ITAC News.

[Knestis]

...Speaking personally, I'm a bit baffled as to how there could be such a difference between what is codified in the rules (which is also what was pitched to the BOD and approved) and what the SOP was at the time that I got involved in the ITAC in early 2007, and is still pretty much SOP today. It's likely that my own personal history in the institution doesn't go back far enough to understand it (member for 22 years, but I've really only been paying attention to IT since 2005.)

Yes, even in the last couple of months we have been making changes that are not based on racing results, on the grounds that these are errors: in those cases when two "identical" cars are at different weights or in different classes, we have agreed that one of them must be an error. Even this is a stretch of the rules as written but I thought you all would have been happy that we're at least allowed to make SOME changes (clearly from reading above and on the other forum, some of you would rather having nothing than something though.) ...

So far as I can tell, EVERY change that got made in recent years was done under the auspices of "error." That's the core of the resolution to the whole problem, and precisely where the powers-that-be in the CRB (with support of the BoD) will be most resistant - defining precisely how things should work, thereby defining what an ERROR actually is.

Right now, as JJJ points out, there's huge opportunity to play favorites, picking and choosing based on flexible personal definitions of that word. Mr. Keane will defend the process-derived weight of one car as being "without error" but will argue against applying that same process to a different make/model because, well, it would be "wrong."

Codify the definition of "right" to be "consistent with the following process...", get that process documented, and the problem disappears in a puff of logic. Of course, so does the opportunity for a few people to tweak things to align with their own little definitions of right and wrong...

K