When I ran my first long trail races, support was simple. You carried what you needed, and every now and then, there was an aid station where volunteers handed out water, bananas, maybe some chocolate. If you were lucky, a friend or family member might meet you at a road crossing with a piece of your favorite food. It was basic, and the same for nearly everyone.
Over the years, the sport has changed — a lot. Today, at some races, professional athletes as myself can have an entire crew at multiple points along the course: people ready with pre-cooled drinks, dry shoes, running vests with all needed for the next section, and even inflatable ice pools. In other cases, you might see an athlete arriving alone, maybe with one person helping out — or no one at all. The difference in support is no longer a small detail. It’s becoming one of the biggest performance factors in modern ultra-trail racing.
Let’s see 2 examples of two elite athletes during an ultra trail race:
The approach in those cases are day and night. One searching for time optimisation and putting all the resources and thought on how to do that, the other mostly improvising on the go. There’s a lot of levels in between and in any case both are inside the rules of the race, in which case, if one is looking to get the best result, will try to maximise resources and optimise aid station time depending on that. But since athletes might have different financial and crew resources, the question is: is this fair? And maybe more importantly: is this the direction we want the sport to go?
Let’s be clear — having some support is not a bad thing. It’s great to have family, friends, or a crew cheering for you, passing you your bottle, maybe handing you your favorite snack or changing your headlamp. It can help you stay in the race, physically and mentally. It brings connection to an otherwise lonely effort. Also during ultra trails where the athlete is running during dozens of hours to have some nutrition that has been tested before and feel good is key, and it would be difficult to carry all from start. So some point of assistance makes sense for it.
But the reality today is that the amount and quality of support varies wildly. Some athletes arrive at an aid station with five people around them: one changing their shoes, one refilling bottles, another feeding them, someone else giving live feedback from the tracker. Others arrive alone, maybe without even someone to hand them a drop bag. And that’s not just anecdotal — it has a direct effect on performance.
At races like Western States, the rules allow this kind of full-scale crewing. In contrast, other events like UTMB have implemented specific regulations: limiting where support can be given, how many people are allowed to assist, and how much equipment can be exchanged. It’s an attempt to level the playing field — and I believe it’s necessary.
This brings us to a deeper question: what kind of sport are we building?
Is ultra-trail running becoming like Formula 1 or pro cycling, where performance depends not just on the athlete but on the size of the team, the technology, and the money behind them? Do we want a future where athletes have a team of support cars following the course, where gear changes and cooling strategies become decisive advantages?
Or do we think of trail running as something related with personal exploration and some degree of being self sufficient in wilderness? A race where amateurs and pros face the same mountains, the same sun, the same aid stations — and the same chance to dig deep.
I’m not advocating for no support at all. But I believe we need clear, consistent limits to ensure fairness — especially in professional races. Regulating the number of aid zones where crews are allowed, limiting how many people can assist, and defining what can be exchanged are all simple steps that preserve fairness in the sport.
This also matters beyond competition. When we normalize excessive crewing, we raise the barrier for entry. It becomes harder for athletes without big budgets or teams to compete on equal terms. It discourages the idea that endurance is about resilience, not resources.
As elite athletes we participate at this game of enhancing the support since we will always try to maximise our performance inside what the race rules permit, so we can have a equal chance to perform with the other athletes that are also maximising it. And doing so, we are bringing more and more aid year after year and making the gap with the athletes that can’t have assistance bigger and bigger. And like that, if the rules keep being open, to get back to a much «fair for all» competition will be more complicated.
Let’s think on how will look the sport in 10 years from now. Do we want a sport where to perform we need bigger budgets, bigger teams and where athletes «only» need to run? Or do we want a sport where all runners are provided with same opportunities and where management of the humans we are in face of the challenges of the natural spaces and conditions are still part of the journey?
For me, I’ll always choose the second.
Leave a Reply