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

[DaveH]

Lots of discussion on rider sharing in the rules thread.  Let's see what y'all really think.  Cast a vote and if you choose "to a limited degree" feel free to comment on what sort of solution you have in mind.

[Majcolo]

I voted not, but with the common sense caveat that if I help someone for health or safety reasons the recipient would be relegated but I would not.

[Marshal]

I voted not, but with the common sense caveat that if I help someone for health or safety reasons the recipient would be relegated but I would not.

ditto for me

[Mathewsen]

i voted it should be allowed to a limited degree as long as it's drinking and smoking.

[SteveW]

I voted not, but with the common sense caveat that if I help someone for health or safety reasons the recipient would be relegated but I would not.

I agree.

[Slowerthensnot]

I voted yes...  Because I like to share...

[naked indian]

I voted NO.

No sharing, self supported, unless there is a life threatening problem.

[wookieone]

man, that was hard! I voted no sharing, but it seems so draconian, so singleminded, but unless we can all agree to the degree that folks can share little bits, then nothing shared! Of course unless an emergency or willing to DQ oneself when you do take something. The whole thing is hard to swallow. Hope we all come out of this for the better! Peace Jefe

[Done]

i voted it should be allowed to a limited degree as long as it's drinking and smoking.

Those photos are absolutely hilarious!
I suppose that such sharing wouldn't give the recipient an advantage, so who can complain?

[Pivvay]

Just no amphetamine sharing! 


 

[Done]

Just no amphetamine sharing!

I read somewhere that everyone used amphetamines and weed on the CTR. Some guy even inhaled!

Just kidding!

[Marshal]

I voted ‘Not’ for simplicity, but is I were to organize a race and write a rule for sharing it would be along the lines of:

Riding together for safety, companionship and/or motivation is allowed. Sharing route intelligence is a personal choice and it’s neither encouraged nor discouraged.

However, the sharing between racers of tools, spare parts, stoves, sleeping kits (don’t ask) or any other Physical Item(s) is Not Allowed, with one exception.  It’s perfectly ok to ‘trade’ roughly equal amounts of calories.


Qualifiers:

Aiding a fellow racer in severe distress is encouraged, almost required, aiding a distressed rider in mechanical trouble is a personal choice, doing either will not affect your finish rank.  

A distressed rider, who receives aid from a fellow racer is encouraged to finish if possible, and can receive a finish ‘time’ but will not be ranked.

[DaveH]

Marshal - your vote doesn't reflect your response?

Votes can be changed at any time in this poll...

[DaveC]

I voted yes.

1) It's a group endeavor.  You're getting "help" by everyone elses presence anyway.  Purists do ITTs.
2) In my experience, making more rules makes it more likely that people will break them.  Hold folks to high expectations and by and large they'll meet them.
3) It's just stupid to create a situation where it might be "against the rules" to help someone change a flat or not go down the wrong road.  
4) Our country already labors under a vastly exaggerated picture of how independent humans actually are.  Lets try to avoid playing into the cowboy myth of every person an island.

PS
I would support a ban on cell phones and spots in any but emergency situations.

[Slowerthensnot]

Some Whiskey was shared on Konsoha pass this year....

It was my birthday...

It did lighten me up...

Shared with other riders other then racers as well.... 

packed that damn bottle over Georgia pass to breck   knob creek bottles are heavy!

[Mathewsen]

I voted yes.
1) It's a group endeavor.  You're getting "help" by everyone elses presence anyway.  Purists do ITTs.
2) In my experience, making more rules makes it more likely that people will break them.  Hold folks to high expectations and by and large they'll meet them.
3) It's just stupid to create a situation where it might be "against the rules" to help someone change a flat or not go down the wrong road.  
4) Our country already labors under a vastly exaggerated picture of how independent humans actually are.  Lets try to avoid playing into the cowboy myth of every person an island.
P.S. I would support a ban on cell phones and spots in any but emergency situations.

-while i agree with your first sentence in 4), i thought the whole idea for SS is 'every bike an island' (cowboy myth aside). if we decide SS is not an ethos that instructs us on how to interact with each other and is simply a guideline on how to pack for these events then that's OK with me. I'll still participate when I can unless I am gunning for a course record and want to avoid an asterisk.
-regarding 3) some suggest there are lots of those kinds of mountain bike races already.
-2) amen on this one. that's the balance we're striving for: too many rules vs. a don't ask-don't tell policy. though, curious as to why a phone ban if less rules is more and no man is an island? if purely philosophical, isn't that legislating experience?
-1) yep, i guess the "help" word is our crux to resolve. if we endeavor to prepare for these events alone, endeavor get to the start of these events (more often than not, alone), endeavor to advance our bikes on course alone, and more often than not we ride alone, it seems *most* everything about it is pretty self-motivated.

