As mentioned in an earlier post, the National Park Service has absolutely nothing to do with Hardrock and their permit. Nothing. Good luck in getting a response...
As mentioned in an earlier post, the National Park Service has absolutely nothing to do with Hardrock and their permit. Nothing. Good luck in getting a response...
JamJam fan wrote:
https://twitter.com/JamilCoury/status/1021090945830346753
Yup. Rules are rules. Can’t look the other way just because you are a fanboy.
JamJam shouldn't be DQ'd (Hi Jam Jam!). Xavier shouldn't have been either.
In every trail race I've seen with spectators, spectators have offered aid in the form of drinks, water dunks/soaking (if it's hot), or food, in addition to aid in the form of cheers. It's a natural thing. Most races don't have rules against this.
It's also instinctive to accept a friendly offering as a courtesy, even if you don't need it. That instinct would probably kick in before thinking really. Xavier was just 2 miles out of an aid station, and he was surely freshly stocked with water and didn't need anything. It's been reported he just took a sip, and a small amount of ice. JamJam didn't need the beer either, it's just instinct to accept a friendly offering.
What was the difference then? Well if you have friendlies looking on, no problem. If you have a rule-are-rules person looking on, well too bad! I don't think a race that purports to be a fun, friendly community race should be encouraging reports like this. If they receive reports like that, they need to recognize that if everyone was being watched 100% of the time, they'd see a whole lot more minor things like this. Do they want to encourage an atmosphere of runners feeling like they are being watched like a hawk for tiny infractions? Do they want to encourage an atmosphere where people try to sabotage others by offering aid in the hopes than a competitor will be DQ'd?
If I were to do this race and finish, I'd cross the line and not kiss the F-ing rock. DQ me all you want, I'm not kissing a painted rock like I was in a cult.
zzzz wrote:
JamJam shouldn't be DQ'd (Hi Jam Jam!). Xavier shouldn't have been either.
In every trail race I've seen with spectators, spectators have offered aid in the form of drinks, water dunks/soaking (if it's hot), or food, in addition to aid in the form of cheers. It's a natural thing. Most races don't have rules against this.
It's also instinctive to accept a friendly offering as a courtesy, even if you don't need it. That instinct would probably kick in before thinking really. Xavier was just 2 miles out of an aid station, and he was surely freshly stocked with water and didn't need anything. It's been reported he just took a sip, and a small amount of ice. JamJam didn't need the beer either, it's just instinct to accept a friendly offering.
What was the difference then? Well if you have friendlies looking on, no problem. If you have a rule-are-rules person looking on, well too bad! I don't think a race that purports to be a fun, friendly community race should be encouraging reports like this. If they receive reports like that, they need to recognize that if everyone was being watched 100% of the time, they'd see a whole lot more minor things like this. Do they want to encourage an atmosphere of runners feeling like they are being watched like a hawk for tiny infractions? Do they want to encourage an atmosphere where people try to sabotage others by offering aid in the hopes than a competitor will be DQ'd?
If I were to do this race and finish, I'd cross the line and not kiss the F-ing rock. DQ me all you want, I'm not kissing a painted rock like I was in a cult.
Nice post!!! Merci
jaguar1 wrote:
It makes a difference regardless of surface. Assistance rules are more stringently applied in sanctioned events where there’s more competition/records/awards on the line. Outside aid is a very real possibility of incidentally happening in sanctioned events with thousands of participants and spectators who may or may not know the rules. You add fatigue on top, even if you know the rules, and it can cloud your judgement. Having a warning system in place is fair. Having a technical meeting to go over race rules is helpful too. HR100 uses the word “may” which means they have some discretion. When you have athletes from around the world for whom English is not their first language and different customs you’re dealing with a communication barrier too. The unsanctioned trail races like HR100 could learned from USATF/IAAF rules on how to better handle situations like this.
Lets get real. First, few if any of the readers of LetsRun have never been to an ultra event. They don't have a clue.
Second you know as well as I a 1/3 or more of the runners get aid outside the stations. Given the nature of the courses the support team helpers, aid is really available outside the stations and happens frequently.
