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

[Chunt]

I think as long as a mandatory gear minimum per person is adhered to, I have no problem with sharing. I adventure raced for a few years and if the officials checked your bag for a specific listed tool or piece of gear during the race, you could be severely penalized or DQ'd if you didn't have it. The goal of course was to have every participant with a safety net of supplies in case they got caught out alone, or injured. If a couple of riders think that having one water filter or stove between the two of them is faster, then let them try it. My guess is they're going to spend as much time "sharing" as actually having it when they need it.

[Pivvay]

Chunt,

I don't think those things apply here. Each rider is supposed to be self sufficient and bring whatever they need. There is no required gear and there never will be. Riders (or teams in a few races) are supposed to travel self contained.

[Marshal]

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.

Shades of Grey......

During the CTR I ate a Nutter Bar from a trail side catch, man was it good, for the rest of the race I would have happily traded for another one

Anyway, in a earlier post in this thread I made a stab at writing a simple rule to cover ‘all the bases’ so to speak in this inside support debate.  I sort of like it, and since I wrote it I happen to know exactly what the rule's intent is.  However, I do think it’s difficult, if not impossible to write such a rule that is loophole proof for all racers.  Hence my vote for no sharing.

[Done]

My original question in the rules forum was driven by a discrepancy between the written rules (no sharing at all), and the events on the trail (sharing anything from a candy bar to an inhaler). Some people got pretty mad, because they though that I was saying that their sharing qualified as cheating (which was NOT my point). They stated that they weren't cheating because such sharing was customary and not changing the outcome of the race--which seems accurate enough. So why not just tweak the rule to reflect the accepted reality, which seemed to work pretty darn well?. Simply outlaw any sharing that provides a competitive advantage, and call it good. Anyone who's actually capable of riding an endurance race can probably figure out what constitutes an advantage, no?

[Majcolo]

Those who can't figure this out probably won't abide by ANY rules, regardless of how specific they are!

The only argument against this is there will always be people that will push the envelope in a race to gain every advantage they can squeeze into a potential grey area. Only a black and white rule has any hope of preventing that.

[Done]

The only argument against this is there will always be people that will push the envelope in a race to gain every advantage they can squeeze into a potential grey area. Only a black and white rule has any hope of preventing that.

To me, this is pretty darn clear: "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."

[bmike-vt]

Twizzlers make me go fast. A burst of sugar mid climb might be all I need to get over the top and carry on.

Reading all of this makes me feel like SS GITT's don't really know what they want to be when they grow up.

Is it a race? The rules should be pretty damned clear and exact.

Is it a ride? Different story.

Or more like a brevet?


Personally - I think its a bit of a joke that folks are arguing over this but 'working together' - sharing stategy, route info, intellectual repair help, local knowledge... etc. are acceptable. 

[DaveC]

A few things about which I'm pretty emphatic:

-You won't be able to clear up gray areas.  Ever.  While discussion and debate is very productive, going too far here is not.
-The term "Group Individual Time Trial" is asinine.  We're talking about races.  For some the competition is more external than internal, for others vice versa.  The concept of challenging yourself via the catalyst of others is the same.

For me the key is to start the race with the assumption that you'll be self-sufficient, physically.  At the same time, the very concept of a race includes the supposition that you'll be dependent, in some ethereal way, on others (in a mental way only).  Some times that's having a chaser make you go faster, sometimes it's suffering with someone and thus mutually easing the mental burden.  Everyone should pack enough food, but if I'm sitting under a tree in the heat of the day and want to share some Fritos with the guy I've been riding with for the last 9 hours, I'm going to do so.  While there is a physical element to the support here, the psychological support is far more salient. 

That element of psychological support exists already, so why parse it?  On the other hand, if someone goes into an event assuming and counting on getting food, direction, or help from others, that is grounds for a DQ.  (I'd hope they'd do it themselves, and that is another issue.)  If you go into an event not being confident in your ability to change a flat (which has happened), then you just need to check yourself.

(That's how'd I explain my thoughts on "every bike an island" Matt.)

My thoughts on banning phones and spots (except for emergencies) is based on Harris' arguments that technology and the transmission of information can be a game changer.  But that's an individual call, event by event.  I can see it becoming a valid aspect of strategy, though not one I can ever see embracing myself.

