Tour Divide 2010

[naked indian]

Never Give up as was shown by the sheer determination of many riders.

Props to Patrick and all others.

Take care of your fanny, as was heard by the many cases of saddle sores.

And finally, NEVER forward HITCH HIKE.

Bummer.

[redcliffs]

And finally, NEVER forward HITCH HIKE.

Bummer.

Though I stayed out of it at the time -- the conversation during the race seemed both inappropriate and a bit mean-spirited from some people -- I hope that rule will be rethought. Looking at Erik's position at the time, there was no other road and there was no going backwards -- the only option was the one he chose. While I understand the intent of the rule, it seems inconsistent with geographic reality on much of the course, and thus potentially puts honest, dedicated riders, such as Erik, in a position where simple luck of geography, rather than will, skill, resourcefulness and fitness, forces retirement from the race. That seems inconsistent with the spirit of self-support and self-regulation that is at the heart of the TD.

[BobM]

Though I stayed out of it at the time -- the conversation during the race seemed both inappropriate and a bit mean-spirited from some people -- I hope that rule will be rethought. Looking at Erik's position at the time, there was no other road and there was no going backwards -- the only option was the one he chose. While I understand the intent of the rule, it seems inconsistent with geographic reality on much of the course, and thus potentially puts honest, dedicated riders, such as Erik, in a position where simple luck of geography, rather than will, skill, resourcefulness and fitness, forces retirement from the race. That seems inconsistent with the spirit of self-support and self-regulation that is at the heart of the TD.

I agree that the rule allowing any travel EXCEPT forward "on the route" seems arbitrary since you are allowed to go forward if you can find another road (i.e hitch back up 257 to 324 and take I15 into Lima).  However, it is the rule and everyone tacitly agreed to the rules when they signed up.  It definitely sucks that he got relegated, however, Erik had at least 2 other choices that would have conformed to the rule:

1) He could have hitched a ride back about 20 miles to Hildreth Ranch, which is a commercial establishment listed in the Service Directory, and had his parts shipped there.

2) He could have continued to push/coast to Lima, which would have been awful in those conditions and would have cost him an extra day.

Of course, the best way for a person to avoid this is to do what John Stamstad did originally - just go out and ride the route according to your own principles and set a time in a way that conforms to your own personal ethics.

Bob

[redcliffs]

I'm not disputing that the rules for this year are what they are and that Erik's relegation is in keeping with those rules -- since the rules change from year to year, all I'm suggesting is that this is a rule that seems unfortunate (though I didn't know about the 40 miles back option) and should perhaps be reconsidered in the future.

And as for riding one's own ride ethically, it is clear from something I heard or read that Erik considers his time valid and his conduct appropriate, and while I imagine he's disappointed by the relegation in some sense (I would be), I'm guessing he's not too crushed by missing out on his share of the purse.

[BobM]

I'm not disputing that the rules for this year are what they are and that Erik's relegation is in keeping with those rules -- since the rules change from year to year, all I'm suggesting is that this is a rule that seems unfortunate (though I didn't know about the 40 miles back option) and should perhaps be reconsidered in the future.

And as for riding one's own ride ethically, it is clear from something I heard or read that Erik considers his time valid and his conduct appropriate, and while I imagine he's disappointed by the relegation in some sense (I would be), I'm guessing he's not too crushed by missing out on his share of the purse.

I absolutely agree!  Banning forward travel while allowing any other angle or route doesn't seem to accomplish much IMO.  Better to just say you can use motorized transport in the case of major mechanical/medical and then when the problem is resolved, continue on from the point at which you left the route, as Erik did.  There is an automatic time penalty for the diversion anyway.

Bob

[klhall222]

I have a difficult time with  the "moving forward" on the route.  It is my assumption the intent of moving forward on the route by alternative means was to eliminate a rider from moving forward by  other means than bike/hike a bike power-in a way to cheat. The intent is the true issue here.  If a rider leaves the route at anytime they should be able to proceed  backward or forward.  However, the rider should then be required to retrace his/her route off trail by whatever means) and return to the point of origin where he/she left the official route or received assistance. 

The intent of "forward" needs to be addressed by the committee. 

[Mathewsen]

I have a difficult time with  the "moving forward" on the route.  It is my assumption the intent of moving forward on the route by alternative means was to eliminate a rider from moving forward by  other means than bike/hike a bike power-in a way to cheat. The intent is the true issue here.  If a rider leaves the route at anytime they should be able to proceed  backward or forward.  However, the rider should then be required to retrace his/her route off trail by whatever means) and return to the point of origin where he/she left the official route or received assistance.  

The intent of "forward" needs to be addressed by the committee.  

Intent is a nebulous thing for self-supported race organizers to 'armchair'. No one but the rider is there in moments of duress so that's a slippery slope as it applies to any rule, IMO. In fact, i'd say 'never forward' was designed in part to ensure well-intended but stressed-out, bonked-out cyclists don't err in precisely where they resume riding on a route that often looks just like itself for miles on end (think great basin).

