Joel Lipperini - Suspended from SCCA Racing (SOMs pull license)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpietz

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.

[...]

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.

---

Well said, Jeff.:thumbsup:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tav

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.

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

Let's see, Vandalism.

---

Probably has more to do with track liability than anything else.

Quote:

---

Who in their right mind would expect a driver at an event walking the track to vandalize it?

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

Are you actually drawing a parallel between those things? Drilling holes in the tarmac DAMAGES the surface. Explain to us how WALKING on the track damages anything? Yes, it is REASONABLE to at least request to walk on the track, since it is a commonly allowed practice at many tracks.

---

I haven't gotten the ALL CAPS treatment in a while.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

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:

---

---

:thumbsup:

: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

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.

---

Makes perfect sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

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:

---

Thank you Doug, for getting this thread back on topic!

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Carter

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:

---

That right there makes me go :confused: There HAS to be more to the story than what we are hearing.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

From what I heard (and reading his post) Joel talked his way into this one - it could just as easily gone away.

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hardingfv32

Weather [sic] you like it or not, the Stewards do have the power to express their frustration in a negative way.

---

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

The system has worked fine until now, shall we change it over this event?

---

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.

Matt
The AS debacle led to wholesale changes in the system which should be evident this year. Heads did roll and there were unhappy people within the stewards cadre. They screwed up, the BOD admitted the mistakes and had an independent investigation which is a first - I think the racers on the BOD made a difference and will continue to do so.

I think there are issues with the older stewards out there (your division retires them down here!!) but I don't think this battle is one you should fight without the facts.

If you want to start a different thread on stewards I'll happily participate

Phil

You're right that many of us are assuming facts not in evidence. It could be that it was a well-deserved penalty, it just doesn't appear to be such on the face. Yet. :D

brian, if this is the outcome over this situation...yes....i definitely want to see it changed. that's not my idea of how i want my club to be run

I thought that the Stewards "power" "went away" after the last checker of the day or at least after the results were final for the last session.

If that is not true, I have seen more than a few stewards rather insutlting to others at Saturday nite parties on track property.

Who punishes them.

Some of the things I have heard said and have been said to me would easily qualify as a breach of the GCR and actually had someone physicalyy threaten me once.

But No one ever takes me seriously and after the last flag of the day and the beer begins to flow, tongues get too loose sometimes.

But if Joel got penalized for an action after the last checker of the day, then anyone who misbehaves at the Saturday nite party should be dealt with by the CS and the SOM's as if the incident had happened in the middle of a session.

How is that for creative interpertation of the GCR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

I thought that the Stewards "power" "went away" after the last checker of the day or at least after the results were final for the last session.

---

I'm not sure where the idea that the Club relinquishes either control or responsibility after the last checker of the day comes from, but . . . per the GCR . .

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]
[FONT=Univers]From my experience, most tracks exercise way less control over a race weekend than RA. There are RA officials in the tower and not all of them are Club officials. There are IMO several conflicts of interest in the way events are conducted. Be that as it may, at the end of the day it is their sandbox and the sanctioning bodies (including SCCA) seem to accept the amount of control required by RA.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]This situation has elicited comments regarding many aspects of both our systems and our society. Abuse of power; disregard of authority; using personal logic to combat a perceived flawed system; inabilities of several people to communicate; further inabilities of the same people to solve/settle issues honestly and factually; and, most of all, differing perspectives of actual events. Some want to blame RA, others Joel,and yet others the Stewards.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]In any event, control was lost at the very beginning and feathers were ruffled which always leads to chest puffing and a loss of logical communications. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

I have long equated arguing with the Stewards to taunting the proverbial dynamite monkey. While it's often expedient to blame the person doing the taunting, and it's certainly a pragmatic expression of self-preservation to avoid taunting, I've often wondered: why the f*ck do we have a dynamite monkey in charge of the process in the first place?


Cheers,
Rennie

We usually refer to it as "monkey with a gun". Someone's going to get shot - maybe you, maybe the monkey, maybe an innocent bystander, but it's just too fascinating to look the other way....

I can see a new smilie now... a chimp waving a pistol, jumping up and down.....

I'm going to disagree. Giving people with a napoleon complex unlimited power and no oversight is always a recipe for hilarity.

I don't know anything about this situation, but in general if a driver tells me 2+2=5 and a steward says that 2+2=4. It's 5.

The possibility of an organized track walk will hopefully be one of the positive items that will come out of this entire situation.

Joel
Mike Smith, as Chief of Competitor Services, had nothing to do with the American Sedan tech situation at the 2009 Runoffs. His group's sole function was to receive, track and route paperwork. OK he was a steward and at Road America so he must be guilty. I was there too so I must have had something to do with it.

This need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!! Don't get me wrong, Stewards drive me nuts sometimes and I'm on the BOD but sometimes its better to bite your lip and use other avenues to get what you want. Honey v vinegar?

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

...this need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!...

---

Phil,

Are you, as a member of the BOD, saying that his suspension had more to do with his arguing against it, than with the infraction itself? If so, I believe we have arrived at the crux of the issue.


Cheers,
Rennie

Ren
A number factors escalated this series of incidents.
I think some good suggestions have been made as a result and I know that Joel intends to pass on some of those he has received as well. I think thats all I really want to say on the subject
Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Joel
Mike Smith, as Chief of Competitor Services, had nothing to do with the American Sedan tech situation at the 2009 Runoffs. His group's sole function was to receive, track and route paperwork. OK he was a steward and at Road America so he must be guilty. I was there too so I must have had something to do with it.

This need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!! Don't get me wrong, Stewards drive me nuts sometimes and I'm on the BOD but sometimes its better to bite your lip and use other avenues to get what you want. Honey v vinegar?

Phil

---

Phil,
These comments are shocking. It is a club and you are stripping a member access because he was arguing his point? "Honey v Vinegar"? Ghastly comments.

If a competitor is being accused of something he feels he did not do, you cannot expect him to just bow down and take it. Based on what you say, if we just sit back and let the SCCA treat us like kids...then we will be ok.

Doesn't sound like the club has a clear vision in mind here.

I didn't read Phil's comments as shocking. More as pragmatic or common sense. We've all seen how situations can go either well or badly depending on how people interact.

None of us were there and saw everything, so it's foolish for any of us to know how to divide up the blame. It might be 100% one side's fault, but more likely both sides contributed some. How much? No one can know.

Please don't interpret this post as defending any official who's behaviour is not constructive for our sport.

Joe
The fact is that RA does not allow people on the race track when cold and their security is charged with enforcing it. Everything else follows`on from there. Same as Daytona and Homestead down here as examples. I know RA had vandalism issues at events this year.
Phil

Phil,
Did RA levy any civil penalties against Joel?

phil, i understand what you're saying, but from what i can see, walking the track at RA is not addressed anywhere that is reasonably accessible to entrants. also, from what i can see, in the worse case scenario the punishment far exceeds the crime. and we both know 99% of the time the truth lies somewhere in the middle. i can understand overkill initially, but common sense should prevail at some point.

Whether any civil penalties were proferred against anyone is moot. Phil's comments are emminently practical. Most of us have been around these situations for donkey's years and we all know that sometimes it is better to back away, especially when dealing with a tsarist system. Is it right? Maybe not. Is it wise to grab your lance and tilt at the windmill? Probably not. Nothing will ever be accomplished in the heat of the moment, except getting the monkey ready to fire.

All we are doing is thrashing the waters. Only one side of the issue has been publicized and I seriously doubt the other parties will resort to this forum to defend their actions. The appeals process was invoked and a change to the punishment (however Draconian is may have been) occurred. All we can hope for is that both the systemic and personal dynamics invloved are examined and any changes needed are forthcoming.

To try to extrapolate that the Club as a whole does not care about its members, especially without all the facts known, is self-destructive.

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]

Not fighting with anybody, but the way I read that is that everyone, including officials, drivers, workers, crew has to conduct them selves with the same honor and mutual respect after the last checker of the day as they would during the day.

so I guess that means that getting drunk and disorderly at the saturday nite party by anyone should result in disciplinary action.

I'll keep that in mind in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]

Not fighting with anybody, but the way I read that is that everyone, including officials, drivers, workers, crew has to conduct them selves with the same honor and mutual respect after the last checker of the day as they would during the day.

---

That's the way I read it. From the time you register to the time you depart the track at the end of your weekend.

Quote:

---

so I guess that means that getting drunk and disorderly at the saturday nite party by anyone should result in disciplinary action.

---

Are you implying that the existence of an official regulation is the reason one should not be "drunk and disorderly" or conduct themselves with honor and mutual respect?

How about common decency and decorum?