In the end I think it comes down to this:
There is only personal growth to be gained for this.  If you're whiling to fudge things and do an event under different rules than the official ones, what are your motivations?  If they're fame and internet bragging, then I pity you.

[Done]

Twizzlers make me go fast. A burst of sugar mid climb might be all I need to get over the top and carry on.

Then you'd have to DQ yourself because you "accepted an item that enhances your performance."

If you swapped someone a Twizzler for a Twix, then you didn't enhance your performance--so no DQ.

If the sharing rule makes a "performance" distinction, then people can follow it by using a little reason. It's really just explaining what's already occurring (without problems), so that new riders like myself understand what kind is sharing is OK, and what's not.

[Marshal]

A few things about which I'm pretty emphatic:

-You won't be able to clear up gray areas.  Ever.  While discussion and debate is very productive, going too far here is not.
-The term "Group Individual Time Trial" is asinine.  We're talking about races.  For some the competition is more external than internal, for others vice versa.  The concept of challenging yourself via the catalyst of others is the same.

For me the key is to start the race with the assumption that you'll be self-sufficient, physically.  At the same time, the very concept of a race includes the supposition that you'll be dependent, in some ethereal way, on others (in a mental way only).  Some times that's having a chaser make you go faster, sometimes it's suffering with someone and thus mutually easing the mental burden.  Everyone should pack enough food, but if I'm sitting under a tree in the heat of the day and want to share some Fritos with the guy I've been riding with for the last 9 hours, I'm going to do so.  While there is a physical element to the support here, the psychological support is far more salient. 

That element of psychological support exists already, so why parse it?  On the other hand, if someone goes into an event assuming and counting on getting food, direction, or help from others, that is grounds for a DQ.  (I'd hope they'd do it themselves, and that is another issue.)  If you go into an event not being confident in your ability to change a flat (which has happened), then you just need to check yourself.

For some the ‘term’ Group ITT seems somehow inexorably linked to the inside support question. Those who do not like, even denigrate the term ‘Group ITT’ also seem to be in agreement that sharing should be allowed? Not sure why this is or what the ‘link’ is?

I contend that whichever ‘term’ or label is used for a SS race has no bearing on the fact that inside support can easily rise to the level of ‘directly and unfairly’ impacting finishing positions.  I am still waiting for one concrete example to be given of how of this could be a good thing.  Or bty how allowing sharing can make the race ‘more’ of a race. 

Also the ardent supporters for sharing, when making their case, always seem to fall back on ‘comparing relative levels’ of impact with acknowledged but totally unrelated aspects of group race dynamics. Comparing the impact of sharing with the impact of rabbit motivation or safety nets, etc is not relevant to the issue of inside support.  And in doing so they conveniently never address the actual impact of sharing itself.

So once again, is it not evident that sharing can rise to the level of unfairly impacting finish results?  And hence the need for a rule to dis-allow or at least restrict it in a SS setting?

[SteveW]

... Everyone should pack enough food, but if I'm sitting under a tree in the heat of the day and want to share some Fritos with the guy I've been riding with for the last 9 hours, I'm going to do so.

On the other hand, if someone goes into an event assuming and counting on getting food, direction, or help from others, that is grounds for a DQ.  (I'd hope they'd do it themselves, and that is another issue.)

I see this as the essence of the problem. Some people are going to have no respect for the rules they personally don't think matter, or the situation elevates them above the rules. This might be simple as sharing some Fritos, but some people take the same attitude to far more serious rules.

I purely use this as an example, so sorry if I twist your words too far, but in once sentence you say you'll share the Fritos, against the rules or not. In another sentence you say you'd hope people would DQ themselves for rule breaking.

Well they won't if they think the rule doesn't matter to them. So if sharing food were strictly forbidden, would you DQ yourself after sharing those Fritos? Or would you still consider you'd raced honourably? Hypothetically proposed for thought provoking, not arguing.

EDIT: I need a new bike-riding project to fill my spare time

[DaveH]

For some the ‘term’ Group ITT seems somehow inexorably linked to the inside support question. Those who do not like, even denigrate the term ‘Group ITT’ also seem to be in agreement that sharing should be allowed? Not sure why this is or what the ‘link’ is?

