Tbh, almost everyone I hear after events both in public comments or in private, did talk about calling friends and family at some point, whereas I did believe lost dot really wants you alone and on your own. I do not think that calling somebody should be considered a grey zone if you just have a chat and they do not tell you stuff like road works or your route etc. I also think trail angels should be allowed, unless of course you know the person, but if the rules you accepted say nope, then nope it is.
Yeah I was also wondering about trail angels. There's a popular unofficial, unsupported race in BC where it is my experience for usually one trail angel to be set up, at least for part of it. Last time I raced, I was too slow for his grilled cheese setup but he left a full jug of water -- still appreciated in the arid, agricultural region.
Well, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m using a translator.
I’ve been following the races and the scene for a while now and will be trying my hand at an ultra for the first time this year. What’s on my mind is the extent to which these rules or the code of conduct might also have negative aspects.
For example, not everyone can afford the accommodation and hotels and/or the expensive equipment needed to sleep outdoors. If I’m not competing to win, or to be better than others, why can’t I sleep at home if my flat is right next to the route? Why can’t I find a way beforehand to make the trip as cheap as possible by staying with friends, relatives, etc. who live along the route – if that just happens to be the case?
I’m in the privileged position of being able to sleep in a hotel 100 metres from my own bed, but if I’m not approaching the whole thing competitively anyway, yet still want to respect the rules, this remains my only option – and excludes riders who can’t afford it.
I think this is a really interesting question. I'm sure Nicky will have some thoughts, too. But I think the answer to this is that it's difficult to draw the line if this is the case. A different answer could be more manned checkpoints offered, bursaries to riders or more education around how to book campsites etc.
The issue would arise when people, who could afford to and had the means to race without assistance, start to set up base camps along the route. It completely changes the spirit of ultra-distance racing and turns it more into an ultra-endurance event like RAAM. However, this is such an interesting point to talk about more!
There are certainly various options. Different price tiers for beginners—those with less money pay less. This is a common practice in the conference sector.
Or simply the option: “I’m racing for a placing, or I’m not.” Those who aren’t racing for a placing won’t have their time recorded in the rankings, but they’ll have more flexibility when it comes to planning their accommodations, for example.
After all, you have your own time to assess your performance anyway.
Being a rookie but not at all competitive I do want to have a clear mind and a set of straight forward rules when “racing” an event. For me being interested in this sport and these adventures, reading about it and listening to more experienced riders made it very obvious to me what self-supported means as well as I completely agree with the spirit of most of these events: fairness, integrity and community - write your own story and be proud of it. I do want to experience an event the best way I can, push myself, explore my limits and everything else. That’s what has got me hooked to these ultras. Reading your excellent post makes me aware of these unwritten rules and also that I’ve already crossed some of them without really knowing… calling my wife during an event when I was having my third flat of the night, tired and cold for some uplifting moral support, sorry for this, it kept me going indeed.
If you look at the real racers, the superhumans I look up to, although it’s becoming more mainstream I think the ones riding for top 10, top 20 all know each other and it’s still a small world. I mean, not playing and competing by the rules will also be self-regulating because other riders will question this and these people will take themselves out of the game soon enough. For these “grey” riders it can maybe happen once but not twice or more and the community will not support you anymore, you don’t ride with that same spirit. That being said it’s clear that we have to be careful with random accusations to riders as well.
I think I agree with the majority of the scaling as written here, but I do struggle a little on the area regarding contact with friends and family.
I don’t like the idea that it should be an event principle to not contact friends and family who are probably worried sick about the mad things we are doing. It’s true that when one is in contact, it’s pretty impossible to prevent them sending unsolicited advice, encouragement, even messages about the weather etc as you mention. One can obviously ask them not to, but it can’t be prevented. And this is totally a grey area.
I think I’d like events to be a bit clearer about this area though. I’d like clarification that it’s actually okay to tell your loved ones that you are ok and to maintain contact. But perhaps don’t use them for outside route planning/strategy/being a dick.
The current way - where this area doesn’t seem to often be clarified in events - makes it seem ‘naughty’ to me to even send texts to friends and family, and I’m not a fan of that stigma.
