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

[Majcolo]

The main reason for my bringing up randoneuring (brevets and permanent routes) is the issue of integrity. In my personal experiece doing them and in all the blog accounts I've read, etc. following the rules and self-relegating is a point of pride. I see that same pride in the current crop of respected elders in this sport, but obviously the integrity of those elders hasn't translated to the unwashed masses that are now showing up to participate. We also don't have the benefit of 100 years of tradition. It's up to us to set the tone for this sport.

I've been kind of a hard ass about grey areas in these discussions because it seems like even with rules that have been crystal clear from day one (no drafting), a significant number of people just ignore them. In that kind of atmosphere I lean heavily toward wanting rules that are crystal clear, and wanting to avoid grey areas like the plague. I want easy, unambiguous enforcement of the rules. I want the rules template to be a tool to raise the level of integrity in the sport, and not to provide more opportunities to cheaters. I concede that may be idealistic, but dream big, right?

I like the KMC ruleset, because it goes a step further and says if you're going to work as a team, declare it. Totally cool. That kind of thing shows up in the records, and no one with any sense is going to compare a soloist's time with the time of a team effort. I think a strong argument can be made for a template that includes two classes for each race: a team bracket and a soloist bracket.

Anyway I'm rambling and rushing because I need to get back to work. Sorry for the stream of consciousness post.

[bmike-vt]

I agree. I don't think a literal translation of the rules are needed - but the spirit and tradition with some overlap of rule concepts that might apply.

I'm not a fast finisher - but I do see plenty of pride (and take) in following to the T the spirit and the letter.

 

[dream4est]

No sharing for large group events like the CTR. It is too open to interpretation to have any level of sharing.

Take my example in the "rules" thread about CTR night #1 (two bikes on the ground and one tarp/sleep kit). What really happened there? Was is a case of clear pre-planned teamwork? Or maybe they "interpreted" the rules to legitimize the sharing that night? Whatever happened other people saw the sharing and had it an affect on them (however slight that may have been). It was discussed the next morning by other racers.

Sharing should be disallowed at all large group ITT races/events. Same with cell phones, trail magic, drafting and of course pre-planned support. IMO all of these concepts have vague rules surrounding them that allow for grey areas.

I could see allowing cell phones just to call mtbcast, but for the CTR the pay phones work at Copper Mtn, Buena Vista and Silverton so no cell phones are needed really.

Events without the big turnout- I would say most of my opinons/points would be moot. More integrity in the smaller group ITT's IMO.


Mark C.

[Done]

I could see allowing cell phones just to call mtbcast, but for the CTR the pay phones work at Copper Mtn, Buena Vista and Silverton so no cell phones are needed really.

Glad to hear that existing phones work fine for you. But they aren't enough for everyone.

Rules should focus on banning things that affect the outcome of the race, not things that could be misused to affect the outcome. In other words, ban race-related cell phone calls; but don't ban cell phones.

Banning cell phones because someone might break the rules and use one to make a race-related call is like banning water because someone might share it with another rider. Maybe we should ban thumbs, because the could potentially be used for hitchhiking? Or perhaps riders should wear earplugs, lest they happen to overhear conversations from other trail users that might reveal who's in what position?

If we can't trust riders to use their cell phones properly, then we can't trust them to follow any other rules either. Again, ban specific behavior that improperly affects the outcome of the race, and then let everyone do their own thing.

[dream4est]

Glad to hear that existing phones work fine for you. But they aren't enough for everyone.

Rules should focus on banning things that affect the outcome of the race, not things that could be misused to affect the outcome. In other words, ban race-related cell phone calls; but don't ban cell phones.

Banning cell phones because someone might break the rules and use one to make a race-related call is like banning water because someone might share it with another rider. Maybe we should ban thumbs, because the could potentially be used for hitchhiking? Or perhaps riders should wear earplugs, lest they happen to overhear conversations from other trail users that might reveal who's in what position?

If we can't trust riders to use their cell phones properly, then we can't trust them to follow any other rules either. Again, ban specific behavior that improperly affects the outcome of the race, and then let everyone do their own thing.

I am in the same boat as you Toby. I use my phone to run my business. But that has nothing to do with the CTR. I am willing to promote a rule I do not feel is necessary, and can impact my business, in order to provide a better framework for future CTR's. People were using cell phones improperly, drafting, sharing gear and calling just about everything "trail magic" in '09. I cannot prove 100% that anyone was actually using pre-planned support, but I have some serious doubts on that topic as well.

Think about it this way Toby. Having a rule allowing non-race-related phone calls means you or I could be DQ'd during a business call because the client mentioned a storm heading our way. Instant DQ in three seconds before you or I could hang up the phone. All phone calls allowed or none allowed is the best way to go. No grey areas. People were using cell phones in 09 to track other racers and IMO they were used to reserve hotel rooms and get weather forecasts.



