Karen Babb writes...
>Bottom line; there are always more facts than those >on the surface.
Yes, yes. Karen, I agree with you on your every point. I was just trying to
point out the irony of first Ron Flier telling the D and E Mod gathering
"It's an imperfect world," and just a few short years later, he enters the
class, and he, too, or at least the car he drove, is DSQ'ed.
That's just gotta hurt.
Katie K.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen C. Babb [mailto:73110.574@compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 8:04 AM
> To: teamdotnet
> Subject: Re: Shauf/Flier DQ, DM Rules
>
>
> NOTE: w/ regard to the Nationals results, I have no stake in the
> outcome of the appeal. (My) Ron finished ahead of both drivers
> in the subject car.
>
> Katie (with whom I often agree) said:
>
> >Oh the painful, twisted irony. Please listen to my torrid tale.
>
> Ah, the soapy intro. Where's the organ music? :-)
>
> >It was just a few years ago, when I remember sitting under
> this tarp, all
> >these D and E Mod competitors and me, after two days of
> competition. The
> big
> >controversy at that time was Jim Gallagher's Lotus, and its
> placement of
> its
> >engine in the passenger seat.
>
> You left out the part about the frame modifications which had been
> performed in order to reposition the engine thusly. The rules require
> that the original frame be kept in the passenger compartment
> area, and Gallagher's car was missing some of the pieces from the
> passenger-side footwell area. The protestor had done an extremely
> thorough job of documenting his position. This is not to
> disparage Jim,
> simply to add a few facts to the topic.
>
> > Jim McKamey was our leader, self appointed
> >probably, as he was not a competitor, as we all sat, with
> our questions,
> for
> >a select panel of SEB members, including Kathleen Barnes,
> Karen Babb, and
> >Ron Flier, the latter two, as we know, now strong DM competitors.
>
> Is this intended to infer some prescient Conflict of Interest
> problem? :-)
> Flier
> was driving BM and headed for retirement, and as I recall I
> was pretty
> contented with AP.
>
> >Well, the irony is, I remember Chris Bernard, who won D
> Modified this year
> >(congratulations to him, should he ever read this, by the
> way), described
> >his car to the panelists, asking for a clarification, which
> was, "Is my
> car
> >legal, or is it not?" It was kind of a yes or no question.
>
> This is hardly the first time the SEB has not been willing to issue an
> on-the-spot
> ruling; see also Gary Milligan, weights for Sevens, 1982
> Nationals. And no
> doubt a host of others. The Board has the right to want to
> (a) see any
> applicable paperwork, and/or (b) inspect a car directly, and
> (c) do their
> own
> research, before reaching a conclusion. They are not
> obligated to issue a
> ruling,
> or even an opinion, in a hurry, in a public forum, when it
> will probably
> only serve
> to provide fodder to those looking to attack them.
>
> >You see, the D and E Mod rules are very confusing. You can read and
> discuss
> >them forever, and never really figure out what they mean. A
> car's legality
> >often times depended on the mood of the year, and possibly
> the alignment
> of
> >the stars.
>
> I disagree; the major requirement for understanding is to
> read _all_ of the
> applicable rules, not just one's favorite sentence or phrase
> taken out of
> context. 16.1.K, for example, and the items it references. Or ALL of
> 16.1.A. One
> does have to know the meanings of frame, subframe, belly pan,
> etc. But
> there is no need to be Brian Beckman. If you don't read it
> "creatively",
> or with
> an eye to trying to find an interpretation which justifies
> something you
> want
> to do which is probably illegal, the book usually works.
>
> >The panelists stared into space or were ignoring him or
> thinking about
> what
> >to wear later that night, I don't know. His question was
> never answered.
> It
> >was a very frustrating time, as we were all tired and
> smelly, and time
> would
> >have probably been better spent in a shower.
>
> I remember it differently; we were uncomfortable with
> attempting to issue
> a ruling or opinion based on what was known at the time. I
> will not go
> into
> details of Chris Bernard's car (he drove stunningly well,
> BTW, and even
> before he won there were guys in the class standing around saying "If
> it can't be me, I hope it's Bernard."), but I recall where he
> was coming
> from
> and I think that there was discomfort with either side of the
> supposedly
> "yes or no" answer without further investigation.
>
> Bottom line; there are always more facts than those on the surface.
>
> KCB
> Wondering why I'm stupid enough to wade into this mess again...
>
>
|