That's more of a meta-race.
Seems to me folks are getting hung up on the things that define certain kinds of racing, and that we're in kind of a race to define racing.

But I hope we can agree that what is essential to racing is a good faith agreement to compete to make the best time or finish first over a given route under a stipulated set of circumstances, e.g., right here and now, to that sign; or, at such and such date and place, staggered starting times to be determined by lottery, on equipment conforming to standards of such and such authority or whatever. But the fact that it's a good faith agreement should mean that it doesn't matter if there are any officials or recordings outside the memories of the participants.

And it does seem that the presence of clocks, cameras and bib numbers isn't sufficient to qualify the simultaneous rides of a group of cyclists as a race, because it's quite conceivable that half the group could abandon while most or all of the rest just sandbag. If only one person is seriously trying, it's not a race, no matter how many numbers were pinned on, or how many places the results are published. Just like when your riding mates just let you go off the front, the moment the others break the agreement, it's not so much a race anymore. While quite real, such official events can be anything from minor disappointments for the nominal winners to downright frauds, which seems to me worse than merely imaginary.