Go to a European Ultra, aid is available outside the stations and used by many.
The sport of UltraRunning needs to relook at itself its not so perfect.
JamJam fan wrote:
https://twitter.com/JamilCoury/status/1021090945830346753
Runs hard rock, drinks beer, breaks rules, owes up to it on Twitter... How does he run with such balls of steel?
The Plan wrote:
JamJam fan wrote:
https://twitter.com/JamilCoury/status/1021090945830346753Runs hard rock, drinks beer, breaks rules, owes up to it on Twitter... How does he run with such balls of steel?
He's a clown. Would all my fans please let me know if I should be DQ'd...
Wake me up when jam jam makes another video. This guy can't put together enough focus to vlog for than 2 days in a row anymore. The number of started, but incomplete, video projects is absolutely astounding. His WS 2017(!) video is still not out. He previously said he wanted to get it out within a week of filming.
JamJam is an embarrassment to the sport. He’s the carrot top of ultra running.
hard dq wrote:
plus the dude had an hour lead, so a sip of water and ice 2 miles after being topped off would not give much benefit, if any.
"It didn't confer any benefit" is less an argument for not DQing, and more an argument that breaking the rule was a really moronic thing to do. If it's against the rules AND it doesn't help, why do it?
Maybe they both should have been DQed, maybe neither, but a dude getting a beer from a spectator is different from the race leader getting ice and drinks from his crew in their crew car set up where they're not supposed to be (photo). Again, I don't have a strong opinion either way on either of them, but it is different.
You're right, it is two examples of very different ways in which two runners on different years broke the same rule.
I wonder how much of this could be due to differences between American and European trail running norms. I've run about 20 ultras (all in the US) and aid was only allowed in the specified aid stations at every single one, whereas in Europe it seems more acceptable to receive aid from spectators outside aid stations (at least based on what I've read). Similarly, cutting switchbacks is against the rules in any ultra I've run, whereas in Europe they seem to be more lax on it (I think this is what caused Kilian's Speedgoat 50k DQ).
That being said, Xavier should have read the rules and not taken the risk of a DQ for something he says provided essentially no advantage. It's a silly mistake to make. Was a full DQ harsh? Maybe, but giving a time penalty or warning brings more subjectivity into the decision making process that makes it harder to judge other potential infractions fairly in the future. If Xavier gets an hour penalty for a "sip of water and a few ice cubes", what happens if next year a runner takes half a bottle of water and an energy gel from their crew outside of an aid station? Unfortunately, giving a DQ regardless of the infraction offers the most consistency.
For me personally, this specific judgement hinges on one fact: if Xavier did indeed initially deny that he received aid outside an aid station (as reported in the Durango Herald article someone linked above), then I think a DQ is justified. If he did not deny it and was upfront about it, I could believe it was an honest misunderstanding based on differences in the US/Euro scene, and in that case I believe a warning would be more appropriate.
A few last thoughts on some of the earlier posts in this thread:
1. Drinking water from a stream or putting snow on your head is not the same thing as receiving aid from your crew outside of an aid station. That stream and snow is available to all runners, whereas the crew is not and thus gives that runner an unfair advantage.
2. Yes, water is necessary for survival and nobody should be denied water if they need it for survival reasons. But nobody in that situation is going to take a few sips of water and a few ice cubes and then continue running a race.
3. Regardless of what Hardrock calls their event and the attitude of some that anything goes in a trail race because you're there to enjoy nature or whatever, if it's timed and there are winners and places then it's a competition. Competitions have rules to ensure there is a level playing field. You not personally caring about competing doesn't change this.
pnw_runner wrote:
I wonder how much of this could be due to differences between American and European trail running norms. I've run about 20 ultras (all in the US) and aid was only allowed in the specified aid stations at every single one, whereas in Europe it seems more acceptable to receive aid from spectators outside aid stations (at least based on what I've read). Similarly, cutting switchbacks is against the rules in any ultra I've run, whereas in Europe they seem to be more lax on it (I think this is what caused Kilian's Speedgoat 50k DQ).
