I'm not sure what's meant by "voluntarily" here - do we mean people who sought out the race on their own, or people who were recruited but aren't being threatened?
It seems to me that there are two types of people in the race - the ones who want to be there and the ones who feel forced to be there. The soldier/girlfriend, the two brothers, and the dad/daughter all seem to want to be in the race. Wendy and Alex both seemed to be under duress, in my opinion. (I also thought her baby had been kidnapped.)
I can see why someone might say, "Wouldn't it be cool to have our own Amazing Race?" and then, if they had the money, set it up. What I don't get is why someone would say, "Let's have our own Amazing Race and let's threaten/coerce people to take part." I could see some crazy person forcing several people to take part, but it seems to be mixing motivations to me to have some people do it for internal reasons and others be doing it for externally applied reasons. Plus, all these weird characters we keep meeting along the way. Don't get me wrong - I'm enjoying it. I just don't get where it's coming from.
I think the sponsors are playing a game against each other, as well. They're betting on the racer(s) they chose to win. Brad doesn't work for the race, for example. He's probably working for Wendy's sponsor.
Shouldn't there be some sort of rules to stop the sponsors interfering, though? Mind you, that would make dull TV.
Yeah, it must originate more with the sponsors. Which means someone's got some cash, if the racers are going for the 32 mil, the sponsors must be going for significantly more.
Because it's not...fair? "I'm 'betting' that this person is going to win. Also, I am going to help said person and fuck with his competitors to ensure that he wins."
You'd think they chose their horses based on who they thought would do best
on their own.
I mean, it's obviously part of the rules of the game that you get to interfere, I suppose, but it changes the point, slightly.
Because it's not...fair?
I doubt that people who would kidnap a small child and engineer a situation where her parents die horribly in a car crash before her eyes are all that concerned with fairness.
You'd think they chose their horses based on who they thought would do best on their own.
That's your race, though.
it changes the point, slightly.
Changes the point from what? There's not some Platonic ideal of race whose rules they'd be breaking. They get to make their game what they want.
Because it's not...fair? "I'm 'betting' that this person is going to win. Also, I am going to help said person and fuck with his competitors to ensure that he wins."
I don't know. Seems like a different (and much more compelling) game that way, given the stakes involved.
And I don't think we can say at this point that there aren't rules about interference - they may just be a lot less comprehensive than you're assuming.
I think the sponsors are playing a game against each other, as well. They're betting on the racer(s) they chose to win. Brad doesn't work for the race, for example. He's probably working for Wendy's sponsor.
I'm with allyson. I suspect that there are a bunch of bored rich people sitting around somewhere who came up with this. Everyone puts up a certain amount of money, and picks a racer. Winner gets a certain amount of money and bragging rights for a year.
