The Letter of the Law

[dlovett]

After reading a few posts lately about TD and other events participants following the letter of the law, but perhaps not the spirt of the event, I was wondering how far you can push it but still be reasonably in the spirt of an event. For me following the track exactly is for sure, but what about min equipment? What exactly defines a requirement to carry a sleeping bag and shelter? An ultra light cotton bag and a tiny Bivi bag might technically be a sleeping bag and a shelter but is it in the spirit or should it be at least a two season bag and a tarp/tent? What other examples can you think of where you might be just the right side of the rules but not the spirit, or do you believe like Jay P is reputed to have said if the rules specifically don’t exclude it ...

[ScotRoutes]

Some events are quite clear on what constitutes "minimum requirements". If they're not clear then it's down to individual comfort levels.

[sean_iow]

I don't know of any 'races' with a minimum kit requirement.

The BB200 has minimum kit but that's not a race.

When events were just for fun a complicated set of rules weren't needed as everyone understood the spirit of the event. With corporate involvement people will push the boundaries for results. The problem is that the free events, even the TD, don't have an official organiser so administering the rules isn't easy.

Recent events, which I'm not going into, have opened my eyes to the reality of the pointy end of the field and what is being done to get results

[ScotRoutes]

Here's an example.



https://theomm.com/mountain-marathon-kit-list/

[sean_iow]

Running races do have proper minimum kit and they check it. But aren't they run under AAA rules? With an organiser and all the legal liability and responsibilities that brings. bikepacking 'races' are just a gpx and a group of friends who happen to be out on the same ride

[dlovett]

I was just using minimum kit as an example. I am interested to hear what people thoughts are on wether rules or spirit are more important.

(a

I don't know of any 'races' with a minimum kit requirement.

The BB200 has minimum kit but that's not a race.

When events were just for fun a complicated set of rules weren't needed as everyone understood the spirit of the event. With corporate involvement people will push the boundaries for results. The problem is that the free events, even the TD, don't have an official organiser so administering the rules isn't easy.

Recent events, which I'm not going into, have opened my eyes to the reality of the pointy end of the field and what is being done to get results

[dlovett]

Some events are quite clear on what constitutes "minimum requirements". If they're not clear then it's down to individual comfort levels.

But is it not in the spirt to carry something similar to the other riders or is it ok to have a min kit much smaller and lighter than the others?

[sean_iow]

You carry the minimum you think you can get away with, but as this year's HT550 showed, you are pushing the limits if the weather is bad. I suppose it depends if you're trying for a fast time or a completion. With minimal kit you need to know when to scratch if you're pushing the boundaries and getting into a dangerous situation.

[ScotRoutes]

Aren't we all just abiding by the "rules" at selfsupporteduk.net? Anything else is at the whim of the event organiser and, if it's not ruled out by either of those, then it's fine.

[ScotRoutes]

Some events are quite clear on what constitutes "minimum requirements". If they're not clear then it's down to individual comfort levels.

But is it not in the spirt to carry something similar to the other riders or is it ok to have a min kit much smaller and lighter than the others?

Some folk will always have better/lighter kit or will be more willing to put up with some discomfort. Some folk need a lot less sleep than others so might not need to stop for as long (or at all).

Some folk will say that singlespeed is advantage, yet I've ever seen any rules against it.

[sean_iow]

Some folk will say that singlespeed is advantage, yet I've ever seen any rules against it.

there should be to stop us fools from doing it

As you say, it's just what the individual is prepared to suffer/risk.

Taking a lightweight tyre is a risk but it a matter of balancing speed verses reliability.

The Self Supported is the important bit. There was a chap handing out haribo at the top of a climb on this years HT550 but I declined as I didn't consider that as self supported. If I wanted a haribo I should have brought some. Others seem to be a bit more 'flexible' with their interpretation. Knocking on doors for water on a ride is a DQF in my eyes, commercial services only.

[slarge]

Sean, ref the knocking on doors thing - anyone in the event can do that so it is something available to all competitors, however having someone giving you stuff (and then disappearing) is not available to everyone so therefore not allowed (in my head anyway).

