel picked on, but I'm not picking on you. If you read my post again with the realization that I am not your enemy, you will see that I am agreeing with you that a fairly detailed ruleset be developed for races to protect the integrity of those races and their associated records.

I did not question your moral compass. I don't know you and I have no basis on which to question it. My comment was based on my own experiences and the experiences of my friends.

I also did not question what drew you to the sport. Your reasons are your own and I'm sure they are valid. I did say that as the sport grows people will have many and varied reasons for lining up to race, and that they may not be philosophically compatible with the "founders" reasons for lining up. Again, not aimed at you.

My observation that you are legalistic in your approach to endurance racing and in the tone of your posts is self evident in my opinion, based on your writing. I didn't make a value judgement about it, I just pointed it out and identified how other people reacted to it as an example of an approach that differs significantly from some of the old guard.

Again, if you will re-read what I wrote and compare it to how you quoted me your misunderstanding of my intent is obvious. I am not and was not attacking you.

Hi Mark,

I did re-read what you wrote, and it still comes of as pretty insulting. In that post, you first lay out a string of problems facing the sport, including the part of about "some people have stronger moral compasses," The second paragraph begins with "Take the OP as an example," and ends with, "he comes across as missing the entire point of the sport." Pretty hard not to take something like that personally.

But I'll take you at your word that I you meant something more general.

Not a terribly big fella, but generally easy-going,
Toby

[Pivvay]

I'm not sure a consensus will be reached but I feel like the internal support debate is good. If a ban is what's needed to keep things clear to newcomers of the sport, keep the rules simple and make things black and white then I'm all for it. That way you can still give support in an emergency which I would always do even if I got DQ'd but then it's clear of the outcome of taking a physical "something" from another racer. Pretty much the same "look/talk but don't touch" as the SPOT stalkers.

I may be bummed not to share a Twix but then again, if I knew I could have shared during my first Grand Loop things might have been different and that was sure a hard knock ride that in hindsight (waaaaay hindsight) I really treasure.

The CTR flat out cheating (preplanned shared sleep gear has zero excuse) does really bother me. Can anyone who saw things first hand please tell Stefan directly. That's a crappy position to be in but I think it's important that Stefan know and decide himself on relegation.

[Pivvay]

Hmmm.  Isn't the trail angel just like a convinience store?  What if someone opened a snack shop at Kenosha parking lot?

If they were selling hot dogs I'd me psyched! But selling implies taking money which they weren't doing in this case.

[DaveH]

Hmmm.  Isn't the trail angel just like a convinience store?  What if someone opened a snack shop at Kenosha parking lot?

Yet another fascinating question/scenario.  The trail Angel wasn't commercial - wouldn't accept $$ for anything, a snack shop presumably would.

However, what about the portability of the snack shop?  Say it was like one of those construction site lunch wagons.  It might only be there for 2 hours and thus not available to all racers - only those who passed by in that time frame.

Before this is dismissed as far-fetched, consider the roadside pulled pork wagon on 285 in CTR this year.  It got some business from CTR racers, but was it available to all?

Hair splitting at it's finest I 'spose.  Same could be said for store business hours.

[timroz]

If they were selling hot dogs I'd me psyched! But selling implies taking money which they weren't doing in this case.

  I bought a can of pringles from him.  $1.  So he was selling stuff as well as giving away free stuff.  He wouldn't take money for the cokes if I remember right.

[Pivvay]

Hmmm thanks Tim. Food for thought. I don't have problems with being "always" there as it's the same issue of store hours on the Divide. Not open? Keep going. Need food that bad? Wait and hope the owner shows up.

[DaveH]

I'm not sure a consensus will be reached but I feel like the internal support debate is good. If a ban is what's needed to keep things clear to newcomers of the sport, keep the rules simple and make things black and white then I'm all for it.

Great debate for sure.  I thought I had it figured out already but clearly we all have differing views on it.  Clarification for the newcomer can be had by going either way - allowing or disallowing internal support.  It does need to be explicitly covered though, and that I think is the most valuable aspect of this particular debate.

Anything in between (ie a gentleman's agreement) is simply too fuzzy.  Consider the case of 3 riders.  2 are riding together and stop trailside and share a twix.  The 3rd, riding solo, comes alongside the other 2 right as the sharing takes place.  It's legit according to the gentleman's agreement but that 3rd rider does not know if this was the first time, or if there was more than 500 calories shared.  So that 3rd rider is left wondering if he is riding amongst racers with no regard for the rules.  Intent is one thing, appearances count also.