Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshall Mauney
My rule of thumb-
Don't be the first one on the track in the evening if possible
Enter and exit from the pits.
If you see a security person ask permission first.
If some one stops you say you are sorry immediately and get off the track ASAP.
Always pick up any debris when walking the track.
If you are riding you bike wear a helmet.
Never try to take a scooter or any other powered vehicle on the track.
To digress slightly, you should come to the NE if you want to meet a steward with a small brain and a giant ego. His first name is Peter and i'll leave his last name out. Retaliation can some times be worse.
I'm trying to make sense of this statement. Just so we understand, you are comparing walking a track to unsafe welding practices and/or intentionally damaging track property? I'd say track walks are significantly more reasonable than those. Maybe I misunderstood...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Horvath
Hey guys...thanks for debating this subject - hopefully we all will come away with some useful information (albeit at my expense)....
A couple of interesting points to consider:
"I heard he walked the track after being told by security it was not allowed..He was given a warning the first time." This couldn't be further from the truth. Two individuals in a golf cart from across the track on the other side of the spectator fence asked us to exit the track - WE DID. They offered no explanation nor did we (any of the drivers) given any kind of warning. As stated in our witness statement, "we assumed that the golf cart people thought we were spectators and not licensed drivers."
"The second time he was told by the CS not to and he did anyway then the SOM decided to suspend him." - Remember, earlier in the day we went to the track office and asked. Then took that information along with the supps to the Chief Steward (the highest ranking official of the SCCA at the event). When told ok by this liar, we took to the track. When approached by security, we immediately exited the track.
It was not until after we exited the track surface and were back in the spectator area that we asked track security for clarification. This is when security got outraged and were out of control that somebody questioned what they said.
From there it was hang Lipperini and not the new driver for asking for clarification.
It annoys me that people start to state things as fact when they are not. Like I said in my appeal and online - I will be more than happy to take a lie detector and see who is covering their ass!
Last point.....If the Supps for the Runoffs specifically state you are not allowed access to walk the track and the Supps for the Sprints specifically leave this section out - wouldn't a person assume it was ok to walk the track?
What other steps could we have taken more than seeking out the track office and also the Chief Steward?
All I could say is that forums and social media provide a great arena for these debates. They give a person a voice to be heard and something that could have easily been brushed under the table will turn into a PR nightmare....thanks Al Gore for inventing the Internet!!!
And thanks for this great discussion guys - Joel
Joel,
very sorry to hear of your penalty.
Quoting from your other post - Chief Steward says:
"if it doesn't say you can't it should be ok - just try not to get caught again."
This is a very unfortunate statement on his part and I can see why you made the assumption you did - but based on this statement your decision was not without risk.
In addition what you viewed as a yes he may have seen as a no. In reality he may not have had the authority to say either. One you involved the Chief Steward, however, you opened yourself up to discipline through the SCCA - until then it was still a matter between you and the track.
Joel, file a grievance against that chief steward for "Unsportmanlike conduct". There are no time limits. Ask for his dismissal from the club.
James Rogerson
Houston Region RE
And by the way, these are the RA rules as posted by the Chicago Region for the June Sprints: http://www.junesprints.com/2010/roadamerica_rules.html
There is nothing about no track walking. The track use time "On track operations" are clearly listed, but walking or more to the point not walking is not.
As a track operator, we lock the gates after operation hours to keep motorized vehicles off the track during the drinking hours. We will allow walking/running. We discourage bicycles and pedestrian traffic being mixed, so don't allow bicycles and walking. RA has way too many access points to control track entry. All a sanctioning body need do is request access after normal hours and we'll allow it since their carrier will have to assume such risk.
James Rogerson
MSR Houston GM
After seeing the messes that occured at RA last year I have been of the opinion that anything the track or club can do to familiarize drivers with the race track should be done. I came up through Skip Barber where van arounds were done every day of a race weekend led by savy instructors who wised many of us up before we screwed up. Eg avoiding the big lift in the Kink or six to avoid the dreaded TTO and all the wreckage that ensues. While many heard and forgot many did not.
When RA got the runoffs I think every driver with fresh ink on their license turned up at RA. A lot of carnage could have been avoided had these guys had the chance for some teaching from more experienced drivers familiar with RA. I am thinkng of John Greist's crash in particular.
Van arounds, walk arounds should not only be allowed they should be required of any driver new to the track!!! Not allowing drivers a chance to walk a track is unconscionable.