My reaction is that the grey areas in this framework are simply too wide and too subjective to be useful.
The biggest issue is that there isn’t one accepted interpretation of what “self-supported” actually means. Different races apply different standards. Some events allow assistance from other riders, others don’t. Some organisers enforce strictly, others ignore obvious breaches. That inconsistency makes it impossible to present a universal continuum of what is or isn’t acceptable.
Because of that, I don’t think creating categories of “light grey”, “mid grey”, and “dark grey” really solves anything, it just reframes personal opinions as principles. Mike Hall’s philosophy may be influential and probably reflects the broadest community understanding, but it still isn’t a governing standard.
Some examples also feel misclassified.
Example 3 (“light grey”) isn’t grey at all, those situations are generally accepted and allowed because they remain publicly accessible and non-exclusive (Except of support by other riders, which is in most cases not even grey).
Example 6 (“a friend dot watching who meets you ‘by coincidence’ with supplies”) also isn’t grey in my view. Accepting private supplies or parts from friends is external support. Whether it was pre-arranged or impossible to prove is irrelevant, the moment someone connected to you intervenes during the race, especially outside a clear public interaction, the self-supported principle has already been compromised.
What makes this harder is that even clear rule violations often go unenforced, including at major races. That undermines confidence in trying to define ever more detailed moral frameworks when organisers themselves don’t consistently act on obvious breaches.
The real problem isn’t that riders don’t understand grey areas. It’s that the rules and enforcement are inconsistent across events, so everyone ends up applying their own interpretation.
That said, I also think there should be room for humanity. If a rider reaches a point where continuing fully self-supported is no longer realistic; physically, mentally, mechanically, or because circumstances change, they shouldn’t be shamed for accepting help and continuing their adventure. Finishing an incredible journey can matter more than strict compliance.
But there should also be honesty about the consequences: if you knowingly step outside the rules to continue, then accept that you may no longer belong in the official classification. There’s nothing wrong with choosing the experience over the result, as long as you are transparent about it.
I think you've summed this up really well, Nicky. The grey area is also where I think newer riders fall short, as it is sort of an unsaid rule area.
Tbh, almost everyone I hear after events both in public comments or in private, did talk about calling friends and family at some point, whereas I did believe lost dot really wants you alone and on your own. I do not think that calling somebody should be considered a grey zone if you just have a chat and they do not tell you stuff like road works or your route etc. I also think trail angels should be allowed, unless of course you know the person, but if the rules you accepted say nope, then nope it is.
Yeah I was also wondering about trail angels. There's a popular unofficial, unsupported race in BC where it is my experience for usually one trail angel to be set up, at least for part of it. Last time I raced, I was too slow for his grilled cheese setup but he left a full jug of water -- still appreciated in the arid, agricultural region.
Well, I’m not a native English speaker, so I’m using a translator.
I’ve been following the races and the scene for a while now and will be trying my hand at an ultra for the first time this year. What’s on my mind is the extent to which these rules or the code of conduct might also have negative aspects.
For example, not everyone can afford the accommodation and hotels and/or the expensive equipment needed to sleep outdoors. If I’m not competing to win, or to be better than others, why can’t I sleep at home if my flat is right next to the route? Why can’t I find a way beforehand to make the trip as cheap as possible by staying with friends, relatives, etc. who live along the route – if that just happens to be the case?
I’m in the privileged position of being able to sleep in a hotel 100 metres from my own bed, but if I’m not approaching the whole thing competitively anyway, yet still want to respect the rules, this remains my only option – and excludes riders who can’t afford it.
I think this is a really interesting question. I'm sure Nicky will have some thoughts, too. But I think the answer to this is that it's difficult to draw the line if this is the case. A different answer could be more manned checkpoints offered, bursaries to riders or more education around how to book campsites etc.
The issue would arise when people, who could afford to and had the means to race without assistance, start to set up base camps along the route. It completely changes the spirit of ultra-distance racing and turns it more into an ultra-endurance event like RAAM. However, this is such an interesting point to talk about more!
There are certainly various options. Different price tiers for beginners—those with less money pay less. This is a common practice in the conference sector.
