AZTR Rules Carousel

[MikeC]

Your turn now.

Thanks for the recap.

10+ years ago I largely checked out of discussions about the GDR/TD because I found myself increasingly frustrated with those discussions.

Some of this was on me -- expectations that didn't match reality, and all that goes with that particular rabbit hole.

And some of this was because this tiny little niche of sport was being introduced to a wider audience that shared neither the background nor the desires nor the integrity of those who'd gotten the sport off the ground.

No right or wrong in any of that -- just differing perspectives.

I bring this up because you have appeared seemingly out of nowhere.  You have an inscrutable screen name.  And you have an agenda of sorts that is slowly revealing itself each time you post to this thread.

Again, nothing wrong with any of that.

But before I check back in and invest myself in this conversation, how about if instead of continued sniping at the people here, you invest some of yourself, first?

Who are you?  Where do you live?  What brings you to the discussion?  What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?

That sort of thing.

Thanks much.

[jsliacan]

I bring this up because you have appeared seemingly out of nowhere.  You have an inscrutable screen name.  And you have an agenda of sorts that is slowly revealing itself each time you post to this thread.
Again, nothing wrong with any of that.
But before I check back in and invest myself in this conversation, how about if instead of continued sniping at the people here, you invest some of yourself, first?
Who are you?  Where do you live?  What brings you to the discussion?  What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?

I don't think ad hominem is fair. It should not matter who I am, where I come from, etc. It should only matter what I write and whether it makes sense. But here we go: I am not sure what your objection to my username is, it is more telling than yours. Jakub Sliacan - jsliacan. I live in Sweden.

What brings you to the discussion?
I am attracted by the route of CTR or AZTR, but I am put off by the tight-knit communities around these races that seem to be quite radical. In general though, I don't think anyone can deny that the situations around visitation & media recently have been quite damaging to the sport. And the more I dig into the past and how the rules came about, the more I think that they should be updated. AZTR website points people here for discussions.

What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?
The latter part of this question is unfair, you don't form all your ideas based on experiences. I don't know why this condition is being imposed. To answer the former part of the question... There are 2 issues here: 1. Inconsistency, incompleteness, and lack of balance in the rules. 2. The content of the rules.

I think any rules should strive to be:

• consistent: e.g. rule 1 should not oppose rule 2; or rule 1 should not overlap with rule 2; etc.
• complete: if rules are trying to govern people's mental state during the race, then once you ban visitation, you *must* ban win bonuses by sponsors (and many other things, this is just an example).
• balanced: having a rule about motorized forward transport and visitation in the same ruleset is unbalanced. Clearly the former is provably impactful while the latter is merely speculated to have an impact.

I think the content of the rules should be:

• realistic: "6. Competitors may only advance on the route by human powered means. In other words, by bicycle. If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot." - this rule is not realistic, because it only allows hike-a-bike in case the bike breaks.
• objective: if we don't know whether something is true (or not) for everyone, it should not appear in the rules.
• lenient: "1. The race clock starts at noon on 6/23/06, and ends for each racer when their front wheel crosses the International Border at Antelope Wells." - this rule is unnecessarily strict. Front wheel crossing the border. Clearly, the race is so long and so many things impact it, that everything can be "measured" +/- epsilon and no real information gets lost (even better, some noise disappears!).

I probably forgot some points, but the gist of it is there. As you can see, the current AZTR rules (https://azt300-800.com/rules/) are quite haphazard. They resemble a thought process rather than a set of rules. So I think there's plenty of benefit to be had from discussing them. And I expect that, as a side effect, any significant improvement to the set will affect visitation & media rules in particular. And, coincidentally, that was where the initial impetus to look into this came from.

Now, I entertained your suggestion and took a huge detour. Is it your turn now to explain how visitation is implicitly included in your former rules? Thanks.

[WatermelonSugar]

If there is a hint of emotional support (visitation, media) being against the spirit, can you point it out please? I am sure I will not be the only one to benefit from it. Thanks!

