Sharing between riders in self-supported events: where do you stand?

[Stefan_G]

The specific examples included:
1. An inhaler. A rider was having trouble breathing at altitude, so another rider let him borrow an inhaler. Not planned. An interesting example for the added aspect of legality, since it's technically illegal to share prescription meds (although, especially as an asthmatic myself, I'd share my inhaler without hesitation--laws be damned!).
2. A rider was having freewheel/hub problems. Another rider stopped to help repair the hub. Not sure if this went beyond working on the problem together to include parts or not (doubt it, though). Probably an important distinction, so it might be worthwhile to also extend this to a hypothetical example to definitely include parts.
3. One rider used another rider's tent. Not pre-planned, as both riders clearly had their own sleeping gear.

Ah, I took your question quite literally as "trading" not "sharing/borrowing".  That is the exact distinction I was trying to make. 
While I think it should be quite obvious, just for the sake of clarity...

1. Not allowed.  While no one should ever hesitate to share meds or offer any other emergency assistance, rider requiring said assistance is out of the race.
2. Parts/tools borrowed?  Not allowed.  Help/communication/encouragement/advice.  Fine.
3. Not allowed.

It's worth mentioning that probably 75% or more of the CTR '09 field would be DQ'd/relegated (myself included) had this black and white rule been in place.

[Done]

It's worth mentioning that probably 75% or more of the CTR '09 field would be DQ'd/relegated (myself included) had this black and white rule been in place.

Understood. Might be good to add some more examples like this to the CTR FAQ next year. Obviously substitute the real-world examples for something very similar if possible (don't want anyone to feel singled out). Especially important since newbies will undoubtedly do as I did, which is look to 2009 blogs for direction and traditions, which will be outdated by then.

I think that it's interesting that those people writing the rules are actually making them somewhat stricter, not just clearer. Works for me though--just gotta be that much better prepared!

Thanks for being so direct, Stefan. You've brought a lot of civility and clarity to this discussion.

Cheers,
Toby

[DaveC]

Though sharing a candy with my riding buddy has far less outcome on the race than actually being in his company, I’ll forgo that experience if it means rules are clear and are not open to personal interpretation.

Quite simply, that's a sacrifice I'm not whiling to make.  It defeats a huge amount of the purpose.  Why not do a solo time trial?

[DaveH]

The portion of SteveW's post that you quoted was directed at people that put themselves above the rules for their own comfort or convenience. SteveW's post was condemning that sort of behavior; your response struck me as supporting it. Showing up for an event and then deciding which rules you will follow and which you won't is arrogant as hell.

You really need to ease up man.  I never ever said I condoned that sort of behavior. 

The point you are trying to make with that example is obvious, but it's been addressed repeatedly. I addressed it in the very first response to this thread. Exceptions for health or safety reasons are obvious.

Evidently my example was not that obvious 'cause you are off the mark.  It has to do with growth and change. 

I'm gonna steal MC's ice cream next time I see him for starting this GITT notion.

[DaveH]

It's worth mentioning that probably 75% or more of the CTR '09 field would be DQ'd/relegated (myself included) had this black and white rule been in place.

Wow.  75% or more!  Jefe and Owen are probably in the clear

That's a lot of food for thought.  Do you honestly think clamping down a rule set will provide for a better experience out there?

[Stefan_G]

Wow.  75% or more!  Jefe and Owen are probably in the clear

That was totally off-the-cuff, but I wouldn't be surprised  Maybe it really is a lot less.  Hopefully...  I don't think Owen even had any fellow racer interaction past about mile 35. 

That's a lot of food for thought.  Do you honestly think clamping down a rule set will provide for a better experience out there?

Well, I think the *overall* experience will be better.  Mid-race, we may be questioning the rules a bit, but when looking back and reminsicing, especially when learning the actions of others that may have been contrary to our own, I think clamping down the rules is for the best.  I'm still learning as we go along too, but I am very bothered at all the talk about the "back-of-the-pack" behavior in the '09 CTR.  I had put a lot of effort into making the rules and expectations clear, and apparently some people still didn't get it.  Anything we can do to simplify the rules and spell them out better so all racers know what they are getting into will make everyone happier in the end. 

By the way, thanks for the feather from above compliment.   That made me feel all "Awww, Shucksy..." 

[Done]

By the way, thanks for the feather from above compliment.   That made me feel all "Awww, Shucksy..." 

