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

[Majcolo]

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".

That's a fair assessment. The sport is rooted in the self-supported (SS) ideal. The debate is over how far away from that ideal we get for the purpose of pursuing our sport together instead of alone.

[DaveH]

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. 

Great!  Something we both acknowledge, perhaps agree on even.

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?

Shucks, it was too good to last.  The thing is, by starting in a group it's already muddled.  By starting in a group the effects are clearly tangible, it has real impact on race results.  Shouldn't we address this?

Yes, I'm using some of your phrases there for point of illustration.  What can 2 riders on the trail possibly do that is not fair to you?  If it's a solo competition it shouldn't matter what they do (to you).  From a race perspective the rider who stands to lose a riding partner may want to keep that partner.  Does that make it unfair if (s)he can actually help and keep her going?  Is it fair to her that she can't help him when she has the ability to do so?

It's not a rule change - it's a rule clarification.  In reality it represents no change (TD excepted).

Aside from that, you are focused on outliers.  The intent of the rule would be to keep it as it has always been - there is no pre-planned sharing.  Do you really, really want to make that decision for racers a priori?  It's a tough spot to be in for all involved.  IOW it's one of those learning/personal growth potentials we all seek out there. 

The riders involved should bear the brunt of decision making here, not bored racers in november.

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…………….

Tell ya what.  I'll agree to a rider sharing ban if we ban the group.



 

[DaveH]

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

? because you aren't sure?  That's not where I thought you were going with it - but OK.

There's a law that says you can't kill an alligator in a saloon in Florida past 6pm.  Then in comes a man-eating alligator at 6:01PM and proceeds to swing his jaws about.  Being an intelligent guy, I kill that beast and save the saloon patrons, knowing that law was made in more pristine times and has overgrown it's use.

Have I just torn down the US legal system or provided impetus for change?

"change is hard to stop.  It's how you deal with it that matters" - Matt Lee

[Majcolo]

? Nah, just feeling a little thick from a head cold I picked up from my friend's 3 year old.

Deciding to ignore a rule, or place yourself above a rule just because you don't like it or it's inconvenient to your momentary whim is arrogant.

Using an absurd example as a straw man is simply poor debating technique.

The thing is, by starting in a group it's already muddled.  By starting in a group the effects are clearly tangible, it has real impact on race results.  Shouldn't we address this?

We are attempting to. A race is defined by its rules, and the point of the rules is to create an even playing field to the degree it is possible to do so.

What can 2 riders on the trail possibly do that is not fair to you?  If it's a solo competition it shouldn't matter what they do (to you).  From a race perspective the rider who stands to lose a riding partner may want to keep that partner.  Does that make it unfair if (s)he can actually help and keep her going?  Is it fair to her that she can't help him when she has the ability to do so?

If your position is that the benefit of riding with someone has such an impact that the impact from rider sharing would be immaterial, why limit rider interaction at all? Soloists are already at a material disadvantage under your theory so why not just limit your template to numbers 1,3,4 and 7?

Aside from that, you are focused on outliers.

No, the focus is on eliminating grey areas and levelling the playing field between soloists and "teams".

[DaveC]

An example:

-I started the KTR in '08 with more than enough food to make the ride
-I rode the last 80 miles with Geoff Roes and Fred W.
-Geoff and I ran out of water in rabbit valley around 2pm (dumbass)
-We both suffered like dogs trying to keep up with Fred going up and down to Salt Creek
-We both treated water and sat in the creek while Fred pushed on
-We shared some food sitting under a tree before that damn hike up to Marys
-Fred finished a good 30-40 minutes before us
-I dropped Geoff on the final descent on Marys and rolled in maybe a minute ahead of him

If Fred or Geoff had gotten a flat or other mechanical in rabbit, I would've helped them. 
Fred probably would've given us water, but we didn't ask.
The psychological support of having them to talk with, chase, and be around was worth much more than any physical contingency.

[DaveH]

Deciding to ignore a rule, or place yourself above a rule just because you don't like it or it's inconvenient to your momentary whim is arrogant.

WTF are you going on about here?

Using an absurd example as a straw man is simply poor debating technique.

It is extraordinarily relevant, can't believe you didn't get it.  Take another crack at it, don't sell yourself short.

If your position is that the benefit of riding with someone has such an impact that the impact from rider sharing would be immaterial, why limit rider interaction at all? Soloists are already at a material disadvantage under your theory so why not just limit your template to numbers 1,3,4 and 7?

I'm just going to pretend you didn't suggest that.

