Pocono Mechanical Protest

[zracre]

that splains it!

[Eric Parham]

I think you guys did what had to be done to promote fair racing. I do not think you should feel bad about the way the protest turned out. I used to know the protestee from autocrossing. My bad, but I had not found enough time to chat much or catch up in recent years.

I don't think anyone here is to blame, but I do believe that he accurately told the steward how he felt. I think he also felt that most of his competition was cheating. Perhaps it was his racer's ego. Knowing some of you guys pretty well, I am quite certain that he was completely mistaken. Perhaps his social distance, as others have mentioned, kept him from noticing that. Thus, my guess is that he believed he was justified.

It sounds to me like Greg tried reason last year but ran head first into that ego. I wish someone else had made another effort. I doubt whether we'll see him again. If we do, it will only be if he believes that he's on the same footing as everyone else, and believes that the past won't be held against him. I do respect him for being so honest in his discussions on rules compliance, but it seems like that honesty should have provoked more friendly discussions with his competitors than it actually did.

I hope that the present or any other protested party would be accepted back without prejudice should he choose to come back after serving his suspension and paying his fines. Some comments that I see above to the contrary may be accurate, but are not in the spirit of good sportsmanship, IMHO.

[gran racing]

If someone were to come back, approach the people they cheated against and publicly appologized, then yeah, I can see your rehabilitation happening. If someone just comes back after the suspension is lifted and the items were not simply different interpretations of the rules or even an honest mistake, you lost my respect and would really have to earn it back.

I guess it's just my personality, but there's not much gratification in winning and setting lap records if I'm cheating. I'd rather come in 10th legally than cheat and win even if others are cheating. Again, pushing the rules is a part of racing but people need to be willing to defend their reasoning and why its legal.

[RKramden]

plus the 250 fine if he ever pays it.
[/b]

SCCA has a "list" and he will be added to it. If he does not pay the fine, he won't even be allowed to renew his membership. Any debts (either to a region, or to national) can get you on the "list".

A few drivers have tried to run races at NHIS but were on the list. They had to pay the outstanding debts (either to national or to a region) before they were allowed to register for a race.

As for running with EMRA, I noticed that their rules don't even contain the word "protest", and I have never known them to be concerned with cars being legal. Meeting safety requirements, yes, but being legal, no.

[RSTPerformance]

I hope that the present or any other protested party would be accepted back without prejudice should he choose to come back after serving his suspension and paying his fines. Some comments that I see above to the contrary may be accurate, but are not in the spirit of good sportsmanship, IMHO.
[/b]

Good comment Eric.

I do have the slightest respect in the fact that he simply withdrew and took the hit. That certainly IMO shows that he knows if he had gone through with the protest they (the stewards/tech) would have done a good job and found illigal parts. He at least had enough respect for all of the volunteers at the event to not drag them through a long process in hopes that someone makes an error that favors to his benefit.


Thanks to all involved for making the process work.

Raymond

[Wreckerboy]

SNIP

As for running with EMRA, I noticed that their rules don't even contain the word "protest", and I have never known them to be concerned with cars being legal. Meeting safety requirements, yes, but being legal, no.
[/b]

First, thanks for the compliment regarding safety concerns.

A brief clarification regarding EMRA and the legality of cars within class, as this is a common question or concern. I know I am not being attacked, and take no offense with your comments. You are correct, there is no verbiage in the EMRA Car Prep Guide with regards to protests. This stems from EMRA's mindset with regards to car classification. It's a little more liberal than the SCCA (not better, just different) and allows for cars to be modified in excess of the class rules. EMRA ST rules do not track to the IT rules item for item.

However, such modifications do not come without a cost - EMRA has a process in place that allows for "bumping" a car up in class depending upon what modifications are made above the rule set. These are spelled out in the Car Prep Guide as:

From The EMRA Car Prepartion Rules: ST Class exceptions are designed to allow modification to the car within the limits of car preparation.
An “exception” is any deviation from the class car preparation rules, as defined. Only the below deviations, or bumps, are allowed.
ANY CAR TAKING AT LEAST ONE (1) EXCEPTION, AS DEFINED BELOW, WILL BE MOVED UP IN CLASS. [/b]

Although every attempt is made to properly class each car for an event, it is really the responsibility of the competitors to police and identify improperly classed cars. EMRA wants to be sure that an individual racer or time trialist knows he/she can and should report what he/she feels is an incorrect classing to the Chief Steward, Stewards, or Tech.

Basically, we handle it in a much more informal manner than the SCCA does. Again, not better or worse, but more suited to our needs.

Some of you here have run with us and have had questions regarding the legality or classification of cars. I've had some competitors express concerns about specific cars, and I've either worked with the person to understand the rules or to understand that a specific car may or may not be illegal. However, we have had protests filed in the past and cars have been inspected. It just doesn't happen as often.

Again, just clarifying things, no offense taken.