On the HT550 a few years ago my freehub failed, and I was able to get a new part shipped by overnight mail to Ullapool. That was ok and in the rules. But I had a friend offer to drive me a part up. That would have been not ok and a DQ.. If I had knocked on a door and the kind person had a part I could have then I think that would have been ok (and very lucky!)

[dlovett]

The Haribo no unless the guy waited for everything rider to go by. Knocking on doors for water, well during last years very hot YD200/300 we were encouraged to do it by Stuart, but if he had not told us to would that have been a DQF, after all anybody could knock on any door and ask nicely.

Some folk will say that singlespeed is advantage, yet I've ever seen any rules against it.

The Self Supported is the important bit. There was a chap handing out haribo at the top of a climb on this years HT550 but I declined as I didn't consider that as self supported. If I wanted a haribo I should have brought some. Others seem to be a bit more 'flexible' with their interpretation. Knocking on doors for water on a ride is a DQF in my eyes, commercial services only.

[sean_iow]

Steve, the self supported rules say

Only use commercial services that are available to all challengers

It's the word commercial that's important. Apart from the rules, knocking on doors to ask for water has the potential to upset locals on the route if too many people are doing it.

Duncan, as for the water, people should research the route and carry as much water as is required to make it between sources. On the TD some riders will carry 5 to 7 litres for some areas.

[middleagedmadness]

In any sport especially at the top end whether to rules are set in stone or not people will try and bend them to their advantage ,to me it's about your own personal integrity and if you can say you've won something whilst bending the rules and live with yourself afterwards knowing it wasn't done in the correct way ,as for kit it's a personal choice if you want a cold night or a comfy night- disclaimer I'm not a racer ,never will be and have no intentions of wanting to be

[dlovett]

Steve, the self supported rules say

Only use commercial services that are available to all challengers

It's the word commercial that's important. Apart from the rules, knocking on doors to ask for water has the potential to upset locals on the route if too many people are doing it.

Duncan, as for the water, people should research the route and carry as much water as is required to make it between sources. On the TD some riders will carry 5 to 7 litres for some areas.

So I asked for a water top up at a farm, so thats’s a commercial premises. I had about 5lt but I still ran out as all the water sources were dry. I still topped up at every shop I found. There is a line between blindly following the rules and common sense/safety. Did I get an unfair advantage over the other riders but knock in on the farmers door? I didn’t really think that I did and otherwise I would have been seriously de-hydrated and put my health at risk. Even if it was an official race I would do the same thing again.

[sean_iow]

There is a line between blindly following the rules and common sense/safety.

If you're not following the rules, blindly or otherwise, then you're breaking them. If people don't think it's safe to carry on for what ever reason then scratch. No matter what the justification it's either breaks the rules or it doesn't, no grey areas.

I did the Dales Divide in the heat at Easter, I only had 2 x 500ml bottles on my bike. For stretches where it was further between water sources I carried a 500ml bottle in my framebag and another elasticated onto my bars. I had to ride slower in the middle of the day to cope with the heat but that was what was required to finish within the rules. Perhaps I take the ethics too seriously?

As for commen sense, what's sensible about riding 100+ miles a day whilst sleeping under a hedge for 5 hours a night

[dlovett]

There is a line between blindly following the rules and common sense/safety.

If you're not following the rules, blindly or otherwise, then you're breaking them. If people don't think it's safe to carry on for what ever reason then scratch. No matter what the justification it's either breaks the rules or it doesn't, no grey areas.

As for commen sense, what's sensible about riding 100+ miles a day whilst sleeping under a hedge for 5 hours a night

Well as the farm was a commercial premies with a farm shop I wasn't breaking any of the rules. However if there are no grey areas then should several of last years BB200 riders be DSQ for assisting each other during river crossings? I saw three people helping each other across a river and I carried a person's bike across one river for them, does that mean under rules:

"Complete the entire route, under your own power - no drafting"
"Be completely self-supported throughout the ride - absolutely no support crews, absolutely no gear sharing"

they should be DSQ? In my opinion the river crossing was quite dangerous, are you saying they should not have accepted help and either risked the crossing or scratched because of the risk?

Is it morally wrong to accept help in circumstances like this and then continue the ride and not declare the assistance?