Meh.  Didn't really envision this thread to become another rules thread.

The reason Marshal is that sharing between riders overwhelmingly is a minimal contribution to the overall experience in a race setting.  It is nothing when compared to the effects of the group.  I know I've said as much at least 10 times now.  There are probably better words to describe and I think DaveC used them but you didn't get his statements either.

Gonna answer the question I posed this AM?

[stevage]

>Riding together for safety, companionship and/or motivation is allowed.

I've never raced of any kind, so maybe someone can fill me in here...but surely riding together with someone for companionship and motivation would have a much bigger impact on the outcome of the race than borrowing a spanner or a snickers bar? Or are you all such hardened tough nuts that you're just as happy slogging along at 3am in the cold and wet alone as you are with another rider?

[DaveH]

>Riding together for safety, companionship and/or motivation is allowed.

I've never raced of any kind, so maybe someone can fill me in here...but surely riding together with someone for companionship and motivation would have a much bigger impact on the outcome of the race than borrowing a spanner or a snickers bar? Or are you all such hardened tough nuts that you're just as happy slogging along at 3am in the cold and wet alone as you are with another rider?

SOMEBODY GETS IT! 

Gold star to you, Stevage

[DaveH]

I see this as the essence of the problem. Some people are going to have no respect for the rules they personally don't think matter, or the situation elevates them above the rules. This might be simple as sharing some Fritos, but some people take the same attitude to far more serious rules.

Intelligent people have a hard time following stupid rules.

[Majcolo]

Intelligent people have a hard time following stupid rules.

With all due respect, that is a staggeringly arrogant response to SteveW's quote.

[DaveH]

With all due respect, that is a staggeringly arrogant response to SteveW's quote.

How so?

[Marshal]

Meh.  Didn't really envision this thread to become another rules thread.

The reason Marshal is that sharing between riders overwhelmingly is a minimal contribution to the overall experience in a race setting.  It is nothing when compared to the effects of the group.  I know I've said as much at least 10 times now.  There are probably better words to describe and I think DaveC used them but you didn't get his statements either.

Ouch

But I do ‘get’ the argument you have been making, honest, I really do, ie: minimal sharing has much less impact than say rabbit motivation. I’ve gotten the ‘relevant impact’ argument each time you, and others have made it and bty I have NEVER disagreed with that particular point.  

However when sharing is not minimal, when the effects are clearly tangible, when it has a real impact on the race results then doesn’t it need to be explicitly addressed?

And, for say the fifth or sixth time from this end, and ‘relevant impact aside’, can you or anyone else, explain how it’s fair to allow “significant” sharing  ie: sharing that does affect the outcome of the race?  No one has been able to so far…………….

And if significant sharing should not be allowed, how do we say so other than with some type of rule?  A simple no you can Not Share type rule has the advantage of simplicity and few gray areas. A qualified rule that allows ‘minimal sharing’ could also work; it’s just not as simple as ‘none’ as it opens up gray areas and might be a slippery slope for some.

Gonna answer the question I posed this AM?

Uhh, sure but which one?  I am getting a bit lost in all the joy.

[Majcolo]

How so?

Because you're justifying ignoring race rules, which destroys the integrity of the race?

[stevage]

Sounds like there are three basic scenarios you want to take into account:
1) pre-meditated teaming up: "you carry a water filter, I'll bring pump and tubes"
2) unexpected assistance: "whoa, that derailleur's screwed. here, I brought a spare" and "here, have some water, I have more than I need"
3) casual bonding: "check out this jerky I bought, you've got to try it!"

Seems that everyone agrees 1) is out. Most people think that 2) is out, or at least should dq the recipient (obviously you'd give water to someone who needed it - but they failed the test). 3) seems to be the grey area because it's hard to distinguish from 2).

Just trying to facilitate the analysis here.

I'd also point out that in many individual races, competitors temporarily help each other for their own gain - road cycling races are the obvious example with drafting. But it doesn't seem quite in the spirit of something like the GDR, so maybe you'd want some kind of time limit for how much time you spend with another competitor, like half an hour. From what I've read of people's accounts, it doesn't sound like people do that much anyway...it's always like "I saw Joe zoom past as I was settling down for a nap, so I didn't hang around too long".