Sorry to get the topic off-base- now back to the sharing of the twixes and such.


Mark C.

[Done]

I am willing to promote a rule I do not feel is necessary, and can impact my business, in order to provide a better framework for future CTR's.

Adding rules that ban irrelevant behavior is NOT making a better framework for anything.

People were using cell phones improperly, drafting, sharing gear and calling just about everything "trail magic" in '09.

No kidding. But note that they were ignoring existing rules that were extremely clear. Some people will cheat and willfully bend rules that do affect the outcome of the race. Unless you want to dig into their gear and take away their cell phones, people who want to use them to cheat will continue to do so. Preventing people like us from taking business calls isn't going to stop them, is it?

Having a rule allowing non-race-related phone calls means you or I could be DQ'd during a business call because the client mentioned a storm heading our way. Instant DQ in three seconds before you or I could hang up the phone.

Yes, that could happen--and it would suck. It's a risk that I'm going to have to take. If I can't control my calls, I lose and self-relegate/DQ.

CTR rules and traffic laws have a lot in common. Traffic laws set the the speed limit, and it's my responsibility to drive according to that limit. Likewise, CTR rules state that I'm not allowed to receive outside assistance, and it's my responsibility to abide by that limit. Pretty much the same, right? But note that the government doesn't ban me from owning a car that can go 200+ MPH--even though it could potentially result in violating the speed limit. Likewise, I don't expect the CTR to ban me from using my cell phone to make business calls--even though carrying a phone could allow me to break the rules.

By your logic, we'd all be prevented from owning steak knives because they could potentially be used to murder someone--even though most of us use them for non-murder-related purposes.

Give me my cell phone, or give me death! FREEDOM!

[DaveH]

Cell phones have no place in bike races and should banned outright.     C'mon Toby let's go!

Easy now, just kidding. 

Mark, I totally hear you.  In '06 MC was so disgusted with what went on at KTR he just said fuck it to the whole shebang and in an instant what was a super catalyst of an event was vaporized and sent underground.  There were 56 starters that year IIRC...

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that clamping the rules down tight will not bring about the change you'd like to see.  If folks are clearly breaking rules now, how will more rules help?  It sounds like some of the things you saw were not even in the gray.  How will more rules make any change at all?

I have to think what you saw was the result of folks not understanding the rules - or perhaps they were not even part of the race.  Perhaps we need to find ways to either make sure the genre is understood, or discourage those who can't play according to its tenets. 

[DaveC]

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

Thanks for the compliments Marshall, and everyone else.  I know a lot (lot) more about this then I did back in January of 2007 when I wrote that, and it still holds up ok.

I see that gray area in #3 as irreconcilable, and was and am prepared to live with it.  If that event ever has 60 starters, that would be more complex.

As for someone who broke the rules, I'd just encourage them to be honest, but I'd have a very hard time taking anyone off the finishers roster against their will.  I suppose I'll have to cross that bridge if I get there, but for me recognizing the integrity in people and assuming the best is a big deal. 

In the end being a "race organizer" means little more than having the password to a website.  The people who have ridden it over the years have as much a right to the event and it's aura as I do.

The team rule was added a year ago, at the separate suggestions of DaveH and BrianB.  I like it: start as a team, finish as a team.  That aspect is becoming more and more appealing to me as time goes by, though I do have days when suffering alone is good fun too.

[Done]

Cell phones have no place in bike races and should banned outright.     C'mon Toby let's go!

You wouldn't hit a rookie, would you Dave? 

Here's the device that I'm gonna bring:
http://www.flixxy.com/sumsing-turbo-3000-cellphone.htm

That tire-inflation feature rocks! And anyone who tries to deprive me of my phone will suffer the fate of the reprobate at the end...

[dream4est]

Cell phones have no place in bike races and should banned outright.    C'mon Toby let's go!

Easy now, just kidding.  

Mark, I totally hear you.  In '06 MC was so disgusted with what went on at KTR he just said fuck it to the whole shebang and in an instant what was a super catalyst of an event was vaporized and sent underground.  There were 56 starters that year IIRC...

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that clamping the rules down tight will not bring about the change you'd like to see.  If folks are clearly breaking rules now, how will more rules help?  It sounds like some of the things you saw were not even in the gray.  How will more rules make any change at all?

I have to think what you saw was the result of folks not understanding the rules - or perhaps they were not even part of the race.  Perhaps we need to find ways to either make sure the genre is understood, or discourage those who can't play according to its tenets.  

DH I have to agree that some people did not appear to understand the rules at the 09 CTR. That is no excuse. I was a rookie in 07 and played fair. I was the whole back of the pack that year though!

