Letting off Steam

Continued from the previous post, since I am apparently too long-winded...

----------------------------------------------------

The basis for my appeal:
I am basing my appeal on several issues.
1) Nowhere in GCR section 6.11.1 is there a mention that malicious intent is a requirement for a violation. Drivers are simply held responsible for handling their cars in a safe manner and avoiding contact. Mr. Kean’s intent is irrelevant. A decision should be based on the facts of the incident, and not the intent where none is required.
2) No action was taken by the Operating Steward or Chief Steward due to the on-course contact (obviously, this is the basis of my protest, but I do not feel that I should’ve needed to file a protest when the actual occurrence of contact, and the actions leading up to the contact, were not debated by either party).
3) No action was taken against Mr. Kean for leaving the track while a protest was underway, and as far as I could tell, no investigation was performed about this issue.
4) A decision was not rendered in absentia, as set forth in GCR section 8.2.
5) This event was a one-day sanction, with a separate sanction used for the Sunday event. This, I believe, makes it even more important that the protest be handled prior to the conclusion of the applicable event.
Overall, I feel that the Stewards at this event did not uphold the regulations set forth within the GCR. I am appealing on this basis.
I can be reached at (removed phone #) or (removed email address) if you need any further information.
 
I woudl of attached the video that is on this site, of the car behind you. That video tells it all.

well written. Couldn't determine the focus of your protest. Do you want them to investigate again the contact or the actions of the stewards?
 
An appeal must provide "new evidence" so you better send any tapes you have or it will be dismissed. They will not rehash the same events dealt with by the SOM.
 
seckerich said:
An appeal must provide "new evidence" so you better send any tapes you have or it will be dismissed. They will not rehash the same events dealt with by the SOM.
Click to expand...

Sort of. Sometimes in describing the actions of the stewards you are presenting "new" evidence.

The issue here is whether the court will see evidence of procedural errors or simply questions about the judgement of stewards. And you're not going to have a lot of luck getting the court to question the judgement call.

I do think you'd have been better off presenting new factual evidence of the case, sort of two pronged attack. A: the stewards didn't follow proper procedure. B: see, here's evidence they should have discovered. And oh by the way, check out this evidence, the judgement was wrong too.

I'll put $5 on "No new evidence presented."
 
I completely agree, Matt. You need to submit the video as it is evidence that was not presented in the original hearing. Otherwise you may find that the CoA takes no action.

You only need to look at very recent CoA findings to see the importance.
 
Actually, I specifically do NOT include new evidence, because I did not want the court to make a new decision and include the "based on the new evidence presented" line, thereby letting off the Stewards who made the bad decision in the first place. At this point, I am much more concerned that the mis- or in- action by the Stewards be addressed, than a changed decision based on the on-track incident itself.

This situation is an embarassment to the rules established by the SCCA.

Also, according to section 8.4.3 (Appeal procedures), there is no requirement for additional evidence, UNLESS the CoA requests it under 8.4.4. Also, as mentioned above, I have already submitted evidence that was not considered or acted upon by the original SOM.

That said, if they do not request evidence and then return the "no new evidence" verdict, I will gladly accept my big giant collective "I told you so" from you guys.
 
I would not say it is much different. I would also say that the entire process appears to reach the verdict I hope to see- a modified decision of the SOM. Additionally, the appeal submitted looks similar. It is however, 4 years old...

What is the issue in this case?
 
You don't necessarily have to submit new evidence. The Court will consider appeals based on any/all of the following (taken from the CoA guidelines):

A. Review the process followed by the SOM to determine if all parties involved followed the GCR rules.
B. Review any new information that was not available, or not known, which became available to you after the SOM hearing.
C. Decide whether or not there is sufficient evidence presented to warrant changing the SOM decision.

​
Without getting into the specifics of your appeal, it sounds like you are speaking to point A.
 
I am still confused. You don't want them to punish the other driver? you want them to take action agains the volutneer SOM?
 
I guess I missed a few posts when I posted mine...missed a whole page. Oh well.

Matt, it seems to me that your goal is to get the COA to change the ruling of the Stewards and to chastise the Stewards.

It does NOT appear that you have issues with the other driver.

To me, the other driver needs a harsher penalty, and THAT should be goal number 1.

I'd be happy if the Stewards got their hands slapped, but, that would be gravy to me. I guess I see your point that adding evidence gives the Stewards an "out"...(new evidence), but man, you're taking a huge risk in your purist approach.

I'd hit them with new evidence, AND I'd outline the failings of the Stewards, and I'd be VERY clear and concise. DO NOT make them read between the lines. Make your case and have clear calls to actions.
 
What's the point of having a CS, etc. if this is the way they're going to handle something that's so cut and dried? As far as sanctions against the CS, etc. goes, good luck with that. That's like one cop writing another cop a speeding ticket.

Good luck with it Matt.
 
BTW, I'm not mad at Todd.
Click to expand...

Good to know. :D

Thanks for the input from everyone. After three straight years of starts on the pit straight I thought it was time to mix things up a little. Sorry race group 2 had such a rough weekend.

As far as next year I'm not even sure of a date at this time as the pro schedule at Mid Ohio is in an uproar with IRL wanting to change dates. I won't know much until the end of Sept.