[Eric Parham]

That certainly IMO shows that he knows if he had gone through with the protest they (the stewards/tech) would have done a good job and found illigal parts. He at least had enough respect for all of the volunteers at the event to not drag them through a long process in hopes that someone makes an error that favors to his benefit.
[/b]

That just got me thinking. This is purely hypothetical, but what would be the "best" course of action if someone was protested for an item that she knew to be questionable, and decided at that point that she would rather admit she was wrong and save everyone the ordeal of a teardown. Is that allowed, and if so, in what ways might the outcome or aftermath differ from the present case?

Also, if someone is proven non-compliant and/or substantially admits to it, can anything be done about track records previously set by that particular car/driver combination? Shouldn't we at least assume that a record set during the last year should be invalidated (at least in the absence of a showing by the competitor that the problem was just a recent mistake)? Can the protestee come forward and admit that a record should not stand without incurring additional penalties? It seems like this sort of thing should be in the GCR, but I don't really see it.

Why don't we automatically have a higher level of post-race inspection whenever a new record is set? On a side note, does the protestee in this thread still hold a track record for WGI, or was that the ITA long course record (recently nailed by GA )?

[Andy Bettencourt]

That just got me thinking. This is purely hypothetical, but what would be the "best" course of action if someone was protested for an item that she knew to be questionable, and decided at that point that she would rather admit she was wrong and save everyone the ordeal of a teardown. Is that allowed, and if so, in what ways might the outcome or aftermath differ from the present case?

Also, if someone is proven non-compliant and/or substantially admits to it, can anything be done about track records previously set by that particular car/driver combination? Shouldn't we at least assume that a record set during the last year should be invalidated (at least in the absence of a showing by the competitor that the problem was just a recent mistake)? Can the protestee come forward and admit that a record should not stand without incurring additional penalties? It seems like this sort of thing should be in the GCR, but I don't really see it.

Why don't we automatically have a higher level of post-race inspection whenever a new record is set? On a side note, does the protestee in this thread still hold a track record for WGI, or was that the ITA long course record (recently nailed by GA )? [/b]

http://www.mylaps.com/results/newResults.j...360&highlight=4

Short course record.

I would think that if you admitted to any infraction, they would just penalize your race and your license. By refusing altogether, you take the suspension and fine.

Tough to prove anything retroactively - and "I just put that in this winter" would come out of any cheaters mouth. I am sure you can admit to anything and have anything changed but how often does that happen? At NHIS, Nick's Qualifying time was an impossibly low 1:14.0 in SM. We knew it was wrong and so did everyone else. I went to T&S and told them we wanted our second fastest qual time which was accurate according to our stopwatches. They will change stuff for good reason.

[lateapex911]

During the CRX protest (See "A Protest Story" on this site), one of the questions I asked the Protest Steward, was, when he told me that the pistons were not Honda, was, "What did he say in answer to the question of when that motor was installed?". He responded "I don't know". Upon further, rather annoyed discussion, it turns out that he failed to ask that question in any way, but admitted he should have. It was somehow forgoten.

It was critical up to the day of the protest, as the car had recently set a track record. But, that record was broken by another car on the day of the protest, so it became a moot point.

But, through my discussion with him, IF he had asked, and the answer came back something like, "I didn't know there were illegal pistons in it, I bought it from a guy last winter", then indeed, the record would be erased. Now, thats just one stewards word on it, and there were several significant procedural mistakes made on that protest, and presumabley he should have caught them...so, who knows if he's right.

But..if it were ME asking the questions in the Stewards position, it would be one of the first questions I'd ask. And I'd ask it again when the results were being presented.

[Chris Wire]

Why don't we automatically have a higher level of post-race inspection whenever a new record is set?[/b]

I don't know that regions specifically monitor or even care about track records. It's more for bragging rights for the racer types. I know that when a time shows up on the T&S sheet here in CFR and it's below the "track record" for the venue, it will be noted on the sheet. But as for 'scrutinizing' the new record holder for compliance, the region doesn't treat it any differently than normal.

I could find no specific reference to it in the GCR.

[Tkczecheredflag]

Question - has any competitor proven a cheat by tech come back to race and earn back respect? I haven't heard of ITA Shane Huffman (?) ever coming back to race and that is the only person I've heard of in the NE regional program proven to be illegal by teardown in my brief 7 years racing.
[/b]

I started sharing garage space with Shane Hawthorne ITA #69, this past year in our home town. He is currently building an engine (to IT spec) and expects to be back this year. He spent the last year "tying the knot", and although we do not see each other all that often I believe he will be back in ITA soon. I know he has a current SCCA comp license and is looking forward to a come back as soon as possible.

Keep in mind that all good stories (protests) have two sides and this one is no exception. I've heard his version and it would surely make you scratch your head a bit. I suspect that the "real true story" lies somewhere in the middle of the two versions.

The real question is this - Is he bitter and does he seek "paper retribution"?

[gran racing]

The real question is this - Is he bitter and does he seek "paper retribution"?[/b]

If the cars he's or anyone else is seeking retribution to are legal, then who cares. :P

[Andy Bettencourt]

That is EXCELLENT about Shane. Never met him but hope to race with him.