[sean_iow]

The BB200 isn't run to the Self Supported rules and Stu said at the start to do whatever was required to cross the rivers safely so helping each other, diverting round was OK.

Under race rules, diverting round a river is a DQF. Alan has specifically said that on the HT550 you must cross the loch to be a finisher.

I'm not having a go at anyone, it's up to each individual how they conduct themselves. I won't even share my sweets with anyone so as not to compromise their/my integrity

[ScotRoutes]

However if there are no grey areas then should several of last years BB200 riders be DSQ for assisting each other during river crossings?

I believe this happened during the HT550 too. However, you soon encroach upon another grey area; do you consider physical assistance to be disallowed but mental help/encouragement provided by an accompanying rider to be OK?

[fatbikephil]

The Self Supported is the important bit. There was a chap handing out haribo at the top of a climb on this years HT550 but I declined as I didn't consider that as self supported. If I wanted a haribo I should have brought some. Others seem to be a bit more 'flexible' with their interpretation. Knocking on doors for water on a ride is a DQF in my eyes, commercial services only.

I was going to grab some as I'm addicted to Haribo but annoyingly, Alan G was right behind me

[GregMay]

... believe like Jay P is reputed to have said if the rules specifically don’t exclude it ...

They didn't at the time, they do now.

[Lazarus]

true but it such a shame someone had to push the boundaries of a pedal bike "race" to the extent the organiser had to make that specific rule- which i assume affected only one person.

I guess its a legacy of sorts

[jameso]

the letter of the law, but perhaps not the spirt of the event,

One is set out and the other open to interpretation and maybe evolution as people's opinions change, I suppose that's what makes it difficult to agree on. Some would say that accepting a snack is OK, trail magic, others would call it a DQ. Depends on the event organiser, but also maybe it should be simply an ethic. I'd agree with tool sharing etc being off-limit, but snacks I'm not so sure about. An offer of a gift when racing solo a long way can be a nice human moment and there's been discussion on BP.net about how ruling this out entirely can turn racers into something too robotic? So that rule needs some subjective ethical interpretation and that's the issue.

Be interested to hear Dave B's take on the TD this year, whether he saw much that would bother a self-supported rider. I was suprised during the TD to be told about the great meal cooked for a rider when they took the offer of staying at someone's house when short of accommodation, the host was a professional chef 2 days later I was offered a place to stay and a shower by a chap passing in a truck, it wasn't just ethics that kept me from accepting that joking, he was a good guy, genuine I think. When politely refused he said he'd drive back out with a sandwich. I'd missed a resupply and based on Matt Lee saying a rider could accept 'a snack but not a meal' I might have had an ethical decision to make when seeing the size of the sandwich. Didn't see him again though, carried on over the pass.

These days I think if you want to be ethically pure you'd ITT a route anyway. I followed tyre tracks at a few turnings in the TD as I didn't use GPS and we went off the ACA cues/route due to diversions. If I was ITTing I wouldn't have had that option to give me confidence in my route finding on that diversion. But in a race, you can't eliminate that unless you're in the lead. I was at a disadvantage not having GPS but I was OK with using tracking or race-craft of sorts to offset that. Is that ethical? I'm not 100% sure based on the IT point, still wonder about that aspect. But to me it was in the spirit of the race. I do find the Qs around all this interesting but I only have 1 real race to go on and tbh, as long as a rider is comfortable with their own decisions and can handle the scrutiny of them, I'm not sure we should be too black+white on it all apart from flagrant cheating (support crew, tows, shortcuts, significant visitation etc). But if someone wants to be B+W, that's OK - far better some are than none.

[Bearbonesnorm]

Agree ^. I believe there has to be a degree of pragmarism in life and that includes racing. Ideals and ultimates are all well and good but that really isn't life is it?

Although I may joke about things simply being a bike ride, racing or just riding something like the TD and seeing it through to the end (which in my mind is far more important than winning or doing well) is a real achievement. If people are looking to set records or 'win' then there obviously does need to be a level of scrutiny in order to keep things on an even keel and meaningful. Away from the sharp end, does it really matter if someone accepts a caramel wafer from a stranger? No, it really doesn't. I think that sometimes we perhaps need a bit of perspective because while an amazing accomplishment, when all said and done ... it's still just riding a bike.