[Stefan_G]

I've been thinking about this to myself a lot and I voted sharing between riders should NOT be allowed.

IMO, the key word here is sharing (interchangable with borrowing in this context).  No sharing gear, no sharing food.  No sharing of any tangible item, which incidentally, should include light.

Now to make the distinction;  like-for-like food trading should be allowed.  Snickers for a Twix?  Fine.  Fritos for some twizzlers?  Groovy.  Chipotle burrito for a Jolly Rancher?  No way, Jose.  Yes, some gray area, but not much.

This eliminates sharing of all gear, which is what I think should be the case for SS racing: bring it or do without.  This also leaves room for the harmless trading of a twix for a snickers, a cig for a joint, or a beer for a shot of whiskey.

[Marshal]

The thing is, by starting in a group it's already muddled.  By starting in a group the effects are clearly tangible, it has real impact on race results.  Shouldn't we address this?

Humm I suspect we are.

Yes, I'm using some of your phrases there for point of illustration.  What can 2 riders on the trail possibly do that is not fair to you?  If it's a solo competition it shouldn't matter what they do (to you).

Do to ‘me”?  I am talking about rules that affect race results in general.   

From a race perspective the rider who stands to lose a riding partner may want to keep that partner.  Does that make it unfair if (s)he can actually help and keep her going?  Is it fair to her that she can't help him when she has the ability to do so?

Even without the almost sarcastic play on my word’s, if you were to truly carry this argument to its logical end you would be advocating allowing team work, and we both know you are not

It's not a rule change - it's a rule clarification.  In reality it represents no change (TD excepted).

Aside from that, you are focused on outliers.  

Yes its about rule clarification and also the reason(s) behind the need for clarification.  And bty, I am not the only one who was under the impression that sharing between riders was contrary to SS racing in events other than the TD.  That’s just one of the reasons this topic keeps going, kind of like the energizer bunny.
I may have used some outliers for illustration purposes but do not recall any off the top of my head.  Which of my un-reasonable outliers did you have in mind?  Anyway, I am focused on reaching an inside support rule that’s equitable for all the racers involved,

Do you really, really want to make that decision for racers a priori?  It's a tough spot to be in for all involved.  IOW it's one of those learning/personal growth potentials we all seek out there.  

The riders involved should bear the brunt of decision making here, not bored racers in november.Tell ya what.  I'll agree to a rider sharing ban if we ban the group.

Sorry I lost your point here, IOW my dictionary has to many meanings for ‘priori’  And yes it is snowy around here and I am waiting for a new frame .... but I thought I was an involved rider. 

[Marshal]

Quote from: trail717 on November 18, 2009, 06:31:30 PM
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…………….

Tell ya what.  I'll agree to a rider sharing ban if we ban the group.

So that’s a pass I guess?  Anyone else want to take a shot?  It’s a toughie because there does not seem to be any rational reason to allow inside support that rises to the level of affecting the results in a SS race.

Tell ya what, I’ll agree to change my vote to allow any and all sharing if someone can give a reasonable answer to my question.

[Marshal]

I've been thinking about this to myself a lot and I voted sharing between riders should NOT be allowed.

IMO, the key word here is sharing (interchangable with borrowing in this context).  No sharing gear, no sharing food.  No sharing of any tangible item, which incidentally, should include light.

Now to make the distinction;  like-for-like food trading should be allowed.  Snickers for a Twix?  Fine.  Fritos for some twizzlers?  Groovy.  Chipotle burrito for a Jolly Rancher?  No way, Jose.  Yes, some gray area, but not much.

This eliminates sharing of all gear, which is what I think should be the case for SS racing: bring it or do without.  This also leaves room for the harmless trading of a twix for a snickers, a cig for a joint, or a beer for a shot of whiskey.

I advanced a similar argument earlier as a discussion point, but arguments aside, the more I think about it, the more I like this solution.  It pretty much eliminates the gray and personally I like the idea of being able to enhance the congeniality of a race break with some food ‘trading’.  The only real problem I have with trading food is I am so slow there is rarely anyone around to trade with….

[DaveH]

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…………….

So that’s a pass I guess?  Anyone else want to take a shot?  It’s a toughie because there does not seem to be any rational reason to allow inside support that rises to the level of affecting the results in a SS race.

Tell ya what, I’ll agree to change my vote to allow any and all sharing if someone can give a reasonable answer to my question.

You mean to say you haven't been convinced....  My argument abstractly goes well "above" your concrete question.  I've spent waaaay too much time tying to present it with concrete examples, and DaveC illustrates a real race example. 

You don't agree with it, that's fine. 

