I respect all the members of the PRB and the BoI. However, I strongly disagree with this decision. A letter of censure does not automatically mean suspension but it does carry an automatic one year suspension if the party commits another action detrimental to the sport. Again, I respect the members of the PRB and BoI but in this case, I feel THEY have made a decision that is detrimental to the sport.
I'm glad this is posted and explained, but it just seems like it says "If a cop sees it, it happened. If a competitor, worker, or anyone else associated with the rally sees it, it didn't necessarily happen." What recourse do the competitors, workers, and people that care about our sport have for reporting such incidents?
It seems to me that if they were found guilty by SCCA standards and not FIA standards, then they should have accrued FIA points, but not SCCA points.
And with regards to the fact that no one protested the results, I offer this: Who would protest after the Official Notice Board had the penalties posted, rescinded, and signed all during that crucial provisional period? To post a scoring inquiry immediately after an official posts a suspension of penalties for the same infringement makes one look like the rookie lawyer who keeps saying "objection" after every time the judge says "overruled."
I did not see any infringements as I was not in the area at the time and have up to now kept my mouth shut on this matter to see how it plays out. I'm glad they followed through and glad they recognized a problem. Not happy with the "our hands are tied" stance and hope that actions are discussed for how to keep this kind of thing from happening again. What will it take?
The letter from the PRB mentions that the FIA procedures for issuing the penalty weren't followed. I had a look on the FIA web site to see how the rule is worded, but I can't find anything that seems to apply in this case. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
The International Sporting Code doesn't seem to say anything definite on the subject on application of time penalties.
There are some clauses in Section 11 of the General Prescriptions of the 2002 Rally Sporting Regulaitons that may apply - is that what was used to protest the time penalty?
Give the PRB credit: they didn't do "nothing"; they did issue a Private Letter. I think the point maybe that they didn't issue a penalty that seemed "fair and appropriate" to many in the rally community.
The army teaches its officers "Not to decide is to decide."
The Wild West situation, especially in light of all the other controversies of 2002, put the PRB in an untenable position. No matter what the eventual outcome would be, they couldn't win. Even if the PRD exerts his authority and overrules them, they still can't win.
I don't officially know who served on the Board of Inquiry (except for J.B., chairman) but I feel for them. They've had a tough job to do and tried to do it as well as they could.
Whether we agree or disagree with the decision is inconsequential at this point. I look forward to seeing how they plan to prevent a repeat of this problem next year.
PR opportunities - or - racing... it sure ain't PRO
A couple weeks ago I resent a letter I had sent to some - friendly-to-me - Directors asking what was going on and why there was no announcement of a decision to a publicly announced inquiry. I can't be sure it was me that got this out in the open but I'm sure it didn't hurt. I sent this a couple minutes ago, I appropriately thanked the boards for their helpand effort but couldn't keep from adding some questions near and dear to me and my aching wallet.
Without some changes in who runs this show, I can't donate any more of my time to this charade of a "sporting event".
re: Wild West Inquest
Thank you for making the results public.
It was a long time coming.
I understand this was a difficult situation and that a fair resolution was impossible.
In the document was a reference to a second item, "Changes in Procedure..." but nothing suggested.
I take it this will be/has been handled internally?
Will officials at the next Pro-Rally event be more knowledgeable of the rules and take charge when required?
Will Public Relations continue to be allowed to oversee the events and make changes as needed?
RE: PR opportunities - or - racing... it sure ain't PRO
>In the document was a reference to a second item, "Changes in Procedure..." but nothing suggested.
In Ralph's posting here on SS he added:
Unfortunately due to a clerical error the one page Board of Inquiry Findings and Recommendations Report inadvertently did not get posted. Look for the information from the Board of Inquiry early next week due to the Thanksgiving holiday.
I disagree that Chapter 11 could be applied. It applies to the "traffic laws of the countries crossed". The speeding that the incident concerned was speeding in the service park and was a violation of an FIA rule (General Prescription 12.3.3) and the Supps (portions of the FIA's General Prescriptions were copied into the event's Supps), not a traffic law.
Exactly. Wild West was a FIA listed event. It was also a SCCA ProRally event (with ClubRally supporting events).
In order to be a FIA listed event, the General Prescriptions and the International Sporting Code apply. In order to be a SCCA event, the SCCA Performance Rally Rules apply. I believe that these should have been harmonized in the Supplemental Regulations and they were in many areas (note the large sections of the Supps that were directly cut and paste from the General Prescriptions). However, some areas were left open.
Are you referring to WW or Rim? If it is true that Mr. Spitzner was the "Finder of Fact" at Rim who observed a competitor cross the double yellow to pass and then proceed to do the same thing to pass while observing at WW, I find it hypocritical (since I didn't observe either event, I cannot say one way or another), but not a double standard since Mr. Spitzner was not a competitor and I don't recall any rules that apply to officials at an event.
I only have one criticism of Ralph's memo. There are a lot of references to "FIA rules", but no explicit references to exactly what rule applied. I have been pouring over the General Prescriptions and the International Sporting Code and what I have not been able to find the applicable rules.
Actually, I have a second criticism of the memo. It claims that they were faced with the choice of a private letter of warning or a letter of censure. This is based on 8.5.C and the list of penalties contained within. However, 8.5.C says that a penalty can also come from 8.2, which includes time penalties, loss of points, probation and more.
One odd thing in all of this is that, according to the rule book, as far as I can see, this discipline is to be done by the PRD, not the PRB. I cannot find any wording in the rulebook that gives the PRB authority to discipline.
I think I have been working with lawyers for too long!
well.. the FIA rules applied to actually applying the penalty, but then Ralphs memo states that the SCCA rules applied to protesting the final results. I don't have the FIA rules handy, are the protesting proceedures identical to the SCCA...