A protest story.

[lateapex911]

Getting back to the core issue, Jack Hannifan has posted a question for us racers in the NE section regarding the tools issue.

Might be interesting reading, and I know a lot of you have the expertise to make some suggestions.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Greg Amy]

I'm sorry to be late to this party, but I've been out of town for over a week. I've also had some folks point out my lack of commentary here (thanks for noticing!) and ask for my two cents.

In my opinion, there is and should be an expectation of a certain of technical capability in a Chief Scrutineer, a certain level of administrative capabilities to manage a team that does, or the administrative capabilities to properly impound a car and supervise its transportation to someone who does. The GCR (6.18.1) states, "The Chief Technical and Safety Inspector or Series Technical and Safety Inspector shall ascertain that the cars comply with the GCR, Specification Books, and Supplementary Regulations." How else can these explicit duties be carried out?

Note that onsite tools and capable persons is not necessarily required. Convenient? Absolutely, because no one wants to have to wait for results. However, if a technical person with the tools to do the job is not available then the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer becomes one of impounding the vehicle in a safe manner and managing that vehicle under close scrutiny to a facility that can provide this techical expertise.

It is wholly wrong to agree to a technical inspection otherwise!!

This management capability became most critical during the initial discussion phase of this protest. Jake noted, "We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged." This was the initial failure point with the system. It was the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer to verify that these tools and skills were, indeed, available; if they were not then it fell upon him to arrange suitable post-event inspection. This, apparently, did not happen.

Next, knowing in advance that specific parts were protested, and knowing that stock examples would be needed for reasonable comparison, there should have been arrangements to confiscate those specific parts to be compared against known stock examples. This may seem obvious in hindsight, but apparently was not done and the parts were released prior to true verification. This is a very aggregious, and troubling, error. Then, to dig heels into the sand and not consider the errors is an blatent disregard for the General Competition Regulations, and a distinct discourtesy. Everyone is human, and everyone risks possibility of error.

Also note that ignorance of one's installed equipment is certainly no exception, and it cannot be excused even if absolutely true. He either knew about it in advance and should be sanctioned, or he picked the wrong engine builder, maintains accountability for that choice, and should be sanctioned. If ignorance is all it takes then I plan to tell Matt to do whatever he wants to my engine, just don't tell me about it; the worst we can expect is a DQ.

Finally, "stigma" as a penalty is not listed in the GCR as acceptable sanction; the DQ sanction applied is absolutely absurd and insulting to anyone's intelligence. "Stigma"?!? Hell, I'll take bad stigma and a win every time!

It appears that the technical inspection crew made it clear through words and actions that they do not consider the technical compliance of competition vehicles to be high on their priority list. Given that, what is In hindsight, I suggest the system should have worked as follows:

First, the protesters did a HELL of a job pre-informing the tech crew as to what they wanted in a detailed manner using the regulations as written. I don't see how they could have made it any easier or any clearer for anyone. Good job.

Second, when the protesters presented a list of items to check, the Chief Tech Inspector should have polled his team to find out if the tools and expertise were available to perform these inspections. At this point, finding some inadequacies, he should have notified all involved that checks A, B, and C would be performed at the track, but specific parts will be impounded for transportation to a suitable, mutually-agreed location to perform inspection procedures D, E, and F. Didn't happen. Instead the inspection team plodded along diving into unknown territory where they should have feared to tread.

Finally, parts for the latter inspection should have remained impounded until the inspections were performed to all parties' agreement. Why in the HELL would anyone even CONSIDER releasing those parts when there was no way they could verify compliance? Only after all inspections were performed adequately should the parts have been released and the final ruling released.
Then, to disregard the obvious compression ratio illegality when faced with obviously incorrect pistons is beyond me. Maybe they felt the domed pistons and incorrect compresion ratio were the same thing? Dunno, but totally oddball.

