land-speed
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: El Mirage Points?

To: Jim Dincau <jdincau@qnet.com>
Subject: Re: El Mirage Points?
From: Bryan Savage <b.a.savage@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:12:31 -0800
Jim,

Very interesting. As a member on the ISOC (http://www.isoc.org/isoc) I'd
like to point out that an "anonymous email" is spam. That is against the
law in most states.

Another interesting item. In democratic countries the accused, unless the
accused is a pedophile, are allowed to face the accuser.

But, the SCTA is a private club, an amateur organization and this makes the
above meaningless.

I believe our time would be better spent trying to figure if there is
a way to make the salt smoother. Develop a method of patching the salt
that makes the replacement salt bond well.

That'll keep us busy,
Bryan



Jim Dincau wrote:
 > Facts,
 >      It was brought to the attention of the SCTA board that John Noonan ran
 > the same motorcycle in two classes at the November 2005 El Mirage meet. This
 > is against rule V section C (page 5) of the El Mirage procedures. Mike
 > Mangelli (SCTA president) talked to John and he admitted doing so. John said
 > he did not know it was against the rules. He entered two bikes and one broke
 > before it made a run. They ran the one bike on Saturday, changed the body
 > work from the broken bike to the good one Saturday night and ran it again on
 > Sunday.The club reps voted to strip John of all the points he earned in 2005
 > and deny him any points for the May meet of 2006. The vote was 3 against (me
 > and the other two SDRC reps) and everyone else (25 or so) for.
 >
 > Personal opinion
 >      I was amazed how quickly this all came about. In the past rules
 > violations that make it to the board/reps meeting take at least two meetings
 > to come to a consensus. We generally discuss the problem, take it back to
 > the clubs for discussion and vote at the next meeting. The board learned of
 > this violation by anonymous emails that included pictures of the two bikes
 > on the days in question. Evidently someone has been thinking about this
 > since November of 2005. Several people seemed to think John did what he did
 > deliberately and knew it was illegal. John was not present to defend
 > himself.
 > Jim Dincau




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>