[rally to cave]

If you are a witness to Lovell's or Millen's actions in the service park at Wild West, today is the dealine to submit your statement.

As of yesterday mid-afternoon, only seven statements were submitted. There must be more witnesses!

If you need a form, its here:
www.prescottforestrally.com/SCCAinquiry.pdf

Fax your statement to 303-694-7391.

Paul Nelson

 

[jimmy]

Paul-
Thank you for including this fax number. The one on the letter we received from Denver is wrong (it is Janice somebody's desk - sorry Janice).
press on,



>
>Fax your statement to 303-694-7391.
>
>Paul Nelson

 

[Guest]

> Thank you for including this fax number. The one on the
>letter we received from Denver is wrong


The most important inquiry in years, potentially upsetting their Subaru and Mitsubishi golden boys.

A wrong fax number doesn't surprise anyone, does it?

 

[Morgan]

Considering how many people were so outraged by what happened, it is a surprise that there are only seven witness statements. Where is everybody? It is not enough to just complain on Specialstage

 

[Bruce]

>Considering how many people were so outraged by what
>happened, it is a surprise that there are only seven witness
>statements. Where is everybody? It is not enough to just
>complain on Specialstage

Not surprising at all...most of the "outrage" expressed here is based on third-hand hearsay at best.

BW

 

[Widget Codriver]

7

>Considering how many people were so outraged by what
>happened, it is a surprise that there are only seven witness
>statements.

If the SCCA BoD hears from seven people on a particular topic it's considered a landslide--people rarely write.

Consider too that Doc Shrader, Safety Steward, is hopefully one of the seven.

 

[jandreini]

And just how many eyewitnesses to a crime are required to gain conviction? IF the seven all saw bad things, and IF this isn't just a ploy by SCCA to provide an official cover-up, I'd say seven witnesses is plenty.

 

[Guest]

>...it is a surprise that there are only seven witness statements.

"only seven"?

One might be questionable.
Two might be viewed as a conspiracy.
Three might begin to be credible.

Seven might suggest an open and shut case.

What remains to be seen is full disclosure of all statements and any proceedings. Anyone taking bets that the club members will ever see the minutes of any investigation?

 

[rally to cave]

>
>A wrong fax number doesn't surprise anyone, does it?

There is no conspiracy; the fax machine listed on the cover letter broke after it was mailed!

Paul

 

[Guest]

>>
>>A wrong fax number doesn't surprise anyone, does it?
>
>There is no conspiracy; the fax machine listed on the cover
>letter broke after it was mailed!


Was anyone suggesting a conspiracy?

Were people, to whom the cover letter was sent, contacted and notified of a different fax number (or an extension to the cut-off date)?

Conspiracy is difficult to prove, and in this case would be unlikely as it would be too obvious. On the other hand, there appears to be an abundance of incompetence.

However, since you mentioned conspiracy....

What remains to be seen is full disclosure of all complaints and investigations. Without full disclosure conspiracy remains entirely within the realm of possibility.

 

[Crash]

>There is no conspiracy; the fax machine listed on the cover
>letter broke after it was mailed!

Of course! When our fax machine breaks we too transfer the line to someones desk! Then that person answers at 14,400 baud and informs the caller of the new number.

 

[Morgan]

The more people, the more different perspective. For example myself and at least three other people who have submitted our account of what happened, were standing near the time control, so there is four out of seven that saw it from the same place. So maybe there are others that did not reply that were closer or almost got hit by him. Any lawyer will tell you that you need several witnesses to corroborate a story since everyone sees things differently (the car was yellow, no red, he had a mustache,no mustache, etc.) and you have to put the pieces together to find the truth (or approximate there of).

 

[rally to cave]

I heard SCCA now has many responses that came in the last 24 hours. Good to hear those that witnessed the event took the time to submit a statement.

The fact the SCCA is taking the time to do an inquiry is a step forward. They could have ignored the whole affair and tried to bury it. However, will the SCCA do a disclosure of the inquiry? I define full disclosure as a summary of witness?s statements, summary of SCCA findings, action (ie penalty or discipline) taken by SCCA (including why) so the record is clear and people understand the results. I doubt it. Then again, when the stage note discussion came up, the SCCA responded, so I could be wrong.

Lets wait and see what happens. Then we can develop new conspiracy theories!

Paul Nelson

 

[Turini]

Hello to Everyone at SpecialStage!