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in explicit discretion so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start lists to conduct themselves with valor as the suffer along slippery slopes.

[Done]

I like the idea of sharing the experience, with other riders, but not sharing stuff that is likely to affect the outcome--and this seems like a long-existing philosophical differentiation. Seems to me that swapping a Twix for a Kit Kat is part of the social experience, but borrowing a tube will affect the outcome.

How about a rule that just says something like:
Unplanned sharing of tangible items between riders is acceptable, but only if it does not affect the outcome of the race. Any rider who accepts an item that enhances his/her performance, or enables them to continue competing when they otherwise would be unable, will be disqualified or relegated. Recipients of tangible items are responsible for upholding the intent of this rule. A rider who gives such an item will not face any penalties.

This doesn't seem very far from how the 2009 CTR rules read, but perhaps a little clearer. I realize that, as a newbie, my input may not be welcome, so please disregard this if my attempt to juggle some words is overstepping my bounds.

[Slowerthensnot]

-while i agree with your first sentence in 4), i thought the whole idea for SS is 'every bike an island' (cowboy myth aside). if we decide SS is not an ethos that instructs us on how to interact with each other and is simply a guideline on how to pack for these events then that's OK with me. I'll still participate when I can unless I am gunning for a course record and want to avoid an asterisk.
-regarding 3) some suggest there are lots of those kinds of mountain bike races already.
-2) amen on this one. that's the balance we're striving for: too many rules vs. a don't ask-don't tell policy. though, curious as to why a phone ban if less rules is more and no man is an island? if purely philosophical, isn't that legislating experience?
-1) yep, i guess the "help" word is our crux to resolve. if we endeavor to prepare for these events alone, endeavor get to the start of these events (more often than not, alone), endeavor to advance our bikes on course alone, and more often than not we ride alone, it seems *most* everything about it is pretty self-motivated.

i am wondering what our goal with the GITT vs. ITT debate is really for anyway. Is it to see them as different enough to diverge their respective rules? Is it merely to decide which one produces the greatest individual accomplishment? if most agree the two are more similar than different, i humbly suggest we embrace the similarities over the differences and let it guide us in refining one set of rules for both. that is to say, minimize that which sets them apart. the majority of voices on the forum (albeit not representative of entire GITT start lists) are the ones most invested--in some cases even the ones organizing. why should these voices not be the ones to stipulate what markers GITT results reflect? if what shakespeare--or whomever he stole it from--is correct in saying, discretion is the better part of valor, then we may be better off legislating in explicit discretion so as to avoid trusting in the other 95% of start lists to conduct themselves with valor as the suffer along slippery slopes.

I feel as if this should really be left to the organizers to whatever event... Less is more to me on the whole rule issue and due to the fact that any set of rules is only going to please some of the people most of the time...

I like the idea of a template but i'm just not sure that it can be followed for some events...

I guess when it gets right down to it I'm doing these events for purely selfish reasons.... and damn its fun to get a bit of internet glory and or be in a magazine.  and to have finished SS style all the more better...  Integrity is doing the right thing one no one is looking...   I know this discussion is about what the "right things" are.

Maybe its just fall and we all need a way to burn off some extra energy

I gave Mary an Egg Mcmuffin right before the start of TD 08 and she had Brendan return the favor to before my ITT

I guess what i'm saying is i'll give far soon then i'd take on the trail...  

[Majcolo]

The only problem with that approach Toby is that we are back to grey areas, which I thought we were trying to eliminate. I am really failing to understand the attachment to trading candy bars.

[Done]

The only problem with that approach Toby is that we are back to grey areas, which I thought we were trying to eliminate. I am really failing to understand the attachment to trading candy bars.

I think that clearly defining the intent reduces gray areas, but I agree that it doesn't eliminate them. I personally don't think that it is necessary to share anything, including candy bars--so I don't mind a total ban. But a lot of people feel that social sharing is positive and harmless, and I don't mind that either. But it does seem like most people don't like the idea of sharing things that change the outcome. So why not just write a rule that both defines acceptable social sharing (stuff that doesn't effect the outcome) and unacceptable sharing (stuff that does effect the outcome). I think that most folks can be trusted to understand the distinction and abide by the intent, if the wording is clear enough. Yes, there could be some very minor gray areas (is swapping a Twix for a salty snack OK?), but who cares? Those who can't figure this out probably won't abide by ANY rules, regardless of how specific they are!