dg50@daimlerchrysler.com wrote, re my account of a protest I had filed:
<snip>
> The protestor here was entirely within his rights to protest here, and did
> nothing wrong.
Can't say as I was in any way concerned what someone like yourself would
think. I knew perfectly well what I was doing. Read on....
> But look at the _effects_ of this protest:
>
> 1) The class situation pre-protest is described as "hotly contested" implying
> that there were at least two cars in class that were capable of winning, and
> that winning margins were small. It can be assumed, based on this description,
> that the cheater was only as good as the other best cars in class, and wasn't
> running away with everything.
"It can be assumed" is a phrase that is easily applied to anything. "It
IS assumed wrongly" is the correct choice of words here.
> 2) By removing the cheat, the protested car was rendered no longer
>competitive;
> so much so that the car was sold - perhaps the owner even left the sport.
WRONG, WRONG, and MORE WRONG! Other competitors in the SAME car model
with LEGAL wheels continued to place well in that class that season. The
protested driver (who, BTW, was Solo II Chairperson of a very large
Region when this happened) was apparently NOT AS GOOD a driver as others
in the class, but his illegal wheels gave him enough of an unfair
advantage that he APPEARED to be competitive, until he was forced to
compete in a legal car.
> 3) This is not ProSolo, or Nationals - this is _Regional_ racing. As
> self-important as us National types like to feel sometimes, these guys are the
> bread and butter of the sport. It may be reasonable to expect a Pro to change
> cars at the drop of a hat, but we certainly can't expect Regional-only
> competitors to switch cars to say/become competitive (especially in Stock).
This guy went to the Solo II Nationals and multiple times and he ran the
occasional Pro (although he always ran legal wheels at those events -
hmmmm), and he DID buy and sell cars frequently to acquire competitive
ones. The car I protested was less than two years old, and he replaced
this car with an ex-Nationals winning one. You should learn to make
fewer assumptions and get more facts before you share opinions such as
this. Scotty, you listenin'?
> It looks to me like a competitor took steps to increase his car's performance
>to
> where it was on par with the top dogs in his class, and then stopped there.
Nope. his car was already competitive. He apparently wasn't.
>He
> was then pounced on by a rulebook lawyer, forced to play by the letter of the
> rules, and the net result was a loss for nearly everybody.
You're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper here. Read my
responses above and see if you still come to the same conclusion.
>The class lost, as
> competition was reduced, the competitor lost, as he was no longer competitive,
> and the SCCA lost, as it (may have) lost a member, and another brick was added
> to the "the SCCA is full of protesting lawyers" monument.
NO. the class WON, as many of the other competitors were pissed off that
their Solo II chairperson was cheating and beating them. The competitor
DESERVED to lose. He knew the rules perfectly well - should have been
setting an example, in fact - and he CHOSE to break them in an
incredibly obvious way. The SCCA GAINED competitors, as the folks who
had been discouraged at being beaten by a cheater came back and began
running again. The class size grew after this occurrence.
> In fact, about the only person who did benefit was the protestor, as there was
> one less person in contention for a class win in a given event.
Wrong again. See above. I DID wind up first in class for that event
after the protest, but I was NOT in contention for a Regional
Championship trophy, seeing as how I was from another Region. I had
brought up the issue in grid with the driver, and he just acted a
smartass. I told the other competitors, who to a man asked me to file a
protest, that I would only protest him if he beat me, and by less than
.75 seconds (the course was a little over a minute). He beat me by less
than .4 seconds. A reasonable person could logically conclude that
wheels a full inch wider than were legal could easily have accounted for
the difference, and probably more.
>While the
> protest was entirely legal, and entirely correct, and he cannot be faulted for
> his actions, methinks I detect a whiff of Oscar Mayer in the air....
Read the above. If you want to know what REALLY happened rather than
just look for a way to call names, ask someone who was THERE.
> While I believe very strongly that competitors have the innate right to
>protect
> themselves from cheaters seeking an unfair advantage, and I believe that the
> SCCA should make and enforce rules that keep costs down (especially for Stock
> (ie "entry level") classes) I also believe that the rules we have today do not
> provide enough leeway for competitors with uncompetitive cars to make those
>cars
> competitive.
And we are all aware, ad nauseum, of your opinions in this regard. Write
a letter.
> If this is starting to sound like the "Bohemian vs Prussian" argument, or that
> it sounds like I'm starting to think about specific rules allowences for
> specific cars, then you get a gold star.
No surprises here.
>[BTW, "protest guy" please don't get in a huff about being used as an example.
What offends me is the number of absolutely false assumptions that you
had to make in order to form your opinions. Makes one wonder re your
observations in other areas....
> I
> left your name off the quote on purpose, as you didn't do anything wrong, and
>so
> I didn't want this to turn into a personal attack on your decision.
It IS an attack, and a very personal one. The term "Oscar Mayer" is
precisely the sort of verbiage that belies any vague pretense at
objectivity that you might have had otherwise.
And I AM using my name: I'm not the slightest bit ashamed or embarrased
about the decision I made.
Jay "I'd do it again under the same circumstances" Mitchell
|