Or simply the option: “I’m racing for a placing, or I’m not.” Those who aren’t racing for a placing won’t have their time recorded in the rankings, but they’ll have more flexibility when it comes to planning their accommodations, for example.
After all, you have your own time to assess your performance anyway.
Being a rookie but not at all competitive I do want to have a clear mind and a set of straight forward rules when “racing” an event. For me being interested in this sport and these adventures, reading about it and listening to more experienced riders made it very obvious to me what self-supported means as well as I completely agree with the spirit of most of these events: fairness, integrity and community - write your own story and be proud of it. I do want to experience an event the best way I can, push myself, explore my limits and everything else. That’s what has got me hooked to these ultras. Reading your excellent post makes me aware of these unwritten rules and also that I’ve already crossed some of them without really knowing… calling my wife during an event when I was having my third flat of the night, tired and cold for some uplifting moral support, sorry for this, it kept me going indeed.
If you look at the real racers, the superhumans I look up to, although it’s becoming more mainstream I think the ones riding for top 10, top 20 all know each other and it’s still a small world. I mean, not playing and competing by the rules will also be self-regulating because other riders will question this and these people will take themselves out of the game soon enough. For these “grey” riders it can maybe happen once but not twice or more and the community will not support you anymore, you don’t ride with that same spirit. That being said it’s clear that we have to be careful with random accusations to riders as well.
I think I agree with the majority of the scaling as written here, but I do struggle a little on the area regarding contact with friends and family.
I don’t like the idea that it should be an event principle to not contact friends and family who are probably worried sick about the mad things we are doing. It’s true that when one is in contact, it’s pretty impossible to prevent them sending unsolicited advice, encouragement, even messages about the weather etc as you mention. One can obviously ask them not to, but it can’t be prevented. And this is totally a grey area.
I think I’d like events to be a bit clearer about this area though. I’d like clarification that it’s actually okay to tell your loved ones that you are ok and to maintain contact. But perhaps don’t use them for outside route planning/strategy/being a dick.
The current way - where this area doesn’t seem to often be clarified in events - makes it seem ‘naughty’ to me to even send texts to friends and family, and I’m not a fan of that stigma.
My reaction is that the grey areas in this framework are simply too wide and too subjective to be useful.
The biggest issue is that there isn’t one accepted interpretation of what “self-supported” actually means. Different races apply different standards. Some events allow assistance from other riders, others don’t. Some organisers enforce strictly, others ignore obvious breaches. That inconsistency makes it impossible to present a universal continuum of what is or isn’t acceptable.
Because of that, I don’t think creating categories of “light grey”, “mid grey”, and “dark grey” really solves anything, it just reframes personal opinions as principles. Mike Hall’s philosophy may be influential and probably reflects the broadest community understanding, but it still isn’t a governing standard.
Some examples also feel misclassified.
Example 3 (“light grey”) isn’t grey at all, those situations are generally accepted and allowed because they remain publicly accessible and non-exclusive (Except of support by other riders, which is in most cases not even grey).
Example 6 (“a friend dot watching who meets you ‘by coincidence’ with supplies”) also isn’t grey in my view. Accepting private supplies or parts from friends is external support. Whether it was pre-arranged or impossible to prove is irrelevant, the moment someone connected to you intervenes during the race, especially outside a clear public interaction, the self-supported principle has already been compromised.
What makes this harder is that even clear rule violations often go unenforced, including at major races. That undermines confidence in trying to define ever more detailed moral frameworks when organisers themselves don’t consistently act on obvious breaches.
The real problem isn’t that riders don’t understand grey areas. It’s that the rules and enforcement are inconsistent across events, so everyone ends up applying their own interpretation.
That said, I also think there should be room for humanity. If a rider reaches a point where continuing fully self-supported is no longer realistic; physically, mentally, mechanically, or because circumstances change, they shouldn’t be shamed for accepting help and continuing their adventure. Finishing an incredible journey can matter more than strict compliance.
But there should also be honesty about the consequences: if you knowingly step outside the rules to continue, then accept that you may no longer belong in the official classification. There’s nothing wrong with choosing the experience over the result, as long as you are transparent about it.