I have been reading all of the threads about Mark Lovell and Rhys Millen's speeding incidents. My opinions have not always been the most popular in regards to these issues. We witnessed Lovell and Millen drive up to the refueling zone when these incidents took place. From my vantage point, I feel that both of them were driving cautiously and with their heads. But I have a question. Was anyone checking the speed of these cars? If not, then there is no proof that these guys were speeding (even if they were). In order to punish them, there has to be proof. I'm not trying to sympathize with the works teams. I also felt that the penalty imposed on John Drislane a STPR was too stiff. If an SCCA Official was checking speeds with a "GUN," I would not be ranting and raving. But this is ridiculous.


I think that the effort put into this issue should be transferred to cracking down on the spectators who are in the forests drinking alchohol. Oregon Trial 2002 was incredible. I was witness to several groups of inebriated spectators who jumped into their cars after the end of day 1 stages. I don't feel that a rally driver (especially of Lovell's, Millen's or even Drislane's abilities) endagers me on the road, even if they are speeding. These guys know what their doing. But these drunks leaving the Trask River stages...I honestly felt that my safety and security was in danger. If they have to, the organizers should charge for spectators to get into the stages, on condition that it reduces the number of drunk lunatics who endager not only our safety, but the future of our sport. If anything causes us to lose this sport in the U.S., its not the rally drivers who occasionally speed, but the irresponsible spectators. In 1992, while living in Southern California, I attended the Rim of the World (South Portal Road Stage). While driving up this road, a silver Mitsubishi Colt Turbo jumped out of a corner, sideways, and skimmed our Honda along the drivers side. The only reason a head on collision was avoided (the roads in California are quite narrow) was because my dad just had time to hug the cliff on the right side. That's irresponsible. To top it all off, this guy didn't even stop to ask if anyone was injured. It was a hit and run accident and he was never caught. Chances are good that he was drunk. He sure was driving like it.

Simon
Turini

 

[randyzimmer]

inquiry

Simon,
You make good points and, by being there, I have to respect your recounting.
I wasn't there and have stayed quiet lately because of that very reason.
What interests me is if the inquiry focus is simply on the cars and drivers or if it goes into what happened to the official report filed by the Safety Steward. ie: how the report got recinded.
Drivers can be slapped on the wrist and told to "be nice" (I know it works for some of us) but behind the scenes there was some "hanky-panky" that puts into question the fairness of the event's sactioning body.
I believe the board has an interest in regaining that trust and I hope you and I see a report that does just that.
rz

 

[Morgan]

There is no way they were driving cautiously, Lovell was not only driving unreasonably fast, but swerved to pass a car (without slowing down) that was traveling at an appropriate speed for the conditions. In doing so he nearly hit several people walking through the service area. I witnessed that from the time control. When Millen went by, I was standing next to a service truck, all I saw was a flash of red and the roar of engine. Even though they may have been driving within their ability, It is conceivable that a person or child could have walked out from behind a truck without seeing them coming and been struck by them. There was way to much commotion in the service area to warrant those kinds of speeds. Since there was no radar and the speeds are only estimations (police give tickets on estimations all the time) they were charged with "Unsportsmanlike behavior" The proof lies in the witness testimony. This is not to say that any of us would not have done the same thing if late for the time control, but they got caught and should pay the price.
The reason for the inquiry is to find out why the penalty was rescinded (this is the reason for all the controversy)and why the proper procedure was not followed and whether or not the penalty should have stood.

 

[Dave Clark]

Well, I sent in my statement and got confirmation that it was received. Everyone might be interested to note that Kurt Spitzner made it very clear that he has nothing to do with inquiry and will not be reviewing the statements. Ralph Kosmides also said that he removed himself from the process to avoid any conflict of interest because he finished one position behind Lovell.

Simon, it was quite clear to everyone in the service area that Lovell and Millen were going way too fast. It's easy to tell the difference between 35+ MPH and 30 KPH. Perhaps they had slowed down by the time they got to your position. What you obviously did not see was Lovell driving wrecklessly, swerving around cars, driving in the wrong lane. Most blatant and unsportsmanlike of all, though, was his reaction when I stepped in front of his car, waving my arms and yelling at him to slow down. He didn't slow down at all and I had to jump out of the way to keep from being run over. This was witnessed by many people, at least two of which I know have sent in their statements as well. So you see, it doesn't matter whether excessive speed can be proved or not, that was just one element of the greater offense. If trying to purposely run someone down isn't unsportsmanlike conduct then I don't know what is.

-DC