> > 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."
> > If you read 2.1.A it states: " Speeds on straight
> > stretches should not normally exceed the low 60's (mph)
> > for the fastest stock and street prepared cars".
"Should not normally" is language for a GUIDELINE - the word
"should" is not a synonym for "must". "Should" allows
leeway, where "must" does not. This is further amplified by
the word "normally", which implies that sometimes the
situation may not be normal.
That language is unprotestable, because there is explict
wiggle room in the definition. If it read "speeds must never
exceed" etc etc it would be hard and fast, but that isn't
what it says.
Furthermore, it can NEVER be a hard and fast rule, because
there is no way to determine what the observed fastest speed
of the event will be before the fact. Should a good driver
in a fast car put down a speed that exceeds whatever limits
are in place, then that driver - by virtue of his SUCCESS
(stronger higher faster) invalidates the entire event; an
outcome, which I think the good Mr Carpenter would agree
now, is the worst possible.
This is an absolutely horrible, horrible decision. It sets a
terrible precident, and it should be reversed at the first
possible opportunity.
DG
|