I guess I will just actually train this year so I can stay ahead of the 2010 CTR rear peleton and maybe keep up with Marshal! No more junk food, Jack Daniels and weed diet. But I will still micro-huck all the time and no way I am getting my power meter/hr monitor train on.

Dave the real irony of what I saw in the 09 CTR was that no one who "bent" the rules even came close to an official finish. Looking for loopholes meant quitting was not far behind.

Mark C.

[Marshal]

Thanks for the compliments Marshall, and everyone else.  I know a lot (lot) more about this then I did back in January of 2007 when I wrote that, and it still holds up ok.

I see that gray area in #3 as irreconcilable, and was and am prepared to live with it.  If that event ever has 60 starters, that would be more complex.

As for someone who broke the rules, I'd just encourage them to be honest, but I'd have a very hard time taking anyone off the finishers roster against their will.  I suppose I'll have to cross that bridge if I get there, but for me recognizing the integrity in people and assuming the best is a big deal. 

In the end being a "race organizer" means little more than having the password to a website.  The people who have ridden it over the years have as much a right to the event and it's aura as I do.

The team rule was added a year ago, at the separate suggestions of DaveH and BrianB.  I like it: start as a team, finish as a team.  That aspect is becoming more and more appealing to me as time goes by, though I do have days when suffering alone is good fun too.

Just curious, why do you see gray in #3 that is irreconcilable?  Seems to me the question mark is really in rule #1.

And it seems the uncertainty of allowing or dis-allowing inside support could be cleared up with a few words in #1.

You could make it clear that inside support IS allowed in the KMC, as an example you could add to #1 something like the last sentence:

1) You are physically on your own. All food, water, and supplies must be either carried by you alone, purchased from a store off-route, or filtered from in situ sources along the course. No "coincidental" prearranged support, psychological or physical. If you bonk, get lost, or have a major mechanical or injury, have the knowledge, wherewithall, and ability to get yourself found and saved without the assistance of others. That said you can accept help from a fellow racer to successfully finish the race.


 PS: I like the team rule also, with the tandem in the TD and Lynda and Dave teamed in the KMC it looks like we now have two SS categories.

[DaveH]

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.

Cool.  That TU is a goal of yours somehow makes this process that much more valuable.  Canyon country does indeed rock!

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.

That's pretty much the point I've been espousing.  The differentiation between "soloists and non-soloists" within a race is immaterial since everyone presumably starts together.  If folks ride together it's their choice (or results of similar ability level) - and another reason one may prefer to do a race in the first place.  Or do you mean ITT vs GITT rider?  I recognized those as different years ago...fair comparisons?  Well, they are different but we compare them 'cause we can.  I'll embrace the difference.

Caution is needed in interpreting the poll results as it suffers from polling a certain slice of folks...those reading this forum.  I was thinking how interesting it is that the vote is so divided.  I didn't really expect that.  But again, polling less than 10% of riders and only those invested enough to read this forum may or may not be representative of the entire SS crowd.

The pure issue:  subjectivity rules the day here.  It is going to mean something different for everyone.  We talk about the ITT being pure...but is using a GPS pure?  A store to restock?  It just isn't black and white and we are left with no alternative but to accept some shades of gray.  In our GITT we have accepted cell phones (except GDR and look how that got taken over by TD), GPS, SPOTs and SPOT tracking (the latter of which is an enormous psychological  difference, even without the tracking), big fields, paired/grouped riding - no matter how one defines pure I think we can all agree the current GITT format is getting pushed away from it. I also do not think the mandate "equal opportunity for all" in any way guarantees fairness.... "fair" is a term that will cause a lot of trouble, another subjective one.

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

Ah, I think that answers the above query.  Maybe it's worth separating them.  ITTs are typically noted as such in results and that's enough for me.  As serious as I take this stuff there are limits

[Majcolo]

In '06 MC was so disgusted with what went on at KTR he just said fuck it to the whole shebang and in an instant what was a super catalyst of an event was vaporized and sent underground.  There were 56 starters that year IIRC...

How will more rules make any change at all?

More rules, probably none. Clear rules that are enforced can do quite a bit, I think. If racers that are breaking the rules are called out for it publicly and relegated, the problems will diminish.

Of course having to be the guy doing the enforcement is not fun when you have people trying to get away with stuff.

Perhaps we need to find ways to either make sure the genre is understood, or discourage those who can't play according to its tenets.

Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes!

Caution is needed in interpreting the poll results as it suffers from polling a certain slice of folks...those reading this forum.  I was thinking how interesting it is that the vote is so divided.  I didn't really expect that.  But again, polling less than 10% of riders and only those invested enough to read this forum may or may not be representative of the entire SS crowd.

Agreed.

Ah, I think that answers the above query.  Maybe it's worth separating them.  ITTs are typically noted as such in results and that's enough for me.  As serious as I take this stuff there are limits

Agreed again. Gee, this is so easy now!

