Here’s where your argument goes off the rails, IMO. It’s plain to most people that what TD’s crew did was wrong, even if they’re not able to express exactly why it rubs them the wrong way. (I won’t go into it in depth, but the simple fact is it diminishes women’s elite sport).
To your point, it has little to do with who’s got a bigger Instagram follower count, and everything to do with the realities of public opprobrium in a sport where sponsor dollars is likely to dwarf race winnings.
Fixed if for you:
despite not doing anything in direct violation of the rules.
Imagine what the world would be like if people were only bound with what was legal, or even worse, what was legal and enforced/enforceable.
I think people are bothered by Cinch’s tactics for two main reasons, neither of which is a violation of written rules:
I think it is really a combination of those two things that make this different from, for example, creative interpretations of the F1 technical specifications. Those are many hundreds (thousands??) of pages long, and are written to not leave loopholes, even though those end up happening. Clever engineering to exploit loopholes/ambiguity in those regulations is part of the game. Gravel, with almost no rules, is not a situation where exploiting the lack of rules is seen in a positive light by many people. Doping isn’t against the written gravel rules either ( to the best of my knowledge, not sanctioned, etc.) Is doping in gravel races ‘doing nothing wrong’ simply because written rules weren’t violated?
No. “Outside assistance” means getting assistance from someone that is not part of the race such as family/friends stationed along the route.
Does nobody else think that this is actually a really good idea?
Yes - if you want to win.
I saw someone compare it to cutting in line at the grocery store. It’s a false comparison. Dangle $5k checks and a slew of potential endorsements, that could add up to a full time job’s worth amount of money, in that grocery line, and it would he chaos, especially if you promoted it as a “race”.
“Attention shoppers, first to register 1 gets $5k dollars and tens of thousands of dollars in potential endorsements. There are no rules and we’ll let you shoppers decided what the rules are on the fly”.
People trample and shoot others over the ability to buy Tickle Me Elmos, let alone what’s on the line at something like SBT or Unbound. Written and enforced laws at least keep most people in check, however, and serves as means to punish the worst examples.
This topic was covered in the most recent episode of the Groadio podcast (good listen, check it out) and host Amanda Nauman proposed the addition of one simple rule: “don’t use male domestiques for the women’s race.” She and her partner have added that to the rules of the race they direct (Mammoth Tuff). Seems like that could work: sure it leaves room for grey area interpretation of the rules, but it would certainly prevent tactics like this from being employed in a large scale.
If the prize money / sponsorship potential was enough, it would be easy to make backroom deals with people not wearing the team kit.
As gravel gets more popular, the stakes and rewards at the front only get higher. What kept a lot of this from happening before was there wasn’t much to gain by winning. Just like road racing, MTB’ing, horse racing, auto/moto racing, track and field, etc. They all started from humble beginnings.
Sleazy, sure, but hard to prove and if the reward potential is there, it could easily happen.
While this may be technically true, I don’t think this gives the Cinch team a pass. I wanted to avoid getting into why this is wrong in depth, but imma try. (God forgive me)
First, there’s confusion about what “the race” is. For all intents and purposes, there are two races: men’s elite and women’s elite. Not to offend anyone, but everyone else is basically riding a gran fondo (age groups, etc…).
Now, imagine if an ebike class were added to UG. It’s not hard to do, since bike companies are all-in on ebikes, there’s an ebike rainbow UCI WC, etc… (Let’s say battery technology has solved the obvious issue). Imagine if they just rolled ebikes into the mass start (because of time constraints) and one or more groups of e-bikers coordinated to assist one (or all) of the men’s elite riders. People might have difficulty articulating why it’s wrong, but it would be obvious to most that it is wrong.
So why is it wrong? It’s wrong because if Strickland beats Boswell by a few minutes because Strickland had a team of guys on ebikes, it’s an obvious travesty. It trivializes the race. Lots of reasons for this, but the main one IMO, is that the ebike and men’s elite races are not the “same race.” If they were, ebike riders would fill the ebike podium and they’d also fill the men’s elite podium.
The exact same problems apply when women’s elite riders get assistance from men. They’re not in the “same race”, otherwise the women’s podium would exclusively consist of men. Not only that, but accepting that support also trivializes the women’s race and women’s cycling in general.
The articulation problem explains why the winner would agree to participate in the scheme in the first place—you can make a dumb ethical mistake without being an evil person. Especially when team/group dynamics come into play.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
No, completely wrong. The rider guide quoted above is clear about only getting feed from official aid stations and aid station workers.
The same rider guide the organizers said they had to ignore because they would have to disqualify hundreds of athletes.
Which, of course, is complete BS as there are only a handful of podium spots and that the vast majority of riders are doing a fun ride, not racing.
They really need a few race rules for the pointy end and then fondo rules for the rest.
They’d also need a promoter that gave a crap.
But lots of riders get ad hoc assistance from other riders - and it seems to be totally within the spirit of cameraderie in the race - so for this to work you’d need to split the elite race and the “fondo” apart from each other. Someone upthread got a pump off another rider for example - they should get DQ’d by this logic.
I’d actually suggest if one of the lead riders gave another lead rider a gel because they were struggling people would be calling it an example of sportsmanship rather than calling for DQs.
Anyway the fact it’s even a debate it shows it needs to be clearer.
I think this is a week late, but I agree with it.
It’s not just my “logic”. It’s their written rules.
There’s no reason to DQ the guy that rolled across the line in 200th place. I don’t get the logic behind that line of reasoning. There’s nothing to DQ him from.
As I said above, they could have simple rules for those going for the podium and the cash prizes.
With the attitude of the promotors and elite riders, I just wonder if gravel racing will turn into a doped up circus show. It will be like US Postal towing their leader around the course in total dominance.
You’ll never cover every situation…but there is no reason you can’t make reasonable steps now to prevent situations like this in the future.
Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good. Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without. Pick your metaphor…
So a question for those who keep saying “It is not illegal”…back in the late 00’s, AICAR was not a prohibited substance, but was a drug that promoted weight loss and performance gains similar to EPO. Many top pro’s were widely suspected of using it (Sir Bradley, I’m looking at you…and -7). Using the logic of “It wasn’t illegal”, would you then say that athletes who used AICAR were not engaging in actions that violated the spirit if the rules and were ethically questionable (at best)?
If an individuals level of morality was part of racing then we’d all vote on who the best chap was at the start line before rolling around the course and letting him take a couple of seconds on the line. Given the wide variety of morals amongst those competing, rules are required to level things out and create guardrails within which everyone competes. Alternatively remove the competitive element and you move the focus to enjoyment and safety. Given the stakes now involved in Gravel surely it makes sense to have separate competitive fields and fondo fields so that all those taking part are able to access the experience they are looking for?
OK, but no one is making that argument. There is a sense of “fair play” and “ethics” baked into all rules…they are designed to create a “fairer” competitive environment.
So again, did someone who used AICAR technically abide by the rules, but still end up violating a sense of “fair play” and ethics for sport?
Gotta love how the trans athlete thread was shut down but this one is still full steamboat ahead. 
If it’s inside the rules then it is fair play. The more flexible you make rules the more likely you’ll have people interpreting them in different ways and the harder it is to enforce them. Ultimately competition is about winning and the higher the stakes the more motivation to take advantage of every last % accross every opportunity. Providing clear boundaries is part of fairness - it’s clear that you’re either inside them or outside them.