There's one word you seem not to understand in there. "Solo" alone, by youself, no support from inside or outside the race. Visitations count as support. Anyone who's been out there and struggled through the mental battle that is a solo endurance event will understand this.

[jsliacan]

There's one word you seem not to understand in there. "Solo" alone, by youself, no suppourt from inside or outside the race. Visitations count as support. Anyone who's been out there and struggled through the mental battle that is a solo endurance event will understand this.

Context is everything. "Solo" is used in the context of rider-rider interactions. This is made clear by the examples right after.

no suppourt from inside or outside the race. Visitations count as support.

Rule is no outside support. "Visitations count as support" is your subjective interpretation and addition. Don't conflate the two please.

Anyone who's been out there and struggled through the mental battle that is a solo endurance event will understand this.

That's false (I am your counter-example, but there are many more). No matter how much you try, it is not self-evident that visitation has a net positive effect on one's race. People scratch a lot in comfort situations (towns, etc.) before heading into another hard remote section. People get distracted and lose track of time when interacting with outside world (hence many set timers for shopping stops etc.). There are numerous examples of the exact opposite: outside interaction distracts from one's race. If you read past discussions, this was one of the earliest reasons against visitation. It's incredibly ironic that a rule which was supposed to protect the racers from distractions is now used to limit emotional support.

[Two Tired]

Context is everything.

Ain't it though?

[MikeC]

What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?
The latter part of this question is unfair, you don't form all your ideas based on experiences. I don't know why this condition is being imposed.

I agree with your statement about ideas/experiences.  I'll add that experiences tend to clarify ideas in ways that musing in a vacuum does not.

We've all shared -- some of us for literal decades -- how we arrived at our opinions and perspectives.  As a result our intentions have been maligned and the rules picked and poked at for every day of those decades.

A small amount of that is fair and deserved, and the ensuing clarification moves the sport a small step forward.

Most of it is not that. 

You've arrived from somewhere with fully formed opinions and criticisms.  Where?

You've disparaged the rules and the people behind them.  To what end?

If you want people to engage with your inquisition, it's not a big ask for them to want to understand which bikepacking events have formed your experiences.

So I'll ask one last time:  What are your perspectives on this niche, and from which experiences did you form them?

[JohnStamstad]

Firstly, Thank you Mike Curiak for adding your voice to this discussion. For the newbies to the sport on here, Mike was one of the key pioneers of what became Bikepack Racing. He won the first Iditasport Impossible--1100 miles of the entire Iditarod Trail in winter, on snow. One could argue that was the first extreme bikepacking race in 2000. Mike also set the Great Divide Mt Bike Route record in 2004, which later became the Tour Divide--under his direction. Mike was the original Route/Race Director for these types of events, so you should listen to him.

Many of you are looking at this as though bikepacking is some new sport and no one has ever talked about these issues. But the people who have been capable of winning or setting records have known the core rules. It is just that now that media is exposing the sport to mass numbers of enthusiasts.

I will go into detail later but the short answer to all of this is go to Fastestknowntime.com and read the rules. Then go to the AZT page and read their rules.
FKT was set up originally for runners but nearly everything applies.That is the precedent. The rules that are there are in there for a reason--we have been doing this for decades. I spoke to Buzz Burrell yesterday--he is the founder of FKT dot com, i had conversations with Buzz 20 years ago about rules for these types of endurance events-- FKT rules are not new except for spectator rule . That didn't need to be addressed until recently because in the past not enough people cared about the sport to matter. Now they do, so rules have been applied. That's the way rules work, they are a living document.
Buzz had plans to add bikepacking specifically to FKT but sold the biz before that happened.


Again , this is not new, this is not about Lael in any way, shape, or form. Lael is an uber phenomenal athlete. But rules do apply to everyone setting a record.