[DaveH]

How did we find so much common ground?  Somewhere we got some wires crossed methinks, doh.

Rule clarity is key I agree.  The more I think about it though, the more I think there will be gray areas we will be forced to live with.  For example:  rules enforcement (and that's a phrase that really makes me want to puke after a week in NJ) belongs on the shoulder of one person only - that of the individual rider.  I don't view this as an organizers responsibility.  In fact, if it ever came to that point in TU I would discontinue the event first.  I also don't see it as the role of other racers.  Somewhere starters need to know what is expected nonetheless.   Rider self-sufficiency requires a degree of integrity.

Just look at all the trouble in the road cycling scene with doping.  More rules lead to more creative loopholes or outright cheating.  Hopefully our events won't draw that ilk, and I believe this to be the case.

WiFi at 37,000'!  Who knew?

[Majcolo]

Philosophically I agree with you, and as long as the races are small and casual (i.e. no one really cares *that* much about the results) that approach works fine. As soon as the results of an event really matter for money, sponsorship, or reputation reasons, or there's a points series, or whatever...that event will have to evolve to include a more practical method of enforcement.

Cheaters by definition don't self-regulate. At the same time, the kind of people we like to ride with won't cheat.

You made a comment somewhere along the way to the effect that that this whole discussion is about what these races are going to be. I agree with you and I think this is the primary decision point: are the results going to matter beyond the end of the race?

Working through all this I've decided it's better for me to focus on the smaller races until I see if I can get back into competitive shape again. (I've had several years of health issues. ) I hate the idea of leaving my best effort on the trail only to see myself five spots lower in the results because I followed the rules and someone else didn't. TU is in September in 2010, right?

Edit: As I am in my 40's now, I'll only be looking for age group wins anyway!

[DaveH]

LW sure gives some great perspective sometimes...

I was remarking to her on all the laws, regulations, protocol it requires just to exist in Newark, NJ (where I have been the past week) and LW popped out immediately "well of course you have to have that many rules with that many people."

We are getting hit by critical mass.  15 or fewer entrants?  No problem.  25?  It starts to get murky.  40?  Trouble.

We can thank blue dots and trackleaders for the explosion in popularity...I'm just sayin'.

When fields get to that unmanageable tipping point it's like herding cats.  At that point these events become something different entirely, but for now there are only 2 of them:  CTR and TD.  Maybe field limits (avoid that critical mass) and/or time cuts (if you aren't going at least some minimal rate you aren't racing anymore) are the answer.  Maybe making these things harder to complete...or harder to start?  But all those things are yet more highly charged issues, no need to respond to them...just musing here.

"are the results going to matter beyond the end of the race?"

Absolutely - it's always been that way.  When you finish something as long as TD, for example, something that you've put all your energies into for a year+, it matters a lot.  It's the kind of "matter" that is really only valuable to oneself though.  If money gets involved is it still SS?  It probably is involved for a few riders already.

I'm leaning strongly towards an October date for TU in '10.  I'll need to chat with Scott and Chad re the Coco date on that one.  In any case, bring a boat!

[Majcolo]

Maybe making these things harder to complete...or harder to start?  But all those things are yet more highly charged issues

Heh, not for me. I'm all for raising the bar to keep out the rifraf...even if the rifraf is me. I'll still be able to ride and meet up for beers after even when I can't hang well enough to race anymore.

I'm leaning strongly towards an October date for TU in '10.  I'll need to chat with Scott and Chad re the Coco date on that one.  In any case, bring a boat!

[DaveH]

Edit: As I am in my 40's now, I'll only be looking for age group wins anyway!

While there are plenty of reasons one may not be able to compete at the highest level in these things, being in your 40's most certainly is not one of them!

[ScottM]

Interesting poll results and some good comments here.

I voted to allow sharing, and my reasons can be found if you read all 100,000 words in the Rules? thread.  I think there are reasons it hasn't really been dealt with before.  One is that it just doesn't affect the race much either way.  Another is, as Dave is pointing out, when numbers are low it really doesn't matter, and there's just not a good enough reason to ban it or even deal with it at all.

But I do see why folks on here want to ban it.  Some have been operating under the (perfectly reasonable) assumption that it is a no-no, so why would they want to change the way they have been riding for several events now?  And, from a purist point of view, it isn't self supported, no doubt there.  With 40+ riders, it may make sense to not allow it.

I still voted yes.  Banning pre-arranged support is enough for me.  Everything else is chance, available to everyone, and unlikely to actually matter.  That's my opinion, anyway. 

[Majcolo]

While there are plenty of reasons one may not be able to compete at the highest level in these things, being in your 40's most certainly is not one of them!

True! I have been feeling older than my age for a couple years now, I just forgot myself. 11 months from now I will be my new old self again!!