That being said, Xavier should have read the rules and not taken the risk of a DQ for something he says provided essentially no advantage. It's a silly mistake to make. Was a full DQ harsh? Maybe, but giving a time penalty or warning brings more subjectivity into the decision making process that makes it harder to judge other potential infractions fairly in the future. If Xavier gets an hour penalty for a "sip of water and a few ice cubes", what happens if next year a runner takes half a bottle of water and an energy gel from their crew outside of an aid station? Unfortunately, giving a DQ regardless of the infraction offers the most consistency.
For me personally, this specific judgement hinges on one fact: if Xavier did indeed initially deny that he received aid outside an aid station (as reported in the Durango Herald article someone linked above), then I think a DQ is justified. If he did not deny it and was upfront about it, I could believe it was an honest misunderstanding based on differences in the US/Euro scene, and in that case I believe a warning would be more appropriate.
A few last thoughts on some of the earlier posts in this thread:
1. Drinking water from a stream or putting snow on your head is not the same thing as receiving aid from your crew outside of an aid station. That stream and snow is available to all runners, whereas the crew is not and thus gives that runner an unfair advantage.
2. Yes, water is necessary for survival and nobody should be denied water if they need it for survival reasons. But nobody in that situation is going to take a few sips of water and a few ice cubes and then continue running a race.
3. Regardless of what Hardrock calls their event and the attitude of some that anything goes in a trail race because you're there to enjoy nature or whatever, if it's timed and there are winners and places then it's a competition. Competitions have rules to ensure there is a level playing field. You not personally caring about competing doesn't change this.
Nice to see a good post in this sophomoric morass.
A lot of European trail races actually don't want you cutting switchbacks either or getting aid outside of official stations. In a lot of races there is a time penalty for this I believe . Guys will cut small (minor) switchbacks at race like UTMB however there aren't that many big switchbacks to cut on the UTMB course and many could say that running at night it is hard to see the marker flags so they just B-line it between some points. Personally I'd always turn away a bottle of water/drink or food from a spectator....when I've been out of drink between aid stations and am super thirsty and bonking. That being said the point of infraction on the Hardrock course appears ( I think) to be the main highway/road from Ouray to Silverton...it is the "million dollar highway" and the turnout spot for the Bear Creek trail climb starting about two miles out of Ouray. It is a very obvious "spectator spot" that would be full of tons of people/witnesses, and not a very discreet or secret place to cheat at. As someone brought up on other forums, how many runners get "aid" from their pacers in the form of extra drink/food during the race? The same rules have to apply to midpack runners as the front pack to be consistent. Unlike Leadville I believe "muling" is not allowed. DQ JamJam for getting a drink between aid stations too. It is ironic that it is a beer but as many say "rules are rules." Finally, I respect all the rules in competitive races and things that lead to competitive advantages that are against the "spirit of the sport" and require us (as competitors) to have honesty and integrity. I also think "major" ultras/races that get media coverage and have a history should focus more on the big competitive advantages that athletes on PEDs (and yes this includes testosterone and HGH/peptides) can get and actually do some real drug testing as part of their event before splitting hairs on more "minor rules" that are likely only to result in marginal gains at best. How many of these kinds of ultra-trail races are 100% clean? Not many I don't think.
pnw_runner wrote:
I wonder how much of this could be due to differences between American and European trail running norms. I've run about 20 ultras (all in the US) and aid was only allowed in the specified aid stations at every single one, whereas in Europe it seems more acceptable to receive aid from spectators outside aid stations (at least based on what I've read). Similarly, cutting switchbacks is against the rules in any ultra I've run, whereas in Europe they seem to be more lax on it (I think this is what caused Kilian's Speedgoat 50k DQ).
That being said, Xavier should have read the rules and not taken the risk of a DQ for something he says provided essentially no advantage. It's a silly mistake to make. Was a full DQ harsh? Maybe, but giving a time penalty or warning brings more subjectivity into the decision making process that makes it harder to judge other potential infractions fairly in the future. If Xavier gets an hour penalty for a "sip of water and a few ice cubes", what happens if next year a runner takes half a bottle of water and an energy gel from their crew outside of an aid station? Unfortunately, giving a DQ regardless of the infraction offers the most consistency.
