Hows that for a catchy title?
>On the notice board we saw that Kurt Spitzner, who
>originally issued the competitor bulletin announcing the
>tie-breaking rule, has appealed the decision (without citing
>reasons), which now puts it in the hands of the PRB.
Once again rules pulled out of someone's rear and/or made up on the spot. I'll repeat what I said last year, THIS is what makes "Pro" Rally look bad, not 20 year old cars.
>The protest decision is being appealed by KS.
Why? I thought only the competitor can appeal? Since when does an ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICAL have any rights in a competitors appeal process? Is there anything in the rules that says he can do that or did he just make that one up on the spot too?
>It seems like
>a rather personal issue to me at this point, why would he
>push this past the protest committe? To see if the rule
>change making him have final say in all matters could
>survive an appeal? How is appealing the decision in the best
>interest of the sport?
The question is how is KS in the interest of the sport? Can anyone defend this?
I wonder just how many times things like this will happen before everyone, not just the "loud minority" his sycophants claim, opens their eyes and sees that he needs to go, post haste.
>On the notice board we saw that Kurt Spitzner, who
>originally issued the competitor bulletin announcing the
>tie-breaking rule, has appealed the decision (without citing
>reasons), which now puts it in the hands of the PRB.
Once again rules pulled out of someone's rear and/or made up on the spot. I'll repeat what I said last year, THIS is what makes "Pro" Rally look bad, not 20 year old cars.
>The protest decision is being appealed by KS.
Why? I thought only the competitor can appeal? Since when does an ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICAL have any rights in a competitors appeal process? Is there anything in the rules that says he can do that or did he just make that one up on the spot too?
>It seems like
>a rather personal issue to me at this point, why would he
>push this past the protest committe? To see if the rule
>change making him have final say in all matters could
>survive an appeal? How is appealing the decision in the best
>interest of the sport?
The question is how is KS in the interest of the sport? Can anyone defend this?
I wonder just how many times things like this will happen before everyone, not just the "loud minority" his sycophants claim, opens their eyes and sees that he needs to go, post haste.