Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Even though the official wording of our determination isn't complete and a press release is due soon, I've been permitted to 'leak' the basic results of the latest ProRally Board of Appeals hearing. The members, Bill Bradshaw (chairman), Dave Kean, Jay Streets and I met via conference call on Wednesday evening, 25 Sep 2004 with followup calls the next day.

Basically, congratulations are due the Choiniere/Becker team for their reinstated win at the Maine Forest SCCA ProRally. The team was able to prove their points (any one of which was sufficient to overturn the protest) thanks to seven type-written pages of well researched, structured and presented information. During a phone conversation yesterday, Jeff Becker told me he felt like his duty as a member of the committee that ruled on the Patrick Richard exclusion a couple of years ago served him well in the crafting of this one. Just goes to show how volunteering CAN pay competitive dividends!

Jeff was kind enough to grant me permission to share with the rally community their appeal submission in its entirety, something I think that will edify us all since there have been precious few appeals in the history of SCCA ProRally. So, as soon as a digital copy of the document is sent me or as soon as I get time to scan/OCR it, I'll publish their handiwork.

Halley ...
ProRally #86
http://www.realautosport.com

--edit for grammar--
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
>You met next month already?
>}>
>Maybe you better edit for correctness also x(
>Sorry, I had to.

No worries dude! Ya know, my rally year to date has been a wife-ordered, therapeutic venture to nearby Rallye de Paris almost three months ago. I am SO already into September - a month that will find Rebecca Greek and I running Cog in a loaner G5 car - it ain't even funny!

Lest your post lose its context, I'll just leave my personal rip of the space-time continuum in place and thank you sincerely :p for pointing it out!

What the heck would I do without you guys???

Halley ...
ProRally #86
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
>It's nice to know that sanity still prevails at SOME level
>in ProRally. Good job, Jeff.

Honestly, Uncle Joe, I think there is a LOT more sanity reigning in SCCA's version of our sport than seems apparent, but there are so many issues to address that the communications emanating from a conglomeration of boards, committees, staff and 'others' simply muddies the overall impact of what gets disseminated. That said, don't think for a minute I agree with everything that gets published on SCCA ProRally letterhead ...

The two times I've been on a protest committee and the two times I've been involved with ruling on an appeal have been refreshing exercises of reading exactly what was submitted, researching the rules as written, weighing the arguments and rules and then voting on the outcome. It's surprisingly objective once you boil every thing down to their constituent parts. I might add that each of the four committees I served on reached amicably unanimous decisions that were kindly accepted by the protestors/appellants once we explained why we ruled as we did (even when they won).

Halley ...
ProRally #86
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
533 Posts
I can't believe that anyone would be so duped as to buy that water was being used as an oxidizer in the Hyundai engine...

I guess it just goes to show that if you have the right connections, you *can* get away with anything! x(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
........And some other people get smacked 10:30 penalty that is OFFICIALLY described as "Something Else".x( x( x( Go figure.

One day I'll get really pissed off and scan all the documents and post them somewhere on the web.

M.Samli
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
>Hi Mike
>
>just curious... when you say "Jeff" granted you permission
>to leak
>the result of the hearing..
>Which Jeff are you referring to??
>
>regards
>nd

Jeff Becker, I would assume from his posting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Hi Jim

I assumed the same...however in this environment assuming the world is not flat might be pushing it..

Why would Jeff be the one to give the appeals group permission to leak..?? and if you are going to leak.. leak it to the all parties directly affected i.e. podium teams.. before you go to the public forum

this gives ammunition to those who smell conspiracy...
 

·
Administrator Emeritus
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
Mike wrote: "I've been permitted to 'leak' the basic results of the latest ProRally Board of Appeals hearing." and "Jeff was kind enough to grant me permission to share with the rally community their appeal submission in its entirety"

The board gave permission to leak the basic results.

Jeff gave permission to reprint the letter they wrote for the appeal.

That's how I understood it.
 

·
3/14=my 42nd rally anniversary
Joined
·
3,979 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
>Hi Mike
>
>just curious... when you say "Jeff" granted you permission
>to leak
>the result of the hearing..
>Which Jeff are you referring to?
>
>regards
>nd

OMG. The comment about the leak was in paragraph one. The mention of Jeff Becker's permission to share the appeal letter with the public (in case someone - anyone - miught find it educational) was in paragraph three.

Halley ...
ProRally #86
http://www.realautosport.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Hi Mike

must have misread your original original post...see how easily the facts can be misunderstood, misread, etc;

however
do you think it would have been a good idea to contact the other teams with the boards decision?? before posting it here...

regards
nd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
272 Posts
>I can't believe that anyone would be so duped as to buy that
>water was being used as an oxidizer in the Hyundai engine...
>
>I guess it just goes to show that if you have the right
>connections, you *can* get away with anything! x(

The appeals committee made the decision based on the evidence presented to us, not rumor or anything written on SS.com. As soon as I read Thumper and Jeff?s appeal there was no choice but to find in their favor. It was a text book example of how to appeal a penalty.

Their argument was that it was not written anywhere official (i.e. supps or a driver bulletin) that this was a fuel only service. They were right, it was not stated in the correct places that the service had any restrictions.

Everyone on the committee came to the same conclusion independently, the decision was unanimous. Between us we had 50+ years of rally experience and to suggest we were anything other than impartial is insulting.

Dave
www.davekean.com
 

·
International Rallying Icon
Joined
·
669 Posts
>Their argument was that it was not written anywhere official
>(i.e. supps or a driver bulletin) that this was a fuel only
>service. They were right, it was not stated in the correct
>places that the service had any restrictions.

Am I missing something here? The sups, as printed under the "Distances Between Services" section does claim that these are fuel only. To wit:

DISTANCES BETWEEN SERVICES
FRIDAY:
Start to F-1 16 mi SS; 63 mi transit
F-1 to F-2 6 mi SS; 28 mi transit
SATURDAY:
Restart to S-1 (fuel only) 11 mi SS; 50 mi transit
S-1 to S-2 27 mi SS; 22 mi transit
S-2 to S-3 (fuel only) 11 mi SS; 28 mi transit
S-3 to End 28 mi SS; 23 mi transit

I was crewing for Mark and Ole and we nixed the idea of sending anyone out to the lot, knowing that they wouldn't need fuel and that we couldn't provide service otherwise based on what we read in the sups.
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top