[JohnStamstad]

Some Key rules from FKT dot com:

Self-Supported
Self-Supported means you may have as much support as you can manage or find along the way, but not from any thing or person just for you; any support you employ must be equally available to anyone else. This can range from caching supplies in advance, purchasing supplies along the way, staying at motels, to finding or begging for food or water; camping in a friends yard would be Supported, because that is not available to the public.  Most long thru-hiking routes are done Self-Supported.  To get a Self-Supported FKT you also have to beat the fastest Unsupported time.  Spectating will be considered as Support starting February 4, 2021 (no previous FKT classifications will be changed).

Spectating in person by friends, family, or photographers is supportive, and thus not in the spirit of this style, and will be classified as Supported starting February 4, 2021 (all FKT classifications previous to this date will remain unchanged). Phone and digital communication is not considered support, and spectators and support people at the start and finish is also allowed.

Anyone who is accompanied by another person for any distance (except members of a group or team who finish together) cannot claim an Unsupported or Self-supported FKT.

[taprider]

Although, I expect that riders competed in the 1800s over long multi-day/week routes (likely to be the first to cross a country or continent), the first modern style competitive bikepacking race I learned of in 1987 (and completed in 1989) was the Iditabike on a 200 mile section of the Iditarod trail in Alaska.

 
There was a mandatory gear list (checked by officials before the start) to ensure that racers could be self-sufficient (aka unsupported) so they wouldn't get themselves killed. Such as the requirement to have a stove to melt snow and bivy gear to sleep out a whiteout at -40 degrees.  The gear/self supported rules didn't need a pedantic debate, as there were no radio or satellite trackers or communication devices to call for help, and there were no spectators or any other people on the trail between lodges/camps at night. If you couldn't self support you could die (the race motto was "Cowards won't show and the weak will die").

jsliacan, you have an issue with ""If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot." - this rule is not realistic, because it only allows hike-a-bike in case the bike breaks.""   Why not realistic? For AZTR and CTR, motor vehicles are not allowed on much of the route, and in the case of the AZTR, you can be days between towns (and don't see how a timer to remind you to shop will help).  Just as with the Iditabike, if you are not prepared to walk (such as Sarah did for the 2016 AZTR) you either hit the red button on your Spot and disqualify yourself or you die.  jsliacan, your comments imply that you don't understand the conditions we encounter on the AZTR or CTR, yet alone winter ultras.  The original rules didn't have to say "no visitation or media crews" because it was understood they wouldn't be there when you needed help/rescue.

Visitation has become a problem because of abuse.  Cache boxes in the middle of the desert, which the RDs have said to not rely on (because they are mainly for hikers and are a matter of life and death for hikers, and that bikers should not expect them to be sufficiently stocked for race use) suddenly have spectators and the boxes are well stocked with water which would not have been there except for being supplied by race spectators.  But more annoying were the empty pizza boxes and food wrappers which indicated that the lead racers restocked their food with "Trail Magic" which I say is really just "Trail Slight of Hand".  And if you weren't in the top 5 or 10 racers, there was no Trail Magic for the following racers. So visitation is not only providing emotional support, but also nutritional support for the *star* athletes.  Not only that, the cache boxes are not to be used for food, as it will attract wildlife, so not only against race rules, but against trail/land manager rules.  The *star* and local athletes end up having a big advantage over other racers, as they will know ahead of time that they can pack lighter and rely on resupply, while the other racers have to pack extra food and water just in case.

As well, I too am against camera crews on trail. I have had issues with camera motos (now ebikes) slowing me down in stage races as they block the trail following their *star* athlete, and I have read others didn't like them for the dust they caused in the Tour Divide.

[phatmike]

I am attracted by the route of CTR or AZTR, but I am put off by the tight-knit communities around these races that seem to be quite radical.

I think you are right that the communities that participate in these events are tight-knit. That's just going to be the case when an event attracts those with similar mindsets in regards to the attraction of self supported ultra adventures. While there is a lot in common from that perspective, I mentioned in a previous post that it is my experience that the participants are very different and have myriad world views.

