> 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
|