[DaveH]

Stefan, not sure how you do it.  Your post settles softly on the shoulder like a feather floating from above - with a smile.

While I don't agree with everything about your proposal, it is infinitely better than the black and white cases.

[DaveH]

Clearing up misunderstandings.  Ah, a lovely way to start the day.

Do to ‘me”?  I am talking about rules that affect race results in general.

Take yourself out of it then.  It's a good question.

 
Even without the almost sarcastic play on my word’s, if you were to truly carry this argument to its logical end you would be advocating allowing team work, and we both know you are not

Not advocating team work and I don't believe for a NY second that's the logical end of this reasoning.  The logical end is free agency and personal  growth.

I may have used some outliers for illustration purposes but do not recall any off the top of my head.  Which of my un-reasonable outliers did you have in mind? 

Never said they were unreasonable - but it's what you've chosen to focus on.  Rider sharing that changes results is what I'm referring to.

Sorry I lost your point here, IOW my dictionary has to many meanings for ‘priori’  And yes it is snowy around here and I am waiting for a new frame .... but I thought I was an involved rider. 

Involved riders = 2 riders on the trail.  The point is that a sharing ban removes any ethical decisions for those riders.

[daveB]

I voted "limited degree" and suggest the following text:

Sharing of equipment is prohibited.

That should make very clear what the rules are regarding hangars, tubes, tools, and batteries.  There is no comment regarding food or water.  Barring ALL equitably reciprocated snack trading seems a bit antisocial and draconian, it would only serve simplicity and clarity.  However, I think that concerns about more significant water and food sharing are overstated.  If its really a race, am I really going to want to lug along more food or water than I think I truly need?  I don't think so.  I NEED what I've got.  The amount of extra food and water I have is going to be limited to an amount that I sincerely doubt would have any effect on the race outcome.

I guess I'd rather accept an insignificant variance in race outcome to permit a jerky tasting.

An additional clause I think is necessary to allow for emergency equipment donations...recipient is relegated, donor not.

[Majcolo]

WTF are you going on about here?

I knew I should have just gone to bed last night.

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.

It also seemed out of character for you, which is why it generated such a strong response from me.

It is extraordinarily relevant, can't believe you didn't get it.  Take another crack at it, don't sell yourself short.

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.

I'm just going to pretend you didn't suggest that.

A bit facetious perhaps, but it seems the logical end of your line of reasoning. Reading further this morning however...

The logical end is free agency and personal growth.

Involved riders = 2 riders on the trail. The point is that a sharing ban removes any ethical decisions for those riders.

My response to this is, "not really," as evidenced by your story of your first KTR and all the anecdotal stuff floating around about back of the pack cheating at last year's CTR. There are plenty of ethical decisions for riders to make.

In writing a template I am more concerned with protecting the integrity of the races and the race results, and protecting the ethical riders to the degree possible from the unethical ones. The most efficient way to do that is to make the rules black and white, crystal clear, near zero grey areas.

[Done]

I've been thinking about this to myself a lot and I voted sharing between riders should NOT be allowed.

IMO, the key word here is sharing (interchangable with borrowing in this context).  No sharing gear, no sharing food.  No sharing of any tangible item, which incidentally, should include light.

Now to make the distinction;  like-for-like food trading should be allowed.  Snickers for a Twix?  Fine.  Fritos for some twizzlers?  Groovy.  Chipotle burrito for a Jolly Rancher?  No way, Jose.  Yes, some gray area, but not much.

This eliminates sharing of all gear, which is what I think should be the case for SS racing: bring it or do without.  This also leaves room for the harmless trading of a twix for a snickers, a cig for a joint, or a beer for a shot of whiskey.

Hi Stefan,
If this rule were in place for 2009, would the specific examples of real-world trading that were mentioned early in the "rules" thread be allowed or not? I'm asking because it doesn't seem that different from the rule that WAS in place for 2009 (aside from the specific allowance for like-food swapping), and the trading that took place then was accepted. Again, I'm truly not picking on anyone, I'm just trying to understand how the proposed rule change might be applied in real-life circumstances. Since we have some solid examples, it might be useful to look at them rather than random (and often improbable) hypothetical examples. Last but not least, I'm not advocating for either position (sharing vs no sharing).

[SteveW]

I wished to stay out of this from here, but to defend Mark (Majcolo).

Three phrases in this world I really dislike hearing:

1. Intelligent people don't like stupid rules.
2. The world/life isn't fair, get over it.
3. Rules are meant to be broken.

All three are untrue. The truth is those using these phrases are using them to justify their selfish actions.