For me personally, this specific judgement hinges on one fact: if Xavier did indeed initially deny that he received aid outside an aid station (as reported in the Durango Herald article someone linked above), then I think a DQ is justified. If he did not deny it and was upfront about it, I could believe it was an honest misunderstanding based on differences in the US/Euro scene, and in that case I believe a warning would be more appropriate.
A few last thoughts on some of the earlier posts in this thread:
1. Drinking water from a stream or putting snow on your head is not the same thing as receiving aid from your crew outside of an aid station. That stream and snow is available to all runners, whereas the crew is not and thus gives that runner an unfair advantage.
2. Yes, water is necessary for survival and nobody should be denied water if they need it for survival reasons. But nobody in that situation is going to take a few sips of water and a few ice cubes and then continue running a race.
3. Regardless of what Hardrock calls their event and the attitude of some that anything goes in a trail race because you're there to enjoy nature or whatever, if it's timed and there are winners and places then it's a competition. Competitions have rules to ensure there is a level playing field. You not personally caring about competing doesn't change this.
pnw_runner wrote:
I wonder how much of this could be due to differences between American and European trail running norms. I've run about 20 ultras (all in the US) and aid was only allowed in the specified aid stations at every single one, whereas in Europe it seems more acceptable to receive aid from spectators outside aid stations (at least based on what I've read).
If Xavier gets an hour penalty for a "sip of water and a few ice cubes", what happens if next year a runner takes half a bottle of water and an energy gel from their crew outside of an aid station? Unfortunately, giving a DQ regardless of the infraction offers the most consistency.
Must be regional in the US. I've not raced many ultras, but trail/mountain races in Alaska, and I haven't come across prohibitions about aid from spectators. Haven't come across many official aid stations for that matter. If there are spectators, they will offer aid. And often take your own route (see Mt. Marathon and other mountain runs).
Easy answer to penalty consistency. Give a warning to anyone first. Another easy answer, give the same time penalty for something that doesn't give a real advantage. There's the consistency you want. One hour in your example. I'd say more like 10 minutes. No one is going to give up 10 minutes for a few sips of water and a handful of ice.
Race should have given him a penalty of 30 minutes or so. It's a minor infraction IMO. I understand that the rule exists for a few reasons, and a 30 minute penalty along with public shame is going to be enough to keep most people in line. Save the DQ for major infractions (impeding other runners, course cutting, drugs, not kissing a rock).
Nobody on the podium can be happy with the result as it stands, and I would feel embarrassed if I were part of the race organization.
andydufresne2 wrote:
Race should have given him a penalty of 30 minutes or so. It's a minor infraction IMO. I understand that the rule exists for a few reasons, and a 30 minute penalty along with public shame is going to be enough to keep most people in line. Save the DQ for major infractions (impeding other runners, course cutting, drugs, not kissing a rock).
Nobody on the podium can be happy with the result as it stands, and I would feel embarrassed if I were part of the race organization.
Why 30 minutes?
Why not 1 hour, 2 hours or 6 hours?
...because he had completely crushed the yank competition. 30-60min penalty would have made sense.
Thanks for your input, intheno. The switch back cutting I was referring to is just from what I've seen in some of the Salomon produced race videos where I see Stian and Kilian (among others) sometimes go briefly off trail on descents to get a better running line. Not necessarily switch back cutting, but more smoothing out the corners and turns per se. When you're running fast downhill sometimes you don't have much choice - momentum doesn't care much about course markings.
I also would not take anything from a spectator. Not just because it's against the rules in any race I've run, but I wouldn't trust it unless I actually knee the person. People tamper with course markings so it's not a stretch to believe people would also prank you. If someone offers you Gatorade that looks like apple juice, I'd pass.
I can't speak to the muling aspect involving pacers as I've never used one. My bet is it happens pretty frequently.
I agree that there's probably doped athletes at many of the top races. There's starting to be some more serious money involved (not to mention attention) and the competition is definitely greater than a decade ago. If amateur runners and cyclists (and high school athletes) then we'd be naive to think otherwise.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
