Letting off Steam

[jjjanos]

Look at it this way Matt. We have stewards that are responsible for the running of our race weekend per the GCR. To get to that position they SHOULD have shown a level head and some common sense. As a rule most do and your protest and feedback to the Division director are taken into account when their license is reviewed. We may not always like their lack of action, or over reaction but they have earned a certain level of respect. They do not have anything other than yours, and others statements, and possible video. The original steward did not have video so he was going on your statement. Most will try to settle the dispute as gentleman as this is club racing. If you were in the Southeast the driver would have received a loss of 2 positions and possible points or probation on his license. See this link for very clear rules: http://www.sedivracing.org/2010_Penalty_Guidelines.pdf

And according to that document, the offending driver in this situation should have been penalized the same.

Was the contact avoidable? Undeniably yes... even if the "cause" of the accident was the loss of grip in the tires, there is NFW this loss was sudden. I.e. the driver knew his tires were less than ideal and failed to leave a suitable margin of error.

You protested the stewards lack of dishing out the punishment you deemed necessary. Rational people may disagree but the COA is not there to beat up on stewards to please a driver. Your only appeal was for the contact and proving that it was avoidable with NEW Evidence.

According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.

Don't know if he was blowing smoke up my rear over this, so YMMV

[John Nesbitt]

According to a former member of the CoA, when the CoA takes on a case the specifics items of the protest do not matter at all. To overturn the original findings of the court, there must be either a procedural error (as in this case through the failure to impose a penalty) or new evidence. If, however, in reviewing either the new or older evidence, the CoA notices a new violation not part of the initial SoM action, it is within their power to impose a penalty -- even on a driver who wasn't part of the original protest or the appeal!

i.e. Jack protests Jill over contact and SoMs find no foul. Jack appeals. In reviewing the evidence, the CoA notices that on the video, you can see Thumper drilling Bambi in the door, the CoA could penalize Thumper.

That used to be the case, but no longer. The COA is now explicitly forbidden to be a first court.

In your example, where new evidence implicates a third party, the COA would send the matter back to the original SOM, who would hear the case against him/her.

This preserves Thumper's right to a full hearing plus appeal.

[924Guy]

Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

I've never heard such a lame-ass excuse for taking a guy out of the weekend.

And to do it to two drivers, the same way, on two races back-to-back? Inexcusable.

This guy needs some points on his license, and some time to consider the wisdom of driving within his abilities.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

[seckerich]

Had that been the basis for the appeal and the video of those two incidents presented to the COA you might have gotten the right outcome.

[RedMisted]

Really sucks to hear the inaction on this one. This guy (driver of the ITS car) really needs to be set set straight about standards for driving.

Don't leave it up to us ITB guys to sort it out. It won't be pretty.

Send "Chopper" to sort it out. I'm damn sure he'd gladly oblige...