Hardrock's Controversy

This is largely in response to Andrea's comment on my last post, where she questioned my statement that the Hardrock lottery becomes more flawed every year. A lot of people lately have been debating the fairness of the Hardrock entry system and all have made good points. I don't have any illusions about being an expert, but I feel that I have been in the sport and particularly around Hardrock long enough to have formed my own valid opinion. So here is my take on the Hardrock lottery.

For those of you new to the sport, Hardrock is a gem of ulrarunning. It is held every year in the San Juan mountains of Southwestern Colorado, and features about 33,000 feet of climbing and the same descent. The average elevation is over 11,000 feet high and tops out above 14,000 feet. It is held almost entirely on trails, with some jeep road sections and some sections that aren't even on trail, but just traverse the high alpine tundra. Hardrock is one of the hardest endurance challenges on the planet, and therefore one of the most alluring.

Brad Templeton Photo

The race website states, "The course is designed to provide extreme challenges in altitude, steepness and remoteness." Also, "The run is a salute to the toughness and perseverance of the Hardrock miners who lived and worked in the area." What these statements indicate is that the run is not so much about winning anything, but more about experiencing something. The two concepts are similar, but in essence separate entities. Trying to win something evokes competition and pride. The goal is about getting to the end faster than everyone else. Alternately, trying to experience something places less emphasis on the end and more on the journey, which is basically the theme of every questing story since medieval times. But it's cliched because it's true: getting to the end is only really worthwhile if the journey makes it so. Where Hardrock differs from a race like Western States is that the winners at Hardrock, while honored, are on the same level as everyone else. At Western States the victors are held in high esteem because they beat everyone else, whereas at Hardrock the victors are upheld because they did what everyone else did, only a little faster. That difference defines the rift between competition and experience that seems to be widening every year in ultrarunning.

Hardrock's lottery system is complicated. First, nobody can enter without previously running one of several qualifying 100-mile races. Second, all first-time entrants get one ticket. More tickets can be awarded for various activities, such as volunteering at aid stations or helping to mark the course or doing trailwork, etc. Third, previous finishers receive one extra ticket for every Hardrock they have finished, and all of the previous year's top 5 finishers receive an extra ticket as well. Finally, all five-time finishers and the previous year's winners gain automatic entry. Says the website, "This is the fairest system we could come up with that rewards longtime supporters of Hardrock while still giving newcomers a fighting chance." I'll deal with these points one at a time.

First, the stipulation that a previous mountain 100 must be completed is absolutely reasonable. Hardrock really is a "postgraduate run", and must be treated as such. Even seasoned ultra veterans are routinely humiliated on the Hardrock course because it's just so freaking hard. This rule ensures that all starters have at least a basic idea of what they're getting themselves into.

Second, the tickets are the basis of the Hardrock lottery system. So the rule that first-time applicants receive one ticket is reasonable. The board extends an offer of more tickets to those who are willing to help the race. So volunteers are rewarded for their contributions with extra tickets, thus creating a healthy partnership between the board, the participants and the mountains themselves.

From this point on is where things become muddled and debatable. Anyone who has ever finished the race gets an additional ticket for every Hardrock they've finished, and the top five men and women from the year before get an additional ticket too. This seems like a good way to honor those who have put in the time and effort previously, but other factors clutter the outcome. This is why I said the lottery becomes more flawed as time goes on - every year more and more people are added to that list of finishers, so more and more people get extra tickets. Over time this has the potential to build up until hundreds of people have multiple tickets, and this will greatly dilute the chances of first-time applicants. Finally, after five finishes a person receives automatic entry to the race. I don't know the exact number of 5-time finishers currently, but I do know that every year a few more are welcomed to the club. It's only a matter of time until that number gets to 50, then 75, then 100 and then even more, leaving almost no room for regular applicants. With only 140 slots total, something will have to change in order to prevent veterans from completely blocking out newcomers.



Perhaps the biggest problem is merely the fact that almost six hundred people applied to run Hardrock this year. For 140 slots. That means that about 23% of applicants are going to toe the line. So no matter what kind of lottery system is devised, 77% of the people who sign up are going to be turned away, and this will certainly create a large amount of discontent just by the sheer weight of voices of those who have been turned away. Then certain individual cases arise that make people angry, even though the board has merely followed its own rules. For example, a friend of mine was not drawn in the lottery two years in a row, and when he went to sign up the third year he was unable to because his qualifying 100 had expired. He had tried to run the race when he was qualified, but they refused, and now he couldn't even try? It seemed ridiculous, but if the Hardrock board made a concession to him they would need to make concessions to literally hundreds of other people, and this would undermine the entire lottery process. Far better to piss off individuals and follow your protocol than to waffle around and subject yourself to even more ridicule as a result of having no real standards.

So now the biggest question is about the competition up front. As has been stated all over the internet recently, Hardrock has the opportunity to make their race the most competitive 100-mile event in America. But is that what the directors want? Do they want sponsors and money and media exposure to explode onto Silverton, or do they want to stick to their roots and run the race for the sake of running in the mountains? Clearly the latter is the case, because despite controversy they have remained true to their mission statement all these years, even as the sport and its popularity have burgeoned around them. I admit that I would like to see all the top trail runners standing next to me at the race start on July 8, but I can also respect the board's decision to remain true to their principles. By letting in elite runners they would be forced to exclude others, and that would place more emphasis on the finish line, and less on the course. The Hardrock board started the race to showcase the beauty of the San Juans and provide a challenge of epic proportions to everybody, not just to see who could run the race fastest. The beauty of the race is that the competition is man against mountain first, and man against man second.

This is the reason I love Hardrock so much. From my personal standpoint, yes, I am super competitive and I do race to win, but not at the cost of losing the value of why I run. I run for the adventure and the experience. The medals and awards are secondary to the run itself, and as long as that remains true I will always be a runner. If the tangible benefits ever surpass the intangible ones, I will have lost the real reason I run.

Silverton

Hardrock is in a tough position with their lottery. The biggest issue is not that they don't make concessions to elites, but that they do make concessions for past runners. While they are right to try to value these people, their system is literally eating itself up and in time will no longer be truly functional. An overhaul will be necessary to right this problem, but any changes will almost certainly anger more people than it appeases. Unfortunately that's generally the way any kind of change is received, even necessary change. I would like to offer an alternative form of lottery that would fix these problems, but the truth is that I can't think of anything that seems actually feasible. I can't criticize the Hardrock lottery because I don't know how to fix it. The issue is too complex for one person to create a working solution because that solution would inevitably be swayed toward his personal bias, even if unconsciously. What is needed is a large forum where people can provide their opinions and then work together to find a middle ground. But that's way too hippie to actually ever happen, so instead you can all comment on this post with your opinions and next week I'll compile them into a Simple Solution for the Salvation of Sanity, with a focus on the Hardrock lottery, and post it up here. Now go!