I think when you project a negative view onto the people who support the rules you are doing yourself a disservice. I tend to think that outside of the issue at hand (the media is support issue), we likely have more in common than you are giving everyone credit for. I think you should come check out one of the events you mention and find out for yourself - I think you would be pleasantly surprised with the people you encounter.

[silverdome]

my goal is to ride my bike like  this guy did.    The race is with yourself and father time.


www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/dec/11/gustaf-hakansson-sweden-cycle-race

[evdog]

I am attracted by the route of CTR or AZTR, but I am put off by the tight-knit communities around these races that seem to be quite radical.

I wouldn't judge the bikepacking community here until you come over and race an event or two.  You will have a hard time finding a more welcoming and supportive community.  Tight-knit?  Definitely.  A lot of these people have been racing against each other and cheering each other on for many years.  

I would call it passionate though, not radical.  It is a unique community as there is a lot to bikepack racing that people who don't participate will not understand.  That is why MikeC was asking if you have done bikepacking races, or what your history/experience is.  It will help other posters understand your perspective better.  

In general though, I don't think anyone can deny that the situations around visitation & media recently have been quite damaging to the sport. And the more I dig into the past and how the rules came about, the more I think that they should be updated. AZTR website points people here for discussions.

Serious question - has the sport actually been damaged?  Or did some people just throw a tantrum on social media and then move along?

Seems to me this was little more than a brief social media frenzy of manufactured outrage drummed up by the media outlet documenting Lael's race.  Rather than educate its readers on the meaning of the "*", AZTR's rules, or the difference between supported and self-supported racing, the outlet's moderators posted comments that implied bias and gatekeeping on the part of the race director or outright stated he is "out to get her" while pointing its readers to the AZTR Instagram account.  This drove the predictable outrage to IG and facebook.  I read through most of the ~900 IG comments.  More than a few of them parroted the gender bias and gatekeeping claims with some "weak male ego" and a lot of "how did taking photos make her faster?" and whataboutisms for good measure.  Not much of substance or intelligent thought was posted.

The original issue is whether Lael's ride gets recorded as an unsupported FKT per Arizona Trail Race rules, or is considered a supported ride.  If the latter the time is noted in the race results with an asterisk but it is not considered a record.  Keep in mind anyone can ride the route at any time they want, in any way they want ? so no one is disputing Lael's FKT for the route.  It just doesn't count as a record for the race, which is what she had signed up for.  This distinction seems to have completely gone over the heads of Lael fans on social media in their rush to pile on.  Now that a few weeks have passed, it seems like most of those posters have gone quiet and moved on. Of course it's hard to carry on an argument when your only ammunition is emotional response.  The only people I still see discussing this are - you guessed it - the people who actually do these races, right here in this thread.  Jsliacan, you're the lone new poster who has shown up here to actually discuss the rule, so props to you.  

[evdog]

Media crews and visitation... do they provide an emotional boost?  

We could debate that all day but it's fair to say every rider will respond differently depending on circumstances and mental state.  I've heard a lot of racers say seeing a friend or family could motivate them to ride longer into the night, or if they were at their lowest point mentally it could make the difference between dropping out or continuing the race.  That's not an immaterial impact.  For other racers, it could have no effect.  It is well accepted that endurance racing is 80% mental, so even if we can't quantify a potential emotional boost from visitation we cannot ignore it.  

What is certain is the mere presence of a media crew and visitation at AZTR brought conflict complete with speculation, assumptions and accusations.  So whether or not an emotional boost was actually received, there was enough perception of one to draw negative attention.  That is not a good thing.  The best parallel I can think of are professions like accountants and lawyers who go to great lengths to avoid not just a conflict of interest but also avoid the appearance of having a conflict of interest, because they each affect public perception the same way.  If we want to avoid future drama in bikepacking races we need to avoid the appearance of racers gaining an advantage as well.  