In my opinion, the protest system still - disappointly - failed them. Yes, I believe it's a system failure, which encouraged failure on an individual level. Had we a better system that placed more emphasis on vehicle compliance (instead of simply saying that we do) then I believe these inspections would have taken on a greater meaning, and been correctly perceived as the potentially watershed event that is was. Tend result of this protest is that we now have a perception of "catch me if you can" (thanks, Tom) in the northeast. Frankly, I don't see where there's been anything done to discourage cheating, and in fact I believe that this may have very well ENCOURAGED it. Where's the disincentive? A DQ? OUCH!
Please note again that I believe while technical capability within the Scrutineering staff is a good thing, the more important issues is that they either "didn't know what they didn't know", or didn't care enough to do this correctly.

In the end, it seems "the system" is poorly designed, and while not intended certainly makes a protest unattainable for many. This certainly supports the observation from many years that the system is truly broken and short of a wholesale change in attitudes the club will continue limping forward with its Secret moniker.

[Geo]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
This management capability became most critical during the initial discussion phase of this protest. Jake noted, "We left the meeting assured that the tools would be available and that a proper teardown location had been arranged." This was the initial failure point with the system. It was the responsibility of the Chief Scrutineer to verify that these tools and skills were, indeed, available; if they were not then it fell upon him to arrange suitable post-event inspection. This, apparently, did not happen.

Greg, I am pretty much in agreement with you, however....

A question I raise has not only gone unanswered, but even unaddressed. I think from an educational standpoint we should address it and find out what the letter of the law is so we can learn.

That point is, IIRC, the protestors agreed to certain methodologies to determine compliance. It is my assumption that this was written into the protest (Jake, can you comment and correct if necessary please). It would seem to me that if a methodology is agreed upon, this defines the scope. And if the agreed upon scope does not render a clear answer, there would appear to be no basis for broadening the scope (and again, we should get a clear answer here).

If this is indeed correct, we can all use this as a learning experience. What have we learned? Not to limit the scope or methodology for determining legality of any given part unless absolutely necessary.

Also, please don't tell me about common sense. I've seldom seen the law to operate on common sense. It operates on what is written.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[lateapex911]

George-

I have read your comments, but I must admit they got a little lost in the soup! Sorry.

I will address the throttle body part of the protests as an example, as it it the most black and white issue I see.

Before the meeting to determine our standards of acceptable proof of legality, Terry Hanushek, (and I am sorry Terry if you are out there and I am butchering the spelling of your name!) who was the Steward in charge of the protest, described how the protest would "run". He stressed that there could come forks in the road, where our feedback would be required. For example, he organized the items into different sections that were based on the physical methods of measurement. The tire protrusion item was first as it was simple to measure. The flywheel was separate as all it required was the removal of an inspection plate, and a magnet. Terry stated that IF those items were to be found not in compliance, he would come to us to get our decision on whether to continue into the 'expensive' parts of the protest.

I indicated that he should operate in such a manner as if we would be affirmative...he should prepare for the worst...that it was unlikely that we would pull up short at that point. He nodded and added that there were other, unforseen items that could arise, and that we should be available in the event the bond needed to be changed or the procedure altered.

Now, our standards for the throttle body were simple. Because the FSM had no bore measurement available, (and we wanted to keep the process as "streamlined" as possible) we agreed that we would accept a proper part number AND the lack of evidence of tampering as proof of the parts compliance.

Those two standards were not either/or. It was an "AND" statement. After the teardown and measurements, we were told that the decision that the trottle body was in compliance was based on only the lack of tampering standard, and the "appearance" of age.

(Later in that meeting I was allowed to ask clarifying questions, as I detailed above in the rather lenghty opus...I asked about "our options" regarding the throttle body, and Terry began to explain the procedure of comparision before he was stopped by Sarah, the second Steward on the Protest, who said, "No, we can't do that. The part hs been released")

While Terry did not ask us what would occur in each situation if they were unable to ascertain the standards we specified, his general statement regarding the need for us to be available to provide further input in the event of unforseen circumstances (such as the sudden inability to take proper measurements, and the lack of critical part numbers) was, to me the "what if" directive.

I fully expected that if something were to occur, such as the inability to CC the motor, and it was decided that it needed to be done off premises, that I would be contacted with a ultimatum such as: "Due to events beyond our control, we need to enlist the services of a dealershp and its staff to make the required measurements. This will add $XXX to the bond. Do you wish to proceed?"

In the throttle bodies case, it was even easier. The part should have been impounded, and the ultimatum to us would have been: "The part numbers you require are unavailable, we have, as an option, the ablilty to send the part to Kansas, and it can be measured and compared to either the database, or to a purchased stock part. If it is the latter, you will be responsible for the cost of shipping, and a restocking fee of $XXX. How do you wish to proceed?"

Now, if this was NOT the case...that the exact "what if" procedures needed to be spelled out in detail for EVERY protest item, I was not informed of that, nor was it EVER mentioned in any way that I can recall. I would strongly think that if that were the standard procedure, that it was incumbent upon the Steward to enlighten us of that fact.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

Here's a couple of comments that I'll offer. It may be too late, and it may not be. First, I see nothing in the GCR that allows for the increase of the bond, once it's established. Second, the rules clearly state that

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> The Chairman SOM shall accept any parts tendered by the owner for safe keeping pending appeal</font>

This was clearly not done, in the case of the throttle body. We've already gone over the fact that compliance was not determined based upon the previoiusly agreed upon standards. Also, the time limit to protest the person that released the part, has expired. However, I think that the Steward's license for the person that released the part(s) (Sarah?) should be revoked. Their knowledge of the rules is clearly lacking. I would contact someone in Topeka regarding this issue.

I agree w/ Greg, if anything, this has sent a message out that will encourage cheating. The process doesn't work!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Jake, based upon what you wrote I believe your protest was mishandled. You've added enough pertinent info that it clears up some matters.

In that case I would have filed a protest against the Chariman SOM for mishandling the impound. A lot of people don't know that officials can be protested in the execution of their duties (my only SCCA protest is against the Chief Steward because those under his responsibility screwed up qualifying leaving me with no "go for it" time and starting from the back). I only learned about this because I jumped in on the protest of two other more experienced members.

Bill, I don't think the protest would cause the official's license to be yanked. But I understand officials can get points assessed against them as well.

This is very educational.

Jake, I would certainly say if the official hadn't discussed the "forks in the road" then the scope spelled out would limit the protest. But an official guiding you through the process and telling you about such options shouldn't end up in a position to tell you that your options have been dropped. Certainly these are things for others to remember should they find themselves in a protest situation.

BTW, good job.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Tom Blaney]

Part of what we did with the protest was to send a strong message that cheating will not be tolerated. We hope and expect that there was a lot learned on both sides of the table with this action. Terry did a respectable job based on the action of his staff at the time, and Jake and I discussed the fact that there was nothing to be accomplished by protesting the stewards. I am sure that Terry and his staff learned what needed to be fixed and an additional slap on the wrist was not going to do anything to change what happened.

However the slap on the wrist that Shane got was far too inadequate, and should I/we/others take this type of action, that they spell out ahead of time what the penalty should be as part of the protest process.

Tom Blaney

[lateapex911]

Well guys, I know opinions are going to vary, and I know that even among our Five, that's probably the case.

But...I was vaguely aware of the ability to protest an official, but didn't give it much thought. At the time I felt that I might be too tied to the process to be truely objective, and I decided that the Appeal would be a better route. But, when the "guilty verdict" came in at the last minute, it seemed that an appeal of an upheld protest might be tricky, and really, I thought it would send the wrong message.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't disappointed in the procedings and in the outcome. My goals in this protest were probably more damaged than those of the other 4 guys, as my ideals were to use the system to verify the compliance of a questionable car, and if it was found to be out of compliance, to set a tone, and send a message to others. I would be a fool to think that this was the only regional ITA car running illegal parts!

Some of you think it was a total failure and indeed backfired because the actual message sent was one of the systems inability to correctly determine compliance. I can't argue totally with that, but I draw the line in saying that we are behind rather than ahead of where we were before the protest.

The net on this was that the sytem struggled, but several good things can come from it.

1- A weakness has been identified and is being rectified as we speak. See the "Protest tools" thread in the NE section of this BBS.

2- A car that was not in compliance has been identified and the facts in the matter that were able to be determnined have been made public.

(Before the protest,we were discussing the scope, tactics, etc, and I told the guys that at the conclusion of the protest I wanted to know one thing: that the car was illegal and had significant performance enhancing mods, or....that Shane was a heck of a wheelsman and got a ton out of the car on a small budget. I have my answer, but just barely.)

3 - We have identified a weakness in the system in my opinion. I am troubled in that I am not sure there is an easy remedy for it that doesn't involve yet another layer of "management". Still, we can't fix anything unless we can identify where it needs work, so we are ahead in that area!

4 - We sent a message that the competitors take legality seriously, know how to use the system, and are not afraid to. (I overheard some SCCA folk (not drivers) discussing the protest, and it was obvious they were not supportive of the action. The general comments were in the "Who cares? So what if its a little massaged...they need to just race" vein. Frankly, I don't get that kind of attitude. When we decided to race we were told to read the rulebook. It attempts to lay out a fair competition for all in the best way possible. Why is it OK for someone to decide that they deserve a bit more power or whatever...? Perhaps other organizations run where the understanding is that there is no real rulebook, or whatever, but thats not the case here. Well, at least in ITA, there are 5 of us who disagree, and think that the rulebook needs respect.

As for appeals and protests of officials, I just don't think its needed. I would much rather look at this from a systems point of view. While the problems could possibly be pinned on one person, I would rather understand why the system sputtered as I, and apparently others, think it did, and then try to resolve that.
I was kind of hoping that there might be some commentary from the "other side" here. While I have attempted to be as totally factual as possible, it was a long procedure with lots of meetings and I suppose I could have something slightly twisted. I think the net net as I have presented it is totally right, but I DO want to be totally fair in the portrayal of the event.

With regards to the sanctions against a driver who runs illegal domed high compression pistons in his car, I am surprised at the relative "slap on the wrist".

I am saddened actually, not because I want to see Shane suffer, but because I do think it sends a very dangerous message.

My impression that the bottom line of the "Penalties for cheating" thread we had here just a few weeks ago was that as competitors, we wanted to have fair, but strong penalties.

Was this either?

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Racer Chris]

It seems to me that a year ago a Spec Miata driver had his season points taken away in addition to disqualificaton, for a very minor infraction.
I agree that the penalty in this case does not match the infraction.
While it is unfortunate that the system wasn't able to handle the protest as it is designed to, it points out that we as drivers need to use this route a little more often so the officials will become better prepared to handle these situations.
I have heard many times of drivers being discouraged from protesting by one or another official. We really have to use the system regardless of how the officials feel about it. The entire system exists for us to use. It isn't the officials' system it is ours. Knowing how the protest rules are supposed to work is a driver's responsibility, just as we are supposed to know what modifications are and aren't allowed on our cars.
I am glad you five worked together to accomplish this because currently there are significant pressures working against such actions. Individually you would have found it nearly impossible to overcome those pressures I think.

------------------
Chris Foley
www.tangerineracing.com

[dickita15]

chris is spot on. and lets not forget the additional benifit. there are five drivers who have helped demystifie the protest procedure. we are a self policeing group and now the probability of a tear down in the furure is grester because of the actions of the gang of five. this has to be on the mind of anyone considoring building their next engine. and thanks to Jake's reporting the rest of us can learn from this as well. some will read this and decide the system is too hard to deal with, but some will take the knowledge from this and futher efforts to self police legality.
dick patullo