A lot of people are "happy with supporting" football and cricket, or cyclocross and mountain biking. That doesn't mean they'll apply the rules of one to the other. So the question is what are the rules of being supported or unsupported on AUK events (cos PBP is a special case) and how are they interpreted in practice?
I've always taken the view that an Audax looks very much like a road race, and that the rules are designed to limit the connection between the organiser and the rider, so that the actions of the rider do not become the responsibility of the organiser or AUK.
9.9 Rider Conduct
9.9.1 Riders agree that they are on a private excursion and are responsible for their own safety and conduct. Riders must follow the rules of the road and show consideration to other road users.
9.9.2 Riders are responsible for their own welfare and may stop for food and rest at any place. Organisers may provide route guidance and support such as food and rest facilities at controls. Personal support is only allowed at controls and riders are responsible for the behaviour of their personal helpers.
9.9.3 Riders who infringe AUK regulations, ignore event officials’ instructions, or behave in a manner likely to bring an event, an organiser, or AUK into disrepute may be excluded from the event and from future AUK events.
Participants may ride singly or in groups and may pace each other but may not be paced by any other cyclist or motor vehicle.
9.9.4 The organiser or AUK may impose additional conditions, provided these do not conflict with AUK regulations and appendices, and are published in the calendar and event literature.
9.10 Results: AUK events are not races and no timed results list or placings list of any AUK event may be published.
A 'team car', which follows a rider, or a group of riders, is an obvious example of racing practice. There are rules in Time Trials which ban handing-up from moving vehicles, and restrict support to the side of the road. There's also a limit to the number of times that a support vehicle can pass a rider, once in 10 miles is the rule. TTs also have a need to distance themselves from mass-start racing.
An interesting paradox arises from the idea of banning support outside controls. If it's not a competition, and the support is not from a moving vehicle, then why does it matter? Imposing ethics from competition on a private excursion, where responsible actors have freedom of choice to eat and rest where they wish, tends to indicate an affinity with competition.
We can consider the difference between Transamerica and RAAM. RAAM is very expensive to enter, because a link of responsibility has been established between the organiser and the participant. Transamerica, and other adventure races, seem to be limiting their liability by having similar 'arm's length' regulations to Audax, which makes them affordable.
There comes a point at which the organiser has to demonstrate that the rules that they impose in order to dissociate the event from racing are enforced. On an event the size of PBP, there are bound to be rule-breakers, so there are bound to be examples of enforcement. In addition to the scale of PBP, there is the cultural clash between one-time participants, and dyed-in-the-merino-wool randonneurs. That's also true of LEL, possibly more so, as qualification imbues some of the Audax ethic into PBP riders.
So I take the rules to be saying that Audax is not a race, and anyone who seeks to introduce race-like practices into it can be distanced through non-validation. It is possible to construct an ethical position from that, and if that provides motivation for participants and volunteers, that's a good thing.