'Never forward' has been the rule for Divide racing from the beginning. Whether right or wrong, good or bad, it is the standard by which Stamstad raced, and everyone who came behind him. Frankly, i'm surprised it hasn't been an issue until this year. To play devil's advocate, perhaps it's best if Divide racing switches to the policy on motorized assistance that every other self-supported race uses (colorado trail race, AZT, Trans-Utah) which says, if you get in a car, period, your race is over. It leaves nothing to geographical chance. It would be a lot easier to officiate, and is likely why those organizers elected to write it up that way.

Part of Divide racing's acceptance of 'limited' motorized assistance is b/c the GDMBR is much longer/more logistically difficult to abandon than shorter routes (esp. for international racers), so limited allowance supports a higher goal of successfully thru-riding the course. The rule simply has a bit of well-thought out twist to it (only backwards or off-route). Is it fair that timing, weather, geography and geology play a role in how lucky one can be in such a time of need? I would say it's no more unfair than the ways these elements play a role in everyday forward progress of racers. Tour Divide is an adventure race. It's not just about riding your bike. Ask any seasoned veteran of adventure racing who has also raced the Divide (Jay P comes to mind). Circumstances can be quite cruel to overall individual and/or team goals in adventure racing. It is never taken for granted that a course is always going to be 'finishable'.

Editorial: It's possible that many pure cyclists object (emotionally) to any 'cruelty of chance' that 'never forward' might inject b/c historically we casually associate salvage of big-rides-gone-bad with our cars (come on, admit it), be those sag wagons, shuttling(god forbid!), the pick-up truck at the trailhead, hitching home when we double flat on the saturday group ride, etc. In our everyday lives there's simply no ethical debate about car-rescue, so some may ask, 'why should there be any stipulations on how in TD?'...And that's fine. I do not object to an everyday car-assist either. TD, however, is a slightly different beast.

While I agree all Divide racing rules ought be subject to periodic review, this is one that is best left idle until the emotion of TD10 has come back down to room temp. Every year it seems some aspect of the rules is tested by a new scenario. This is normal. Erik was caught up in the perfect storm of circumstances in which his only legal option was to push and scooter his bike out to the highway (the route was 100% impassable to motor vehicles going backwards). It sucks it played out that way, but is his incident by itself enough to rewrite a rule that has stood for 10 years (not that time alone is the best measure of legitimacy)? It's not for any of us alone to say. It's on the radar now and it will get figured out this off-season. Not that everyone doesn't deserve to be heard on the matter but it probably will not be successfully resolved in a rules thread like we endured last fall/winter on this forum.

[klhall222]

I am good with all the decisions of the TD committee. To isolate Eric's case would not be prudent.  However, to further define and address this issue would make future TD events even better (which you have noted will be addressed).

 I like the; "any motorized or other assistance to move in any direction on the route anywhere under any circumstance is an automatic DQ."

[bruce.b]

>>Perhaps it's best if Divide racing switches to the policy on motorized assistance that every other self-supported race uses (colorado trail race, AZT, Trans-Utah) which says, if you get in a car, period, your race is over. It leaves nothing to geographical chance. It would be a lot easier to officiate, and is likely why those organizers elected to write it up that way.<<

    I think this would be best. The rule is clear and simple. There is zero wiggle room and it is the same as the other self supported races. For me, getting in a car for any reason violates the spirit of this type of racing.

    I do feel that you should be allowed to have someone else pump the bellows when brazing your bike back together.

    bruce.b

[robinb]

not looking for loopholes here... just trying to think of some options.  Could he of left his bike - then moved forward on the route to get a part - then back to his bike, install said part - carry on?

[Mathewsen]

not looking for loopholes here... just trying to think of some options.  Could he of left his bike - then moved forward on the route to get a part - then back to his bike, install said part - carry on?

Nope. Erik's only legal option was to push as far as he could get that night (he was about 15mi from the hwy), bivy and finish pushing to the highway in the morn. To split hairs, the route into Lima from Dell is 7mi of frontage rd., so he technically could have hitched on I-15 and not been moving forward on route.

[Pivvay]

Personally if I got in a car my race would be done. I may still finish the route though depending on where I was. So I guess that's my vote.

[BobM]

To split hairs, the route into Lima from Dell is 7mi of frontage rd., so he technically could have hitched on I-15 and not been moving forward on route.

This is where it gets weird.  Would an ATV riding 10 yards to the side of the road be "off route"? With no mechanism for clarifying rules on course, the racer may interpret things differently from the race organizer and yet it will be race admin's decision in the end.  In Erik's case he claims that he interpreted the rule to mean he had to take an alternative route if one existed and since it did not, he felt he could go forward on the route.  Obviously wrong, but since the rule already had exceptions it led to a racer making a wrong decision.

[Done]

Relegation issues and decisions aside, Erik's ride was inspirational. As an armchair spectator, I loved watching Matthew and Erik duke it out--at least before the mud started shredding components from Erik's bike. But then he demonstrated some serious fortitude to get back in the game after losing most of a day installing a new drivetrain. There's no doubt that Erik is one powerful rider with a lot of grit. I hope that he returns next year to try again. An article on ExploreSteamboat.com quoted him as saying that the TD record is "soft." Sounds like a challenge!