Well, I may retract anything nice I ever said about you after my fifth hour of hike-a-bike above 11,000 feet!

OK, more seriously, I am obsessed with riding the CTR next year. And you deserve credit for making this thing happen--and for providing me with such an awesome goal. When we happen to meet, the first beer's on me.

[Stefan_G]

Well, I may retract anything nice I ever said about you after my fifth hour of hike-a-bike above 11,000 feet!

Heh, heh.  Maybe.  Or maybe it won't happen until your twelfth hour of alpine hike-a-bike...

The feather compliment was actually from DaveH, but thanks for your compliment too!  Happy prepping and training for next year's CTR, and it's good to know that at least one rookie will be fully devoted to playing by the rules!  And the second beer's on me - only fair ya know.

[Majcolo]

You really need to ease up man.  I never ever said I condoned that sort of behavior.

As I said, it seemed out of character for you. I don't understand the point you were trying to make with that post.

Evidently my example was not that obvious 'cause you are off the mark.  It has to do with growth and change.

I actually went back and scanned both of these threads from the beginning, and I think (hope) I get where you're coming from now. Allow me to summarize and please point out if I miss the mark yet again:

You want to deal with the group nature of races vs ITTs by allowing (encouraging?) the kind of normal social interaction that takes place naturally on a non-competitive group ride, with the exception of drafting or preplanned sharing of gear. It moves us away from our SS roots, but you consider that a natural side effect of the growth of the sport and not a great loss to the sport. You also consider the fact that the average soloist is disadvantaged by this social interaction compared to the average rider with a riding partner or two to be a byproduct of the mass start nature of the event that can't be helped. Essentially, that if people want an ITT experience, don't race, do an ITT.

If I've got the gist of where you're coming from I'll just respectfully disagree with you, and obviously respect the rules of whatever event I am doing. I still believe mountain bikers can do brevets as honorably as roadies though.

Edit: One other thought. As the sport grows it's foreseeable that sponsorships will come. I know I saw an amino acid supplement ad touting "Colorado Trail Race Winner" Ethan Passant in the ad copy, along with his picture. When money starts to come into the sport, and especially the races, the credibility of the results and the records will begin to matter a lot more. Whatever we do now will set the tone for a long time.

I'm gonna steal MC's ice cream next time I see him for starting this GITT notion.

LOL. This "GITT notion" goes back well over 100 years. Bicycle Quarterly is filled with information on this stuff. Google Velocio. He was the man, and is really the father of what we do. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie, but this just scratches the surface of what the man did.

Edit 2:Third beer is on me.

[Mathewsen]

LOL. This "GITT notion" goes back well over 100 years. Bicycle Quarterly is filled with information on this stuff. Google Velocio. He was the man, and is really the father of what we do. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie, but this just scratches the surface of what the man did.

doh! you should have known better than to praise one of the sport's earliest champions of derailleur gears to DH. you just lost him. good linkey, though. i like de Vivie's 'code for the wise cyclist'.

[Marshal]

This "GITT notion" goes back well over 100 years. Bicycle Quarterly is filled with information on this stuff. Google Velocio. He was the man, and is really the father of what we do. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_de_Vivie, but this just scratches the surface of what the man did.

Thanks for that link, Paul de Vivie code for the wise cyclist --really hits home.

His code could be the ‘beginners’ guide to a multi day SS race..........

Cheers

[bmike-vt]

Nice to see Velocio worked in here. I mentioned RUSA and brevets as a good place to start back on page 1 of the 'rules' thread - with the aside that brevets are not races...

But - I think there is much in the spirit of those rules that would translate well. Especially adding Mr. V's spirit into the mix.

[bmike-vt]

And there are some things to consider with my post above - when riding a brevet it is poor form to not help another rider - so tube, patches, kevlar spoke, etc., calories, water is all good and expected. Working together is OK too, and drafting is OK if you aren't qualifying for something that bans it. But, as everyone is out to finish - they'll help within reason - if they are going to miss a cutoff or need their last patches... it is likely they will stop, chat, then roll on, hanging onto whay they deem they need to finish.

Seems you'd have to limit the helping part to not include equipment... But I'd hope it would be a choice that a needy rider could make -take the tube and I DQ myself (even if I'm on patch #10) or walk. This of course assumes that someone is around - and that they are willing to part with kit.

