In a message dated 3/4/2004 9:02:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, rocky@tri.net
writes:
> If you were to protest that Ferrari, or that Mazda, for some engine
> illegality requiring teardown, it would probably cost more to rear down and
> rebuild that Ferrari engine than that Mazda engine -- but you pay that cost
> only IF you lose the protest. It would be no different regarding
> documentation cost.
>
But will a 4-figure bond amount to cover teardown AND documentation
deter people from even filing a protest in the first place? How can you
be certain that you're going to win the protest? We've seen people that
have convinced themselves that a competitor is illegal, then the protest
process vindicates the protestee. How many people will be willing to
gamble their money? That's already what happens now in some cases.
Putting the burden of coming up with the necessary documentation on
the protestor is not a good solution, IMO. I agree that we should explore
ways of avoiding requiring people to shell out >$1,000 for a set of factory
manuals that they may never use, but I don't think this is a good way to
do it.
As I see it, the protest process outlined in the rulebook tries to balance
the financial burden as equitably as possible; requiring the posting of a
bond tends to discourage frivolous protests, and when there IS a protest
that requires a teardown involving some amount of money, the person
on the losing end of the protest has to bear the financial burden. And
IMO, expecting a competitor to pay for documentation for another car
in his class is just as unfair as some feel it is to require that people
have the documentation for their own car.
GH
|