Todd
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Todd, even though I wasn't there, I'll weigh in, on the start aspect. There is NO reason the pro start stand shouldn't be used. To those who think the sky fell, and it's because of the location, IMO, you're wrong. The IT guys have proven they are perfectly capable of screwing up on the pit straight as well~
I know, I've jumped the curb to the put lane to avoid contact when I had a 75% overlap, yet the outside driver failed to see me, I assume... And it's just as likely that it could have happened on the other straight. And that's just one of the starts that was screwed up...of many I witnessed.

The pro straight gives the room to have an orderly line up, and gives the starter more options to allow for that line up to occur. On the pit straight, it was basically "If we have 6 or so rows that's all we can hope for, GREEN GREEN GREEN"....
 
Bill Miller said:
What's the point of having a CS, etc. if this is the way they're going to handle something that's so cut and dried? As far as sanctions against the CS, etc. goes, good luck with that. That's like one cop writing another cop a speeding ticket.
Click to expand...

Two points:

1. This involves a driver-to-driver protest, so the CS was not involved. The appeal is against the decision of (and, implicitly, the process followed by) the SOM.

2. If you read back through Court of Appeals judgments, you will find a number of cases where the Court has found that the original SOM did not provide due process or correct procedure to the person appealing. I know for a fact that these decisions can and do have consequences for the SOM.

The sanctions applied would be different from those applied to drivers. Obviously, you can't assign a loss of finishing position to an official. :) These sanctions happen through the licensing and assignment process.

Obviously, I cannot say whether this case calls for, or will result in, sanctions. But I can say that they are available and are used.
 
John Nesbitt said:
Two points:

1. This involves a driver-to-driver protest, so the CS was not involved. The appeal is against the decision of (and, implicitly, the process followed by) the SOM.

2. If you read back through Court of Appeals judgments, you will find a number of cases where the Court has found that the original SOM did not provide due process or correct procedure to the person appealing. I know for a fact that these decisions can and do have consequences for the SOM.

The sanctions applied would be different from those applied to drivers. Obviously, you can't assign a loss of finishing position to an official. :) These sanctions happen through the licensing and assignment process.

Obviously, I cannot say whether this case calls for, or will result in, sanctions. But I can say that they are available and are used.
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have said SOM and not CS. However, the CS was the one that suggested that Matt talk to the other driver rather than file a protest. IMHO, it's not the CS's job to editorialize in cases like this.

And while I have seen cases where the CoA has found that the SOM (and other officials) did in fact act in error, unlike driver penalties which are published, in 10+ years of reading CoA decisions in FasTrack I don't ever recall seeing any penalty published for cases where the SOM et. al. were found to have acted in error.
 
lateapex911 said:
I guess I missed a few posts when I posted mine...missed a whole page. Oh well.

Matt, it seems to me that your goal is to get the COA to change the ruling of the Stewards and to chastise the Stewards.

It does NOT appear that you have issues with the other driver.

To me, the other driver needs a harsher penalty, and THAT should be goal number 1.
Click to expand...

Well, my thought process was this:

My case has been argued once already. No matter what goes in the record on behalf of the SOM, my written protest must be on record, and it was exhaustive in its detail in making my original case. I did not want to rehash that, knowing that they'd be reading my original form. Also, no facts from my original protest were refuted by the other driver to my knowledge. He basicly said, "yeah, all that happened, but my tires went away."

By sheer default of the mechanism at work, the driver SHOULD recieve a penalty if the CoA finds that the SOM acted in error. If I was not properly afforded due process, then all resulting actions are in error and must be corrected. Perhaps though, I am assuming too much...

Don't get me wrong, I am annoyed with the other driver. However, the more time that progresses, the more my ire is directed at the Stewards at that event. We need to make sure that they, and all other Stewards, are held accountable to the GCR. I may not race with that driver again, or have to deal with those Stewards, but the GCR is (or at least should be) at the heart of every SCCA race I attend. At this point, I feel the larger issue is that the integrity of that book has been compromised, not only by a participant who doesn't "get it", but by Stewards who refuse to do anything about it.

Which is the bigger problem- the driver who needs to be educated, or the system that fails to do so?
 
Bill Miller said:
Sorry, should have said SOM and not CS. However, the CS was the one that suggested that Matt talk to the other driver rather than file a protest. IMHO, it's not the CS's job to editorialize in cases like this.

And while I have seen cases where the CoA has found that the SOM (and other officials) did in fact act in error, unlike driver penalties which are published, in 10+ years of reading CoA decisions in FasTrack I don't ever recall seeing any penalty published for cases where the SOM et. al. were found to have acted in error.
Click to expand...


On the first point, I agree with you. It drives me crazy when stewards try to discourage drivers from protesting. This is wrong.

On the second point, sanctions published - no, but sanctions applied - yes. I know several stewards (Chief Stewards and SOM) who suffered "career consequences".

You use the expression "acted in error" to describe something worthy of punishment. We may be arguing over words, but I would disagree.

We all make mistakes - drivers and stewards. The trick is to recognize one's errors, learn from them, and not repeat them.

I distinguish "error" from something you might call "negligent error" - where a driver or steward does something that he should know is not permitted. That is worthy of sanction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top