But brevets are not races - so adaptation would be needed. And folks fudge their way though even non competitive events - bending a breaking the rules. (At least from what I've seen from mid to back of pack)  


And, 1 of the goals or the shorter events is to draw in folks to ride more events - so helping a newb back of the pack is good karma. But it shouldn't lead down the path to support cars, sitting on someone's wheel for hours without reciprocating, etc. etc.

[DaveH]

doh! you should have known better than to praise one of the sport's earliest champions of derailleur gears to DH. you just lost him.

Oops.

That was an interesting read.  Thanks for the link Majcolo.

[DaveH]

As I said, it seemed out of character for you. I don't understand the point you were trying to make with that post.

Do we know each other?  Serious question.

OK I re-read what I wrote and quoted from Steve and see where you are getting the interpretation from.  The point is that we can't make an overly restricting set of rules and expect them to be upheld.  How does that 80's song go?  "Hold on loosely, don't let go, hold on too tightly your're gonna lose control".  The tighter the rules become the higher the non-compliance rate will be as they will cross individual riders' boundaries for what is just and what is excessive.  That sounds disgusting to me    .  We all do this cause we like to ride bikes (a lot).  Also keep in mind I'm an event organizer.  If I wasn't I'd have bailed this conversation long ago.

I actually went back and scanned both of these threads from the beginning, and I think (hope) I get where you're coming from now. Allow me to summarize and please point out if I miss the mark yet again:

Well...

The gist of that little story (the alligator law) was that a law was created based on some historical precedent back in the day and no longer applies, yet the law still exists since it has gone unchallenged for centuries.

Translation:  in 2004 (matt help me out here if I bungle dates/events, they are fuzzy to me) when MC & a few others started off on the GDMBR together the GITT concept made a lot more sense than it does today.  Back then there were what, 5 starters?  And they all had a role in the rule establishing process so lived and breathed them?  Today, there are events with big numbers and the participants have varying degrees of familiarity with the rules.   For many (not all!) they are a race, and ridden as such. Note the lack of the key word "solo" in the previous phrase.

It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission, right?  There's a reasonably clear trend is these races, so lets establish a rule set that allows riders to experience them in the manner they wish.  There is always the ITT.

Sponsored riders already do these events.  MC has been sponsored forever to some degree, as is Matt Lee.

I'm sure this is likely to leave more questions than answers.  Unfortunately I don't have all the answers, but that does not mean I cannot question the status quo.

[DaveH]

Dang.  Re-read your interpretation of my thoughts and I have not cleared it all up yet.  I will try again.

You want to deal with the group nature of races vs ITTs by allowing (encouraging?) the kind of normal social interaction that takes place naturally on a non-competitive group ride, with the exception of drafting or preplanned sharing of gear. It moves us away from our SS roots, but you consider that a natural side effect of the growth of the sport and not a great loss to the sport. You also consider the fact that the average soloist is disadvantaged by this social interaction compared to the average rider with a riding partner or two to be a byproduct of the mass start nature of the event that can't be helped. Essentially, that if people want an ITT experience, don't race, do an ITT.

I want the rules to acknowledge the group nature of races.  I want to define some gray areas of most current rules.  In no way does what I propose move us away from our "SS roots".  Our "SS roots" lie within the ITT...  Besides,  placing more responsibility on the rider (clarifying:  if there is no ban on rider sharing it is the responsibility of the rider to not abuse sharing.  Then again, it is really difficult to abuse said rule without premeditation) is the spirit of our genre. 

"You also consider the fact that the average soloist is disadvantaged by this social interaction"

...no way.  Social interaction is the wrong  term.  Motivational, psychological factors are what other riders provide in a race.

As for the final sentence in your quote above,  absolutely.   GITT is a synonym for race.

http://kaibabmonstercross.blogspot.com/2007/01/testing.html is a ruleset that has been in place trouble free for 3 years.  re-reading it is a kick in the junk, we are reinventing the wheel.

Hope that works for now.

[Majcolo]

Do we know each other?  Serious question.

No. But I'm one of those people that thinks if you read enough of what someone's written (non-fiction, of course) that you can get a reasonable estimation of their character.

I've been keeping up with your blog since early '08, and have read pretty much every post on this forum since it started. I *love* the canyon country and in addition to having done some riding there, I used to guide adventure travel trips in Bryce, Zion and the Grand Canyon. One of my cycling goals is to do your TU route in it's entirety from St. George to Moab, hence the blog stalking.

