Just wanted to chime in and clarify a few points an how a protest result
gets made officially "binding". A Protest Committee at any event is just
that, a Protest Committee. They make a determination according to the
process in the rulebook based on the facts at hand. The result of this
process is *only* applicable to that event! At National Tours, an attempt
is made to have some SEB members that are present serve on the PC, so as to
properly reflect prevailing SEB-think, but that did not happen at Phoenix
due to other commitments.
The part you are missing is that protests from Nationals, Tours, and
Divisionals can be appealed to the National Appeals Committee. Guess who
that is? The SEB. And that final determination is essentially a
clarification. In fact, it usually results in such being printed in
FastTrack and/or rules language changes for the following year. This seems
to be the missing link in some folks' understanding.
At Phoenix the protest was not appealed. So no official action is being
taken on the matter. You want it to stick? Protest and appeal it. Or,
simply write a letter to seb@scca.com with pictures and descriptive info and
the SEB will rule on its legality free of charge. I'd recommend the latter
approach.
On the specific issue at hand, note that the rules do NOT require a harness
bar to mount to the B-pillar. There is a clarification in the Appendix that
says "a harness which attaches only between the upper seat belt mounts on
the B-pillars complies with 13.2.H". That is clarification. It is not a
necessary requirement. It spells out one example of a bar that meets
13.2.H. There are plenty of other designs that also meet 13.2.H that do not
connect to the B-pillars. 13.2.H is the part that MUST be met.
Now, I am not saying that the bar was legal or not, just correcting the
notion that harness bars must be mounted to the B-pillars.
Hope this clarifies things somewhat...
--Andy
PS: This process is all in the rulebook. Sections 8,9,10. Read it, learn
it, love it.
---------original message----------------
Date: 01 Mar 2004 14:48:10 -0800
From: Tony Payne <anthonyp@dslextreme.com>
Subject: Re: Comments from the peanut gallery on protests.
> The reason I disagree with the statement about not condoning or allowing
cheating, is if you were not a GS competitor at Phoenix, you would have no
Idea such a protest was upheld. We were promised that if we filed the
protest, and it was upheld, that it would be listed in the Official Results,
and as such would become a defacto rule. To date, I have not seen
publication of this ruling anywhere, have any of you????
>
> So since it has not been published, I assume it is still a gray matter
issue, and open to a new interpretation by a future National event protest
committee. I bring this up, because I hear that he has continued to use the
bar at his local events because they don't care, and also under the argument
that SCCA has not "officially" determined that it was illegal. I noticed
that he is signed up for the San Diego National Tour. If he shows with it
again, do we once again need to file a protest, for something previously
found illegal? If so, what the point if this must be repeated at each and
every event.
The SCCA protest system, unlike our court system, is not built on
precedence.
Unless it comes from the SEB as a wording update or clarification, decisions
are not binding to future protest committees. I feel that is one of the
biggest flaws of the protest system. I don't purport to know how to solve
the
problem, as each protest committee will have varying degrees of skill and
common mindset with the SEB.
In this case, I would suggest that there should have been written
documentation
provided to the competitors indicating that he has been instructed to
discontinue
use of the device. Such evidence, if presented to a future protest
committee,
should effect his immediate disqualification (again, IMO).
Tony
|