Mark Sipe wrote
>I never did say I was speaking for the SCCA or the SSC, I was >interpreting
>the rules as I read them.
As another event entrant who presented my views earlier, I offer the same
qualifier.
>I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the SSC if any of it's members considered
>the Ft Worth Tour event course as unsafe or not meeting the rules.
The apocalypse is near. I agree entirely with the above statement. I've already
made my views known on this subject, and I have the greatest respect for our
Divisional SSS, but I do not go along with any assertions that the course
design was unsafe.
>I consider myself to be
>a very safety-oriented Solo2 person
Me, too.
>and have voiced my opinion many times
>about Solo2 course design safety.
Ditto.
> I would encourage anyone else who
>"attended the event in question" that either agrees or disagrees to voice
>>their opinion in a letter.
Motion seconded.
If there is to be an investigation, the best witnesses are the competitors who
were there and chose either to remain and drive the course or to leave because
they felt the course was unsafe. To my knowledge, noone entered in the event
declined to compete over safety issues. And that includes the Chief of Safety,
who, according to the official results, took all six of his runs.
I have no idea how this event-specific stuff can so easily become fodder for
the personal agendas of non-attendants, but, IMHO, if there is concern on the
part of the SSC about course design, a thorough _non-public_ investigation
should be made _before_ any conclusions are reached. I can only hope that the
current SSC membership will choose to take the high road and depart from past
practice (in at least one instance) in this case.
Jay
|