IditaProject Forum

Just read about Michelle. What a terrible thing to happen to her. ITC supposedly all about protecting dogs but it's OK to leave them out in that kind of weather without shelter?! I think there should be more shelter cabins along the trail and IF ITC doesn't want dogs in them, then build some type of protection outside the cabins to shelter the dogs. AND make it big enough to protect several teams.

Yeah, well, and so..., now we've seen Nordman and Urbach at the awards banquet.
How'd you like them apples ?

Just to stir the pot some.....
It is widely understood that the PRIMARY responsibility for the safety and well-being of the dogs lies with the musher. There is adequate shelter for both dogs and mushers at each checkpoint, and if a musher elects to leave the checkpoint, it is understood that they believe they and their dogs will be OK on the trail. Sometimes, that decision is the wrong one and wrong decisions carry consequences (or should, IMHO). No one is suggesting that the dogs should suffer for the wrong decision made by their musher, which is why mushers have the ability to signal for help and SAR teams go out to do welfare checks even if no one has signaled that they need help. To suggest that the race officials don't care about the welfare of the dogs or worse is just as unfair as suggesting that the musher that made the unwise decision to head out of a checkpoint into the weather doesn't care about the welfare of the dogs (although there have been some individual instances when it is difficult to figure out how that decision was made). Bottom line is that I fail to see why a musher shouldn't be penalized for making a mistake that results in them having to break the rules in order to prioritize their safety and that of their dogs - making those decisions correctly is inherently the nature of this event. If the threat of a penalty would cause a musher making a mistake to risk the well-being of their dogs, then they don't belong on the trail. And that is entirely consistent with the statements made by many of the mushers who have been penalized - regardless of the threat of a penalty, they would place the well-being of their dogs first. And that is what they have done. I have no doubt there will be folks who disagree with me - and as is the nature of public discourse nowadays, will probably disagree with me in a manner that is disproportionate. But I figure that is the price to be paid for making this point.
Having said all of that, I would encourage folks to download and carefully read the posted rules, as many of you already have. But I would direct you to the very end of the document (Rules 49-51) and see if you can find in those rules a provision for altering the finish order. Because I can't. In fact, it specifically states that no time penalty can be assessed past White Mountain - only monetary penalties. Following the rules applies to both the participants and the officials.

Interesting about you take on 49-51. I need to read that section. I understand your point but what if a team heads out and trail report ahead is ok at the time they leave then weather changes. Not saying that is what happened here. Also wasn’t Mille at that shelter cabin with Michelle? Did she find a way to safely leave her dogs out?

I understand the "no shelter" rule and the reasons for it, and respect that. Whether it needs revision or a provision, I have no clue. I will leave that decision/discussion to those who actually do it, and I do appreciate hearing that perspective. Thanks LeadDog! so glad you are chiming in! What I find more disturbing is that it would be necessary for 4 mushers to report it. Did they make it in to Elim before she did? Maybe before she had time to find an official and report it herself?

mira wrote:Wasn't Mille together with Michelle at that cabin? Or do I recall wrongly?

You're not wrong about Mille, and she got her time adjusted as well. At the Banquet she was named as #17 while the standings (still) shows # 14.

Seb made a comment from a race judge perspective on Michelle's page that basically said what Lead said, in a more "Seb" fashion. It's also on the Iditarod Fan page, if anyone cares to hunt for it.

And perhaps not unexpectedly, the appeals committee has reversed the decision to enact a de facto time penalty on Mille and Michelle and has restored their original finishing positions, stating that such a penalty was not consistent with the rules as currently written. They did get docked $1000, same as Riley, for violation of Rule #37. I imagine many folks can and will continue to debate whether a musher should be penalized for acting in the best interests of their dogs even when the adverse situation is arguably of their own making. But at least the penalties are now consistent across the field of competitors and within the written rules.