Nicely written, and much appreciated. I have insert a couple of questions
to better understand.
Thanks.
Greg Scharnberg
At 06:06 PM 2/20/2006 -0500, Steve Hoelscher wrote:
>snip--------
>On the issue of the ruling: The protest committee must first determine
>legality. The course was protested under 2.1.A. The protest committee
>found the course was in excess of 2.1.A in respect to this sentence:
>"Turns should not normally allow speeds in excess of 45 mph in unprepared
>cars."
How many Unprepared cars were entered in the event? You usually don't see
very many newbies at Tours.
>Results: The second step in the process is the action taken by the
>protest committee once it votes to uphold a protest. Because the course
>was found to be in excess of the rules times resulting from said illegal
>course are illegitimate. Therefore, the logical course of action was to
>throw out all times from that course. Without this action, the final
>results would have been, at least in part, determined by times that were
>illegitimate. Allowing illegitimate times to stand undermines the
>credibility of the event. This was not a decision taken lightly. In
>fact, during the process of hearing this protest, the PC adjourned several
>times for the purpose of investigation, review and consultation. I
>personally met with another member of the SEB, Howard Duncan and (via
>telephone) SCCA Risk Management. The Committee was well aware of the
>impact that its decision would have and anticipated that there would be
>considerable public debate among the membership. However, The Committee
>also knew that they could not allow their decision to be influenced by the
>prospect of such debate.
Was something like a letter of reprimand considered? At least then it
would be on the record, without screwing all those that ran the event.
>snip-------
>
>Steve Hoelscher
>Chief of Protest, Ft. Myers National Tour
>Solo Events Board member
|