The emotional boost some racers get from media crews and visitation provides an advantage to those riders and that is enough to justify the ban.  If there is no dedicated media or visitation on course then there is no opportunity for a rider to get an emotional boost.  This also eliminates the appearance of anyone gaining an advantage which should avoid any accompanying conflict or accusations.  

[jsliacan]

It's nice to see people contributing actual content and not just questioning my presence here. Many thanks, I'll do my best to respond well.

[evdog]

Would removing the no dedicated media and visitation rule in AZTR make the sport better?  I think it would make things worse. 

Right now it is simple.  There is no reason for a dedicated media crew or visitors to be on course because they?re not allowed.  If either is seen repeatedly with a racer throughout the race it?s a pretty clear cut rule violation.  Such a pattern is likely to be observed by a number of racers over the length of the race making it easy to identify.   Consider how much controversy was created by this one case where, opinions aside, it was obvious that the media crew and visitation rule was broken.  The ensuing social media mob ignored facts and reason and instead fixated on how the rule is stupid and arbitrary, and not applied consistently, and just there to discredit the racer, and is there to gatekeep, and?.?where is the proof??? and ?photos didn?t make her ride faster!!!,?  Blah blah blah. 

Remove the media team/visitation rule and I see potential for a lot more controversy.  I?m not saying racers will seek support from visitors or media teams.  More likely they will be put in difficult positions by well-intending visitors.  Repeated interactions means more opportunity for that to happen, intentional or not.  Media crews have no excuse IMO but friends/family/fans have varying levels of awareness of self-supported racing principles, and it is human nature to want to help each other out.  So it?s inevitable that racers will be offered things that are considered support under the rules.  Will racers do the right thing and turn it down when no one is watching?   Some will, some will not.  It?s harder than you think to turn down what seems like trivial support when it is from friends or family.  An apple, a coke, maybe sit in the friend?s car while a heavy rainstorm passes by.  Or perhaps they give you a replacement item for something you lost or broke on trail. 

These sorts of thing could happen a lot more than we?d like to imagine - and having more people around on course would make the rules harder to enforce.  If someone does get relegated for a case like these I think they?d be pissed.  All you need is someone with a large social media following to sic their audience on the race director or another racer and we could be in for more drama.  And that is not good for the sport.  The media team and visitation rule removes the opportunity and temptation for racers to accept support.  You cannot receive support or appear to receive support if there is no one out there to meet you on trail. 

[jsliacan]

Thanks John. I value that you brought fastestknowntime.com into the discussion. I got to know about their change of rules recently and was disappointed. Then I completely forgot about it (not following the running scene so closely anymore). It's good to have it here, because even if I disagree with the inclusion of the rule, I do find it valuable for "sister" sports to be aligned re:ideas. So it does soften my position somewhat.

Many of you are looking at this as though bikepacking is some new sport and no one has ever talked about these issues. But the people who have been capable of winning or setting records have known the core rules. It is just that now that media is exposing the sport to mass numbers of enthusiasts.

I think most of us know the rules. Although clearly, interpretation (even if one isn't intentionally pushing into grey zones) does play a role.

Again , this is not new, this is not about Lael in any way, shape, or form. Lael is an uber phenomenal athlete. But rules do apply to everyone setting a record.

Just so we don't misunderstand the motivations here: this is not about Lael's case. She was relegated according to the rules (although the original azt300_800's IG post was a bit off in tone). The issue is with the rules. The media rule came seemingly out of nowhere in 2019. I see no past discussion here about having it included. Please correct me if I missed it.

[jsliacan]

Some Key rules from FKT dot com:

Self-Supported
Self-Supported means you may have as much support as you can manage or find along the way, but not from any thing or person just for you; any support you employ must be equally available to anyone else. This can range from caching supplies in advance, purchasing supplies along the way, staying at motels, to finding or begging for food or water; camping in a friends yard would be Supported, because that is not available to the public.  Most long thru-hiking routes are done Self-Supported.  To get a Self-Supported FKT you also have to beat the fastest Unsupported time.  Spectating will be considered as Support starting February 4, 2021 (no previous FKT classifications will be changed).