The tighter the rules become the higher the non-compliance rate will be as they will cross individual riders' boundaries for what is just and what is excessive.  That sounds disgusting to me.

This is a good point, and becomes much simpler to address if we let go of the idea of trying to keep a level playing field between soloists and non-soloists (a better term escapes me atm). I have been coming at this all along under the assumption that fairness between those two types of riders is of paramount importance. If that's not the case and the concensus is that limited cooperation between riders, not pure SS racing is the guiding principle of mass start events, I'd say we're done here. Interesting that the poll results seem to say that most people want the pure SS form of racing though.

There is always the ITT.

True. My ONLY beef with this is that it needs to be acknowledged that the times are not comparable between races and ITTs.

Sponsored riders already do these events.  MC has been sponsored forever to some degree, as is Matt Lee.

And good for them! My point was that if the integrity of the sport gets called into question existing and future sponsorships could be put at risk. I think it would be great for more people to be able make a living off this sport if they so chose.

Hope that works for now.

All good, thanks for clarifying.

[Marshal]

Reply #71 on: November 20, 2009, 02:04:44 AM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice to see Velocio worked in here. I mentioned RUSA and brevets as a good place to start back on page 1 of the 'rules' thread - with the aside that brevets are not races...

But - I think there is much in the spirit of those rules that would translate well. Especially adding Mr. V's spirit into the mix.
-------

And there are some things to consider with my post above - when riding a brevet it is poor form to not help another rider - so tube, patches, kevlar spoke, etc., calories, water is all good and expected. Working together is OK too, and drafting is OK if you aren't qualifying for something that bans it. But, as everyone is out to finish - they'll help within reason - if they are going to miss a cutoff or need their last patches... it is likely they will stop, chat, then roll on, hanging onto whay they deem they need to finish.
Seems you'd have to limit the helping part to not include equipment... But I'd hope it would be a choice that a needy rider could make -take the tube and I DQ myself (even if I'm on patch #10) or walk. This of course assumes that someone is around - and that they are willing to part with kit.
But brevets are not races - so adaptation would be needed. And folks fudge their way though even non competitive events - bending a breaking the rules. (At least from what I've seen from mid to back of pack) 
And, 1 of the goals or the shorter events is to draw in folks to ride more events - so helping a newb back of the pack is good karma. But it shouldn't lead down the path to support cars, sitting on someone's wheel for hours without reciprocating, etc. etc.

Sorry to all if I am continuing off topic….


I recognize the obvious overlaps between a GITT and a brevet.  They both involve bikes, long routes (are there multi-day brevets in the US?), finish times and enthusiastic participants.  But, just curious, are you suggesting more of a link that that? 

I have never done a brevet so and have no personal experience in that format.  But the no-entry fee, informal organization, remote dirt routes, SS-do it yourself–prepare as if you are by yourself aspect, combined with explicit, formalized (if debated) competition are what make the GITT attractive to me.  By definition the brevet seem to share none of these characteristics, at least to the same degree. (emphasis on ‘to the same degree’). 

Personally I think a full on ‘dirt’ brevet would be cool, group rides are usually fun and usually get competitive up front and look at the Trans Iowa, with it’s formal registration process and GPS ban, or the new Coconino Loop Race format with it’s ‘stage race’ and pre-arranged ‘group camping’ format. Room for lots & lots of formats imo, no reason they all have to be, or even should be the same

But back on topic……..
Is there some specific, critical rule set or aspect of brevets that you feel the ‘GITT format’ would benefit from? One that applies directly to the inside support debate?

[Stefan_G]

http://kaibabmonstercross.blogspot.com/2007/01/testing.html is a ruleset that has been in place trouble free for 3 years.  re-reading it is a kick in the junk, we are reinventing the wheel.

Yes, those are indeed nicely written.  #3 is great and appealing, but it's that damn gray area that comes with more and more participants that we seem to be having trouble with.

[Marshal]

Yes, those are indeed nicely written.  #3 is great and appealing, but it's that damn gray area that comes with more and more participants that we seem to be having trouble with.

This IS a well written rule set, [ http://kaibabmonstercross.blogspot.com/2007/01/testing.html ] and it captures my concept of a SS race (label it what you will) to a tee.

Unfortunately, as you recognized, this rule set also contains the same question mark we have been debating Ad nauseam

Ie: if you were not able or willing to follow rule #1 can you still be considered an official finisher?