[Rabbit05]

That just got me thinking. This is purely hypothetical, but what would be the "best" course of action if someone was protested for an item that she knew to be questionable, and decided at that point that she would rather admit she was wrong and save everyone the ordeal of a teardown. Is that allowed, and if so, in what ways might the outcome or aftermath differ from the present case?

Also, if someone is proven non-compliant and/or substantially admits to it, can anything be done about track records previously set by that particular car/driver combination? Shouldn't we at least assume that a record set during the last year should be invalidated (at least in the absence of a showing by the competitor that the problem was just a recent mistake)? Can the protestee come forward and admit that a record should not stand without incurring additional penalties? It seems like this sort of thing should be in the GCR, but I don't really see it.

Why don't we automatically have a higher level of post-race inspection whenever a new record is set? On a side note, does the protestee in this thread still hold a track record for WGI, or was that the ITA long course record (recently nailed by GA )?
[/b]

I don't think that a higher post race inspection is a good idea when a new record is set. To reward a driver that had a good day by sending his car/motor home in a box would not be fun. There are a number of fast drivers here, that have well developed cars, with technology advancements, and we apply it to our cars, track records are going to be broken.
I think the current way of approching a driver/ car ,trying to talk it out first, is a great way for the self policing of IT. And if there is no resolve between drivers, then, yes, you have to go to to the tech officials.

I just dont see the point of cheating for a $2 plastic trophy .



John VanDenburgh

VanDenburgh Motorsports
IT ??VW

[benspeed]

It's good that Shane will return and hopefully recover his racing reputation. I hope he goes above and beyond to prove he has acknowledged what happened and demonstrates an "open engine" approach to his future racing.

I would like Windell to feel that he can return to SCCA, but only under our rules and willingly complied to.

As a club we should always be willing to give our members a second chance. And those members who step out of line should recognize they will receive a higher level of scrutiny.

[Eric Parham]

I would think that if you admitted to any infraction, they would just penalize your race and your license. By refusing altogether, you take the suspension and fine.
[/b]

If a protest was filed on cam specs, compression ratio and rear track, for example, would the engine still get opened to check cams and pistons if the car was found non-compliant on rear track? At any point, could the protestee avoid a teardown by admitting to one item, or would he have to "admit" to everything on the list (even if compliant) in order to avoid a teardown? Would the answer depend on the particular item admitted?

[lateapex911]

I think thats in the hands of the protestee. In our protest, we were asked if something was found to be illegal, early in the process, did we want to contnue? If we said yes, and the rest of the items were in compliance, we would lose our bond money for that part of the protest. If we said no, then the bond would be returned, and the driver would be penalized for the found infractions, but nothing more.

I think the same would hold in the event of a "confession". It would depend on what was confessed, and ultimately up to the protester to accept or not. So, lets say compression and cam were still up in the air, and the cam was "confessed to". Maybe thats an attempt on the protested driver to keep the rest of the protest from occuring. Or is it the gentlemanly thing to do to save everyone the effort? Bluff? Or? It becomes a bit of a poker game.

(To head that off, in our protest, we instructed the Stewards that we had written our protest, and expected it to be completed. We were not going to stop halfway)

[theracinglawyer]

I should not even get involved but I want to remind all of you who feel bad and are bearing your souls. When you do something you feel was in the best interest of the sport and your class of racing you don't need to apologize. When you win by cheating all you prove is that you know how to cheat.

All that being said, lets hope the reasons the competitor refused to have his car torn down had nothing to do with cheating.

You are leading by example and for that Greg you should be congratulated.

Good luck this year.

[lateapex911]

I got an email form someone close to the Stewarding game, that adds a bit of light to some of the questions.

1- Track records. It's not going to be removed via the protest process if it was set prior to the event that the car was protesed at and found illegal. It will be stripped from the record if it was set at the event the protest occurred, as the car gets wholly removed from the results.

2- "Confessions"- The opinion would be that the confession would need to be total, to avoid the teardown. And that most SOMs would be very hesitant to accept it, as it leaves the parts in the car, and with no parts and no measurements, the protestee can appeal the decision, and the SOM has nothing to stand on.

Again, these are opinions, but from someone better informed than I.

[jjjanos]

2- "Confessions"- The opinion would be that the confession would need to be total, to avoid the teardown. And that most SOMs would be very hesitant to accept it, as it leaves the parts in the car, and with no parts and no measurements, the protestee can appeal the decision, and the SOM has nothing to stand on.
[/b]

I would lose a great deal of faith in the protest/appeals process if a driver wins an appeal in a case where he signed a statement admitting that his car was noncompliant. I would hope that admitting to the infraction would be sufficient to uphold the original protest, even without a physical test of the legality of the parts in question.

In terms of stopping the protest once an illegal part is found, I would think it would be a mixed bag. If you stop upon finding an illegal part and the driver wins an appeal, he would be reinstated and you would have no way of knowing whether the rest of the car was legal.