Spectating in person by friends, family, or photographers is supportive, and thus not in the spirit of this style, and will be classified as Supported starting February 4, 2021 (all FKT classifications previous to this date will remain unchanged). Phone and digital communication is not considered support, and spectators and support people at the start and finish is also allowed.

Anyone who is accompanied by another person for any distance (except members of a group or team who finish together) cannot claim an Unsupported or Self-supported FKT.

I think it is worth noting that fastestknowntime.com (fkt.com) treats both races and FKTs according to these rules - so race times would be supported. In bikepacking, it seems that grand departs (races) produce "self-supported" times even though people ride in the company of others (you see what others are doing via trackleaders, you can follow someone's line, etc.). Also, given how tight the community is, the front-runners often know each other pretty well (whereas someone like me would not know any of them). So they race with friends - making it basically similar to visitation. I actually think this is okay and the rule should be opened up even more. Only pointing this out for thought.

[jsliacan]

jsliacan, you have an issue with ""If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot." - this rule is not realistic, because it only allows hike-a-bike in case the bike breaks.""   Why not realistic? For AZTR and CTR, motor vehicles are not allowed on much of the route, and in the case of the AZTR, you can be days between towns (and don't see how a timer to remind you to shop will help).  Just as with the Iditabike, if you are not prepared to walk (such as Sarah did for the 2016 AZTR) you either hit the red button on your Spot and disqualify yourself or you die.  jsliacan, your comments imply that you don't understand the conditions we encounter on the AZTR or CTR, yet alone winter ultras.  The original rules didn't have to say "no visitation or media crews" because it was understood they wouldn't be there when you needed help/rescue.

The rule I reference (from MikeC's draft long ago) is

Competitors may only advance on the route by human powered means. In other words, by bicycle. If your bike breaks, you can continue to the next town on foot.

My point was that this rule forbids walking unless your bike is broken. Which I doubt was the intention - surely I can walk if the hill is too steep. But I shouldn't be left guessing. Especially not in the midst of the "rules are rules" mentality...

[bikelite]

The media rule did not come out of nowhere. "FKT rules are not new except for spectator rule . That didn't need to be addressed until recently because in the past not enough people cared about the sport to matter. Now they do, so rules have been applied."

How many more ways is jsliacan going to drag this out?

[jsliacan]

I think you are right that the communities that participate in these events are tight-knit. That's just going to be the case when an event attracts those with similar mindsets in regards to the attraction of self supported ultra adventures. While there is a lot in common from that perspective, I mentioned in a previous post that it is my experience that the participants are very different and have myriad world views.

Re:"That's just going to be the case when an event attracts those with similar mindsets in regards to the attraction of self supported ultra adventures.", it's not only about attraction but also about coming across this sport. And that's currently quite hard unless a friend of a friend tells you about it. Those who get attracted to these events are a subset of those who get to know about these events. If the latter set is small, the former is going to be too, regardless of who is attracted to such racing.

I think when you project a negative view onto the people who support the rules you are doing yourself a disservice.

I would like to clarify that objecting to people's actions and ideas does not mean I view them (as people) negatively. But ideas need to be open to questioning, especially if they form the rules that are supposed to govern actions of others.

I tend to think that outside of the issue at hand (the media is support issue), we likely have more in common than you are giving everyone credit for. I think you should come check out one of the events you mention and find out for yourself - I think you would be pleasantly surprised with the people you encounter.

I don't think I have tried to comment on how much we do or don't have in common... We clearly all care about bikepacking and its values (which we most likely share entirely). The subject of this discussion is how to upkeep the sport and the events so everyone feels welcome and encouraged to ride. I have no doubt that people are generally nice. But nice people make bad calls, sometimes. And I still think that including this rule was a mistake in the long run (even if we disregard how it was done: quietly, without any discussion in the community).