If they can organize races thay should be able to organize this. I do not give a flying
_______ about insurance, scooters, skate boarders etc. We are talking about licensed drivers walking on a paved track!!!! When I raised this with the chief steward last year I was told there was no time. Dammit, if we believe in safety we should make time and make rules that make snese.
A great photo posted on Facebook this morning with the caption, "Lime Rock Park: The Road Racing Center of the East's Photos - ALMS :: Saturday Morning"....another reason it is still one of my favorite tracks!
http://racelabz.com/limerock.jpg
http://racelabz.com/limerock.jpg
THIS IS IT! One of the few reasons we spend this obscene amount of time, money and energy.
You know Fellas, we've lamented about the issue of walking the tracks, yet there is no discussion of what to do for Joel. How about an 'up and in your face' petition signed by just about every competitor is every class sent to SCCA reading something like:
"Yo, Dude. We strongly advise you to reconsider this Lipperini suspension issue. What if you had a race and nobody showed up."
I will tell you this: after my shunt on the 4th of July, I've been wheeling and dealing to get back in the game. But after the BS regarding the Runoffs parking, Jim Gustafson's kitty litter bill, and now this, I'm dropping SCCA like third period French.
Yet another piece of irresponsible journalism by
Iverson
Well said, Jeff.:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by jpietz
As a 1 share stockholder in Road America I would like everybody to have a great experience at a world class track. As a competitor I am passionate about safety at R/A. It appears that the track walk was to help a new driver appreciate the many challenges at R/A. A very good thing. Unfortunately the track has experienced vandalism during off hours. Why not consider a compomise that would address the needs ofoth parties. Drivers could sign up for a no charge tour of the track when the track goes cold for the day. The tour could be conducted by experienced drivers. A choice could be given of a walk or in the multi person golf carts that the track uses for shuttles during the day.
Let's see, Vandalism.
It can occur at anyplace at any time.
Who in their right mind would expect a driver at an event walking the track to vandalize it?
This really gets me particularly when at spectator events tracks allow every Tom Dick and Harry to enter the competition paddock with no clue to who they are and with no protection of the drivers either from liabality or from having property stolen.
How about some security to protect the investments of those who pay the track for the privelege of putting on the show that makes money for the track?
I would strongly suggest bringing that up at the next RA board meeting.
Not flaming you Tav, but this has gone from worse to more worse.
If the people walking the track had proper credentials (hot passes) it should be obvious to any security person that they are not likely candidates to vandalize anything.
Road America would go for a NO CHARGE tour in their GOLF CARTS? Who pays for the oil dry if the cart pukes on the track?Quote:
Originally Posted by tav
This past weekend at the Milwaukee Region Susie Bonneau at RA, we had a special "show of support" for Joe at our podium cerimonies and at the worker party with about 20 of these shirts floating around.
http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/1531/img3918e.jpg
Probably has more to do with track liability than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Demeter
Who in their right mind would expect a driver to pop a few beers and take to the track on foot, in a cart or on a scooter? It happens. Obviously RA has chosen to eliminate any such possibility by the minority by excluding everyone.Quote:
Who in their right mind would expect a driver at an event walking the track to vandalize it?
This issue has obviously been blown out of all proportion, which is not uncommon when dealing with RA's personnel. Not sure why, but that seems to be the norm. It isn't a matter of whether walking the track is a good thing or not. Of course it is and most tracks allow it. Some have a specified time frame for said track examination. It's a matter of appropriate communication between RA and its customers as well as a matter of honest and adult treatment by all.
"vandalism" = stealing sponsor signage like those nice tire manufacturer banners plastered on all the K-rail. I doubt if folks are out yanking the commo wire out of the corner worker stations.
Wasn't Bruggentheis a BOARD MEMBER at one time not too long ago? I remember seeing his name mentioned in vote counts.
Which means somehow you guys in the great white north actually ELECTED him to represent you ?????:confused::meatball:
Personally, I think this issue has NOTHING to do with the ability or inability to walk on Road America after the track has gone cold, but the SCCA's Draconian punishment handed down based on one individual's word against three, and without any burden of proof. Power trips abound, still.
The SCCA has handed out probation for fighting, dangerous driving, etc., yet a random track walk deserves an expulsion from the RunOffs? That deserves a big "WTF?"
If I see one more article in SportsCar about how bad the SCCA wants to improve membership numbers... :rolleyes:
I haven't gotten the ALL CAPS treatment in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
:thumbsup:Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
:thumbsup: X 2
What do you guys think about organizing a mass group walk? Wouldn't it be pretty cool to get everyone at go out at say, 6:00 Thursday night at the Runoffs and walk the track. 500 drivers and crew in unison.