Integrity is about abiding by rules, even if you think they are stupid. Not just cherry picking the ones you think relevant, and rising above the ones you have disregard for. Dave, you took offence at the rider drafting you, but maybe he did read the rules but just thought, ‘intelligent people don’t like stupid rules.’

The alligator analogy is off the mark. The action of shooting the alligator of course would be deemed by those around the shooter as necessary for their well being. If the law took action they would defend the shooter and petition against any penalty. However if the rules were against sharing, and a racer was swapping food with his buddy at the side of the trail, and other racers came past and witnessed it, they would think the sharers were well out of order. In this case those riders observing the sharing would petition for the race director to take action against the sharers. Socially UNacceptable, and socially acceptable. Big difference.

Different people have different ideas and considerations for rules – either they consider themselves completely above them, or consider they can twist the meaning enough to take the p1ss. This is the reason the rules have to be black and white and simple, without detailing several hundred types of candy-bar trade that are acceptable, and ones that are not. Not least for clear and decisive action to be taken when rules are broken, without months of ‘emotional discussions’ over wording after the race. Nobody enjoys that.

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. Personal interpretation that leads to some racers gaining not only mentally from riding companions, but also from physical sharing kit, or wherever it may lead to in the future. I can’t think of examples now, but rest assured by this time next year somebody will have broken the intent of them. I just want to keep it all as close to fair for the riders on their own as possible.

[Marshal]

I voted "limited degree" and suggest the following text:

Sharing of equipment is prohibited.

That should make very clear what the rules are regarding hangars, tubes, tools, and batteries.  There is no comment regarding food or water.  Barring ALL equitably reciprocated snack trading seems a bit antisocial and draconian, it would only serve simplicity and clarity.  However, I think that concerns about more significant water and food sharing are overstated.  If its really a race, am I really going to want to lug along more food or water than I think I truly need?  I don't think so.  I NEED what I've got.  The amount of extra food and water I have is going to be limited to an amount that I sincerely doubt would have any effect on the race outcome.

I guess I'd rather accept an insignificant variance in race outcome to permit a jerky tasting.

An additional clause I think is necessary to allow for emergency equipment donations...recipient is relegated, donor not.

Prohibiting equipment sharing, but allowing some type of food sharing works for me.  And dittio on the emergency clause.

I think ‘equipment’ sharing is the most likely way for sharing to impact race results. Ie: you forget to zip up your bag at a rest stop, lose your chain breaker and then need it 30+ miles later, you can finish the story…(most of us, even the well prepared, have forgotten to re-zip a bag on a long ride)

Food on the other hand can only be ‘used’ by one person.  Most carry just enough, with maybe a small reserve, to get to the next re-supply.  Giving away enough calories to impact race results could happen but is less likely.  One exception that quickly comes to mind is this yr’s CTR, many were very worried about carrying enough food to make it through a long remote stretch. The bail out to re-supply was at the bottom of a mountain pass. It’s easy to imagine how sharing even one meal’s worth of food could make or break a racer’s actual ‘complete route’ finish in that situation.

Personally I like the idea of allowing trading ‘roughly equal calories’.  It maintains simplicity and clarity.  If two riders trade a bit of food it’s most likely a ‘social’ exchange and not a 'bail out.’  Over time it could even turn into a fun little bonding SS race ritual. Set aside a little ‘goodie’ to trade away at a rest stop at the top of a long difficult climb…In a very small way such  ‘trading' might even enhance the whole experience.

[Stefan_G]

Hi Stefan,
If this rule were in place for 2009, would the specific examples of real-world trading that were mentioned early in the "rules" thread be allowed or not?

I don't recall the exact examples of trading.  Should be simple though - was food traded?  Fine.  Gear traded or borrowed?  Not fine.   

[Done]

I don't recall the exact examples of trading.  Should be simple though - was food traded?  Fine.  Gear traded or borrowed?  Not fine.   

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.

These are just the examples that have already been mentioned in this forum. Others have been alluded to, but these three are already "out there," and were presumably acceptable last year. Again, I think that they are worth using to compare against future rule changes/updates because they reflect real-world behavior, not random hypothetical examples. Further, they represent three different types of sharing (although not, unfortunately, shared food--which seems to be a major focal point at the moment).

I feel like I should say it again, although I'm sounding like a broken record: I'm NOT using these examples to pick on anyone. Indeed, they make excellent examples for the very reason that they were deemed acceptable by the race organizer and participants in this discussion--while also seeming to fall into gray areas, especially for a newbie.