Someone here commented that watching the TD is more fun that watching the Tour de France. No kidding! Great personalities, beautiful scenery, a challenging objective--it's all there! Thanks to all the racers who made their Spot tracks available, and for their call-ins and commentary.

[Mathewsen]

This is where it gets weird.

Bob, i agree it can get weird, and might not always seem fair.

It's certainly easier to think it's unfair when a racer we know and like gets what looks like the short end of the stick.

One thing rule # 4 does not do is equivocate. It says four times 'never forward'. it opens with it and it closes with it.

If it is decided 'ok-backwards/never forward' remains fundamental to the TD challenge, then riders will have to do their best to think on their feet within that rule no matter how weird it might get.

Despite the cruel luck Erik's perfect storm may have appeared to be, there is still equal opportunity for breakdown...for rescue...and to make the best race-legal decisions.

[phil_rad]

It's unfortunate that Erik got regulated but rules are rules. All that aside, Erik rode great and over came a huge obstacle in putting backtogether his bike. 

I like the idea of absolutely no car transport, like in the CTR/AZT.

[patrickTsai]

if anyone has Brad Perry's contact info can they private message it to me? i need to drink a beer in minneapolis with that guy.

[elobeck]

I wasn't planning on weighing in, but here it is in the interest of putting this to bed. IMHO I am for a rule that simply states that you are done (racing, though perhaps not riding) if you get in a car period. I am for less ambiguity on course. With regard to my situation, I am fine with my relegation, I am burning at the stake , and this is ok.

 I see my completion of the course as a personal accomplishment now, and believe in my mind to have done it self supported (I have a clean conscience), although not fitting within the construct of the rule nuances of the TD race. I personally, and other people will certainly differ in their opinions and this is expected and fine, see no difference between borrowing a tool from a random house and my flow of events. I agree I violated the rules, no matter how complex and nebulous they may be. I rode the entire route and did so without prearranged support/help. I know "tough guys" will disagree with my mentality, and so be it. Hence my acceptance of relegation.

On a personal note, in the end, this race has shown me I am a cyclist first, an adventure racer second. I should steer my future efforts away from bikepacking races, reserve bikepacking for the respite (and singletrack!) that it is for me, and move  back towards "real" bike races should any competitive spirit arise, although this whole fiasco has certainly quenched my thirst for "public" endeavors. In other words, I'm going back into the hidey hole I emerged from. I will enjoy watching future races from a distance however.

Signing out for good,

Erik Lobeck

[Dogger]

Bravo, Erik.  Well done, and well said

[Mathewsen]

I wasn't planning on weighing in...I am fine with my relegation, I am burning at the stake , and this is ok.

I see my completion of the course as a personal accomplishment now...I personally, and other people will certainly differ in their opinions and this is expected and fine, see no difference between borrowing a tool from a random house and my flow of events. I agree I violated the rules, no matter how complex and nebulous they may be...

...in the end, this race has shown me I am a cyclist first, an adventure racer second. I should steer my future efforts away from bikepacking races, reserve bikepacking for the respite...and move  back towards "real" bike races should any competitive spirit arise, although this whole fiasco has certainly quenched my thirst for "public" endeavors. In other words, I'm going back into the hidey hole I emerged from. I will enjoy watching future races from a distance however.

Signing out for good,
Erik Lobeck

Erik, I'm calling your bluff on 'calling it quits' on Divide racing--and bikepacking. What is "a real bike race" supposed to mean anyway? Loops on the ski hill? You'll be back. And I'm happy to oblige any request for a rematch whichever year it works for you. It was fun playing the game of trying to always stay an hour or two ahead of you, so I say we do it again soon (spouses-willing). Besides, as we both say, the record is as soft as the Divide route we've been pedaling the past couple years. What better way to hoe that row than mano y mano? While we're at it, let's remind John Nobile how motivating grand depart dynamics can be. Perhaps Pete Basinger will finally come out for the full monty? We know Jay P is itching to return too. Talk about a great race. Kurt Refsnider's in for `11 and Joe Meiser too (rumored). Dave Harris is ripe. I bet we could get Scott Morris--even Curiak--to come back then. Heck, such a party might even seal the deal on the magnanimous Chad Brown's Divide wager. Think of all that histrionics you'd be giving up.

Regarding relegation, you say you are fine with it, yet you are "burning at the stake", implying the punishment is too too harsh. which is it? are you OK with it or not? That you want to take your bikepacking toys home, not to play with us again is confusing to me if you are indeed OK with it. We're not letting you off the hook for bikepacking-ultras just b/c you 'sign out for good'. It ain't that easy. And like it or not, words alone cannot vex Divide race demons. IMHO you must join the historical GC to retire "for good".

See you next year?
Matthew Lee
(disclaimer: did not vote on Lobeck case)