That would be pretty nifty if ya ask me. Like a high school protest over too much homework.
-RH
At the rate they are going, the SCCA would just spitefully suspend everyone.
Wow, this makes me sick to my stomach. Absolutely ridiculous. However irrational it may be IMO I understand RAs position on track walks but SCCA's reaction in this case mortifies me. I'm in for protests/letter writing/rabble rousing/torches and pitchforks, just tell me where to sign up.
Also, I think one common point here from a few of these stories is the security manager. If he is the same guy I've had a run in with before, he's a certified maniac. Never had trouble with anyone else there but him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tav
Makes perfect sense to me.
Thank you Doug, for getting this thread back on topic!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
The point is not whether a track supports free and easy access to the track walk, or free kittens with every entry! It is about the incredibly poor treatment of various racers by SCCA personnel. The lying, the abuse of power, the draconian punishments....
THAT IS WHAT TH:confused:IS THREAD IS ABOUT!
(like my all caps? ;))
Bottom line for me is that I feel that there should be some accountability BOTH WAYS in interactions with SCCA officials. OK, they should have the ability (and responsibility) to enforce rules. But they also should be held accountable for THEIR actions. At this point, there is no reasonable recourse for any individual who has been abused by their system.
N'est Pas?
Tom
In the past I had a run in with a chief steward. His response was " I DON'T CARE WHAT THE GCR SAYS, IT'S MY RACE". To me that sums up the problem.
Whether he is guilty as charged or not the penalty does not fit the crime in my opinion.He will not miss the Runoffs if he was qualified before the incident and I believe his suspension will be up before the Runoffs starts.
Mike - You absolutely right about the membership problems.I believe the Stewards in many cases drive competitors and their people away.Many perspectives from the operations side of the club give the end user very few options and considerations.To me this is a sentence comparable to 5 years in prison for jay walking..
That right there makes me go :confused: There HAS to be more to the story than what we are hearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Carter
Unless you were at the meeting, as stated you have no idea what went down. What are the chances of a very experienced multi-time Runoff champion having a ego as big as the Steward's he is in front of. The FACT is you are dealing with personalities here, not black and white rules.
Situations like this are a game to be won or lost. If you don't enjoy confrontation or have the skills to handle such situations, then BOW-out as fast as possible. Everyone here know how this should have been handled. Their ego's prevented that.
Brian
What are you really thinking Brian? ;)
brian, then i would imagine, if what you're saying is true, the penalty deserves an even bigger WTF if this is just about egos and nothing really to do with any rules, or safety violation...ric
I don't think the ego thing was a factor on Joel's part here. Joel is a pretty easy going guy and one of the nicest you'll find at any track.
that was my thought too. just trying to show brian why his point makes even less sense than any of the rest of this mess.
Arguing with track security at any track is going to get you in trouble if you keep at it. I guarantee you this could happen at any track we race at if you ignore their rules. Try it at Daytona and see if you remain on property - forget the event. There are always ways of arranging things with track management and the SOMs, if its within their constraints and track walk sessions are that important to you. If it isn't then accept it and move on - its their property once the contracted times are over.
I have no great insight into what happened there. From what I heard (and reading his post) Joel talked his way into this one - it could just as easily gone away. Note that the other driver with him did not get punished.
Isn't the internet wonderful?
Phil
You're probably right about that, but on the other hand, how can anyone argue that the punishment fits the crime? As has been pointed out, far worse transgressions are often (even usually) met with far lesser punishments, even those that actually pose real physical threat to workers or competitors. That's the issue that makes this episode of concern to anyone who is an SCCA member. Getting yelled at or thrown out of a track for breaking a rule is a far cry from having the SCCA suspend your license.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
Depends how far you push the issue - you don't leave the CS much option
Phil
What I'm saying is IF egos are involved you never know how things will turn out in such situations. If you don't enjoy confrontation, why get involved.
In this cases, it would be my opinion that the penalty matches the frustration experienced by the Stewards over the situation. Weather you like it or not, the Stewards do have the power to express their frustration in a negative way.
Someone has to have the final say. Will it be the Stewards or the competitors? The system has worked fine until now, shall we change it over this event?
Brian
That is called an outright abuse of power. And in a club, that happens until the membership makes it stop, or stops being membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32
That's debatable, but you can bet that events like this are exactly the type of situation that causes change to happen, just like the A Sedan tech shed clusterf*** at last year's Runoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardingfv32