Got caught Cheating...

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...325 heads are on Ebay all the time...</font>

Well, as unique as the gesture may have been, and given that it may have served its purpose by possibly intimidating the perceived cheater into bailing, it would have been pointless in a true protest situation. No good tech inspectors worth their salt would have used a competitor-provided part as a standard against which to compare for legality. Nope, the whole shebang would have had to been bagged up and sent to an objective third party (like a new-car dealer) for comparison to verifiable stock parts or against known standards (like the workshop manual).

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What about a cheated-up car that is still a loser? </font>

It's still a cheater. Book 'em, Dan-o. Which would lead to my next point...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">How about putting some kind of 'scarlet letter' on the car?</font>

A fine idea. Make them wear the red badge of shame for 12 months and let everyone know that they have been proven to cheat.

Know why this would be effective? Think of the psychology of cheating in motorsports, especially club competition. Where's the value in winning? One competes to win, one desires winning for some intangible reason. It can't be for money, because we get none. It can't be for glory, because we get none. Fame? None?

We compete for competition's sake, and I suggest that we compete for acceptance and respect of our peers most of all. However, the basis for that respect and acceptance is that we are competing on a level playing field, or at least to a level set of rules. When that level set is lost, so goes the respect.

Think about your attitude and feelings towards the guy that consistently beats you weekend after weekend. Now think about your atittude towards your victor if you knew, for a fact, that they are/have been cheating. INSTANTLY your repect for that person is lost.

Now, put yourself in the other shoes: you're consistently winning. I suggest you do it again and again for the respect and admiration of your peers. Consider what would happen if they found out you're cheating? Instant loss of respect, and now what do you race for? Every time you beat someone in the future, even if you are 110% legal, you know that they think you're cheating. It would take a lot to over come such a severe psychological hurdle.

Which brings us back to our prior guy, the one cheating AND losing. Imagine how this guy must feel! Not only does he suck, but no amount of blatant cheating gets him up the grid! OF COURSE everyone must be cheating, thus I have to cheat some more! What a terrible never-ending circle.

We've beaten this dead horse in the past, and it will never go away until the rules change. Since all we have to win is a psychological battle, that's the only thing we're got to punish with.

As an off-the-wall metaphor, consider what would happen with society if we did not have police, instead we relied on self-policing and "citizen's arrests." What do you think would be the result? I predict the result would be very much like Club Racing is today: a core group of honest folks that do not partake in the rampant crime, but also do not wish to risk life and limb to bring the scofflaws to justice; a core group of criminals that believe there's very little risk in crime because the core group does not wish to risk the citizen's arrest; and a middle group of folks that commit crimes on occasion because "hell, everyone else is doing it" and they gotta 'get their fair share.'

Gotta change the system, boys. Otherwise, b*t*hing won't do anything.

GA

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by grega:
Well, as unique as the gesture may have been, and given that it may have served its purpose by possibly intimidating the perceived cheater into bailing, it would have been pointless in a true protest situation. No good tech inspectors worth their salt would have used a competitor-provided part as a standard against which to compare for legality. Nope, the whole shebang would have had to been bagged up and sent to an objective third party (like a new-car dealer) for comparison to verifiable stock parts or against known standards (like the workshop manual).

I was merely pointing out that I don't think for this particular move that anyone spent $2000 on a new BMW head. The junker would work fine for this purpose. But.....

Your comments about having new parts etc. means that protest procedure really and truly can't be used. If you have to have a new XYZ for an AAA that you are protesting then how the heck will that take place at the field tent. It can't. It has to go somewhere else that drives up the cost and again prevents someone from putting up bond because it costs so dang much......a horrible circle that, just as you say, cannot be broken without a rules change.

Like a maditory, random, self-imposed, racer run teardown/inspection as proposed on another thread.


------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!

[rjohnson999]

What changes would you suggest?

Originally posted by grega:
We've beaten this dead horse in the past, and it will never go away until the rules change.

Gotta change the system, boys.

[Geo]

Originally posted by rjohnson999:
Run in the SCCA where "my dog ate my homework" will finally be recognized as a legitimate excuse!

I think you missed the point. There are places in the rule book that truly require interpretation on the part of the reader. I don't think illegal cams, illegal displacement, or illegal CR require any sort of interpretation.

My point was to distinguish between the two.

Let's use the expample of a resistor in the wiring from a sensor to the ECU. If you can run a resistor, can it be variable? Some say yes, and some say no. IMHO when it says you can, you bloody well can. But should it be ruled that a variable resistor was not specifically allowed, I cannot see where someone should face draconian measures for such an interpretation (and I'm not saying they are or aren't legal, just making a point that interpretation is sometimes required).


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by rlearp:
Your comments about having new parts etc. means that protest procedure really and truly can't be used. If you have to have a new XYZ for an AAA that you are protesting then how the heck will that take place at the field tent. It can't.

Furthermore it's sometimes just downright absolutely impossible.

Try to get a brand new from the dealer Datsun 510 cam.


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

[Geo]

My question is: Is it really possible to have regular tech inspection for rules infringement without paid inspectors that will increase the entry fees? And what would the effect be on other volunteer positions?

I'm not trying to argue. I'm just not sure it can be done and wonder what people's thoughts are.


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

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">What changes would you suggest?</font>

A reasonable question.

First, accept that self-policing doesn't work. Allow it to remain, but it must not exist as the cornerstone for legality verification.

Second, responsiblity for active verification of legality must move to the sanctioning body, with a zeal approaching that displayed at the Runoffs, ARRC, and Pro Spec Miata. Open-hood sessions and weighing after races are nice, but Scrutineer-sanctioned tear-downs are a must. Competitors must enter their vehicles with the reasonable expectation that they could be torn down at any time.

Third, to do such would require on a change in basic infrastructure. I do not mean to disrepute or degrade the existing Tech personnel but each one of them must be willing and capable of supervising tear-downs of any vehicle at any event. These tear-downs should be randomly-chosen from various events, categories, and competitors, but numerous and common enough to where the possibility of any individual being chosen for significant inspection is high enough to be a disincentive.

Fourth, it requires competitor cooperation and support. If/when someone is chosen for deep inspection they should have expected it and be prepared for it, without whining. Just as in the Runoffs, vehicle verifications should be expected - and welcomed - as part of the process.

Finally, each competitor that is selected for verifiation must accept the expenses involved on their own accord. As an alternative, the Spec Fords have a compliance fee which just may very well be used for this idea, although I do not know the specifics; maybe something like this is a possibility.

Does this idea work? You tell me: how many cars with a reasonable chance of a top-10 finish are going to show up at the ARRC in November without being squeaky clean? What about the Runoffs? How about the next Pro Miata race? Trust me: it works. Until the responsibility of verification of legality is lifted from the shoulders of competitors onto the perview of the sanctioning body, neither the existence or suspicion of legality will disappear.

I already hear the whining: but that's a lot of work, hey this is club racing, this is supposed to be for fun, I can't afford it, I don't have any crew, I don't know how to work on my car, yada, yada, yada. Fine: the alternative is the current system where we all spend our Friday nights wanking on the keyboards complaining that the other guys are putting camshafts in their cars.

Your call.

[badal]

Bill Miller wrote:
Stories like the one Kirk mentioned are disturbing. I'll have to check the GCR, but why wasn't this protest carried through with? I remember something similar a couple of years ago at Summit Point. Car was fast, won the race and set a class track record. Protest was filed. Driver of the protested car 'cut a deal' to finish last in the race and lose his track record, in exchange for not being torn down. Why are these kinds of things allowed??????

If you mean the Yellow ITC Scirocco:
I filed the protest. Alone.
The bond was over $2500.
I knew the car was fast, but I was still on a fishing trip.

My choices:
(A)Allow the driver to finish last.
I get the win.
BTW, He had not set the lap record.
Cost to me $0.

or:
(Bet a significant part of my seasonal budget I would find a non-compliant part.
If I were right, I would still get the same net result as in A.

How many of you would choose "B"?
If so, how many mechanical protests have you filed?

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[Knestis]

How about starting with the creation of a new specialty distinct from the existing "tech inspection?"

Call it "rules compliance" and define its mission narrowly - catching cheaters. It could be a traveling hit squad, like the divisional people that don't show up at every regional in their area.

Negative reinforcement, to be effective, doesn't have to happen very often. It only has to happen and happen unpredictably. A specialty crew that comes to the race with a few pieces of specialized hardware (Cam Doctor, "whistler" compression checker), the know-how to use them, and an ever-growing knowledge base of how parts are SUPPOSED to be would be a pretty strong deterrent.

K

PS - I like the bumper sticker idea, too.

[rjohnson999]

Greg and Kirk,

I think the combination of these two might be workable. Without Kirks "compliance team" approach there just isn't enough time in the typical regional program for the tech crew, no matter who they are, to do the work and get to work on Monday morning.

Even an action initiated on Saturday would be problematic to complete, including reassembly, for the Sunday program. The way this is usually handled is a car is kept under Steward's control through all practice, qualifying and racing and invasive tear-downs aren't initiated until the completion of all competition for the car that weekend.

It works at the Runoffs because those taking the job know what they're getting into and it's once a year. It works at the ARRC because the heavy tech lifting is done Friday or Saturday night. The enduros don't produce the protest/compliance situations.

[Bill Miller]

Al,

Thanks for clarifying things, I got the info 2nd hand. Gotta make you wonder though, if a driver is willing to give up a win rather than be torn down, how is that anything but a tacit admission of guilt? And while the micro net result was the same, what about the macro result? I saw that same car w/ the same driver at Pocono the following year. It was fast there too.

I'm also curious as to how teardown bonds are determined. In the one story above, I believe it was established by the protested driver's crew. Who wouldn't try and inflate the cost, in that situation? Nobody wants to have to eat the cost of a full teardown, but like others have said, people accept that as part of the 'cost of doing business' at places like the Runoffs and the ARRC.

I like the 'scarlet letter' idea (and not just because it's mine), but how do you determine who gets it? Does the guy that lost his Runoffs' podium because his valves were a couple of thousanths too big get it. Mind you, these were stock parts installed by his engine builder. Or, does the guy that buys a built car, and doesn't totally pull it apart, get one if there's something that turns out to be illegal (and yeah, I know that this could get VERY sticky)? Do you get one on the first offense?

I agree, a line needs to be drawn in the sand. Self-policing flat out doesn't work. Going back to the steward-sanctioned teardowns, does the sanctioning region put up the bond, and pay for the rebuild, if the car is found to be compliant?

I think the penalties need to be the harshest when it's blatantly obvious (like the SSB counterfit springs at the Runoffs). I think the driver got off easy by just being sent home. If you're going to go to that extent to cheat something up, you should be ready to pay a high price if you get caught. Pull his license for a year (at least), and bar him from the Runoffs (if a National class car) or the ARRC for at least 3 years. BTW, anybody from the SE know if he's still running this year? If so, what, if anything, ever gets said at the track?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Gotta make you wonder though, if a driver is willing to give up a win rather than be torn down, how is that anything but a tacit admission of guilt?

For some the wood and plastic trophy isn't worth the expense and hassle of dealing with a teardown. I can understand why some wouldn't want to deal with it. Honestly.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm also curious as to how teardown bonds are determined. In the one story above, I believe it was established by the protested driver's crew. Who wouldn't try and inflate the cost, in that situation?

Yeah, that would be a real deterrence. Illegal and trying to avoid the teardown? Set the bond at some outrageous amount.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Self-policing flat out doesn't work.

Stepping back from this for a second and asking why it doesn't work, it becomes clear that it doesn't work because WE are the problem. If WE don't want to write the paper, then WE have no one to blame but OURSELVES. Let's not forget that. And I do understand all the arguments why WE don't want to write the paper. In some ways, all that's telling me is that it's not worth it to us.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Going back to the steward-sanctioned teardowns, does the sanctioning region put up the bond, and pay for the rebuild, if the car is found to be compliant?

Nobody puts up a bond. That's part of the cost of going racing.


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

[Bill Miller]

George,

Where's the expense (to the driver) of a teardown if the car is found to be complaint? That's the purpose of the bond. IF someone is going to protest me, and put up the bond money, I look at it as a free rebuild.

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

[jhooten]

Let's just do what the short dirt trackers do. Put a claim rule in effect. You win the first person in your class with the set amount of cash takes your car home. Don't worry when he wins next month you can buy it back.

Or, we just put say three different cars in each class and you have to buy your engine from a club sanctioned source with a seal on it. The seal is broken your are DQed until you buy a new engine with an intact seal.

Here is even a better one. All cars must be stored an a club sanctioned facility and if you want to work on it the on site tech inspector will supervise all work and verify all parts are in compliance befor they can be installed. Of course you have to pay his salary for the time he is watching you work.

Random tear downs at owners expensise, that'll work. The first time you piss off a steward I'll be willing to bet you just happen to get randomly chosen at every event for the next two years.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by jhooten:
Random tear downs at owners expensise, that'll work. The first time you piss off a steward I'll be willing to bet you just happen to get randomly chosen at every event for the next two years.

This is why I suggested that the sanctioning body cover the cost of the teardown/rebuild if the compeitor is found to be in compliance. It helps eliminate the potential for a steward to 'pick on' any one compeitor.


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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

Where's the expense (to the driver) of a teardown if the car is found to be complaint? That's the purpose of the bond. IF someone is going to protest me, and put up the bond money, I look at it as a free rebuild.

I get your point Bill, but I can see where people in compliance could still be motivated by other factors. Perhaps they have a long drive and want to get home. Perhaps they don't want the hassle. Perhaps the particular engine really went together just perfectly and they don't want to disturb it. Perhaps they just plain don't want to deal with it.

Whether it makes sense to you or not, people may be motivated by other things will still being legal.


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

[gran racing]

“Competitors must enter their vehicles with the reasonable expectation that they could be torn down at any time.”

If I were to enter the ARRC, I know going into the event that this is a possibility. Would this deter me at all from going to the event? A bit, yes and it is not because I’d be concerned with being found illegal. If I thought I could be competitive I’d still go knowing that the ARRC is at the end of the season and I’d have the winter to put the puzzle back together. My issue is that if certain items were torn down, I’m not sure if I would be able to put it back together by myself. For example if my engine were torn down. I will admit that I do not have to tools or know-how to reassemble it. Again with the ARRC I would have the winter to figure things out or pay someone else to put it back together. If this were done during the season is may quickly ruin the remainder of my season. For other people, it may simply be a matter of not having the time to reassemble things.

Now if something were implemented like Bill stated – the sanctioning body would cover the cost for the teardown / rebuild as long as the competitor is in compliance, then that would be fine with me.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the sanctioning body would cover the cost for the teardown / rebuild as long as the competitor is in compliance...</font>

While that may seem nice, it's unrealistic and will NEVER happen. You've got to keep in mind the motivating factors.

Think about it: who REALLY wants the cars to be legal? Well, of course, everyone wants it, but who REALLY wants this? The competitors, of course.

The sanctioning body puts on a race, and, honestly, as long as the race is run efficiently and safely it doesn't really matter to the region if the cars are legal or not. Nothing changes for the sancioning body if the cars are illegal compared to if they're legal, so why go to the extra expense and effort? That is why the sanctioning body has placed the responsiblity for legality back on the true stakeholders, the competitors.

Let's do an example. Let's say that we put on our own race, the SCCDG (Sports Car Club of Dave and Greg). Let's say that all our competitors are complaining that other cars are illegal, and they are demanding that we do tear downs at our expense. If we randomly (or specifically) choose cars for tear downs, you and I are going to have to cover the costs if they're found legal.

What are we going to do, Dave? How many cars do you think you and I are going to go after? I'd say that if you even suggest one, it will quickly be the SCCD (minus G). Hell, *I* don't want to pay for it, why should I? What do I have to gain by doing this?

Alternatively, if I increased the entry fees quite a bit and built up a nice kitty insurance policy to cover it, then I might change my mind. Of course, how many competitors do you think we're going to get for the next race if the entry fees were $300, $400, even $500 per race, even *IF* we guaranteed all cars were legal? Not too many, I'd wager.

Nope, the only way I see getting out of this morass is to mandate legality from all competitors, put the burden of proof on the competitors, get tough with inspections while placing the financial burden for inspections right back on the competitors. Those are the folks that have the most at stake, the most to gain, and the most to lose; they should therefore be the ones to cover the costs.

Or, we sit at our desks on Monday mornings complaining about "the cheating problem"...

GA

[gran racing]

hear ya Greg. All I’m trying to say is that I have enough trouble keeping my car together without the help of others tearing it down and leaving it that way. And I know there are others out there like myself. But then again it would have to depend on what is being looked at. If it is something silly like a valve cover, then great.

What if a person who has specific items “torn down” also has assistance from that same person (or group of people) to reassemble it if found within compliance? Or at least have the option of getting assistance putting it back together. Yes, there are still drawbacks to this.

Between this tread and the other one, we have come up with many ideas. Most of these ideas are not realistic or are more long-term goals. What are some of the things that could be done realistically with the tools we already have?

One very important thing that needs to be done is to educate people more on the protest process. The easy way out of doing this is to simply say it is already in the GCR. Yeah well I’ve read that section and still do not fully understand it. And bringing this subject to the forefront certainly doesn’t hurt. Publish a well written article in FasTrack about the protest process, what people can expect, advice on how to put together a “good” protest, things to stay away from, ect. It talks about bonds in the protest process. Are there any price ranges that could be provided? What are the rights of the person making the protest and the person being protested? Also have information on the SCCA web site regarding the protest process.

If for some silly reason people resist this and won’t do it, then it could even be published in the various regions’ magazines and put on their sites. Worst case, put a few page document together and include it with the registration packages provided at an event. At least something would be done instead of talking about it. Even the discussions had on this forum have proven to be valuable for me.

Making penalties harsher is great, but you also need to have people understand the process for that really to matter. If the penalty to have an illegal cam is a one-year suspension, it is almost meaningless if very few people feel confident to utilize the protest system in place.


------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Geo]

Originally posted by grega:
Nope, the only way I see getting out of this morass is to mandate legality from all competitors, put the burden of proof on the competitors, get tough with inspections while placing the financial burden for inspections right back on the competitors. Those are the folks that have the most at stake, the most to gain, and the most to lose; they should therefore be the ones to cover the costs.

Or, we sit at our desks on Monday mornings complaining about "the cheating problem"...

GA

Forgive me Greg, because I know this will seem like the party line, but there is another option. Writing the paper.

If WE want compliance, WE need to write the paper and put the money were our mouths are.

I'm not saying we have the very best solution, but I don't know of a better one at the moment to suggest.


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