I think he's implying that if you can get your license suspended for arguing with a steward about whether or not you should have tried to walk the track when there is nothing preventing it in the Event Supps, it's just as reasonable to expect suspensions for drunks at the Sat. night party. Decency and decorum are in the eye of the beholder. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Warner
I had agreed to let this drop at the request of those involved -
however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules. Its their property - I hate to bring up other tracks but there are probably half of them we run on that won't let you out there after hours. What is so difficult to understand about that. Thats why we are where we are!!!!
I would say that is a true statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt King
I disagree. IMO that is one of the major problems of our society . . . the attitude that we are all able to define our own codes of social conduct without taking into consideration societal mores and conventions. More's the pity.Quote:
Decency and decorum are in the eye of the beholder. ;)
Why is it not listed in the Rules of Road America? This is a pretty extensive list of rules and regulations. You'd think if walking the track was such a gross violation they would put it in their official document that's distributed to competitors as part of the Event Supps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
http://junesprints.com/2010/roadamerica_rules.html
Quote:
1.0 ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE ROAD AMERICA RACE TRACK WILL HAVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
2.0 UNLICENSED VEHICLE GUIDELINES:
- 1.1 A current –VALID spectator ticket.
- 1.1.1 A ticket with stub(s) upon entering.
- 1.1.2 A ticket AND A VALID “Pass-Out” upon re-entering.
- 1.2 A VALID credential (accompanied by a signed insurance-waiver witnessed by Road America/Club Staff personnel (PARTICIPANTS ONLY) :
- 1.2.1 Road America CREDENTIAL.
- 1.2.2 Event sponsoring CLUB CREDENTIAL, PROPERLY VALIDATED.
- 1.2.3 Appropriate weekend WRIST BAND.
3.0 ALL OPERATORS OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLES (including golf carts) ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY MUST POSSESS A VALID STATE-ISSUED DRIVER’S LICENSE:
- 2.1 RACE VEHICLES being used in the race event are allowed on R/A property
- 2.2 AUTHORIZED ROAD AMERICA VEHICLES with a current year sticker are allowed on R/A property
- 2.3 Participants may use unlicensed light vehicles and equipment carts but must have a current event sticker or yearly permit for use of such vehicles on Road America property.
- 2.3.1 “Pit vehicle” registration and fees must be taken care of at registration (alternate locations may apply)
- 2.3.2 A liability waiver and acknowledgement of proper insurance coverage for all “pit vehicles” must be signed when registering the “pit vehicles”.
- 2.3.3 Furthermore, according to the Wisconsin State Law , all ATVs should be registered by the State of Wisconsin, or by another State, in order to be operated within the State
- 2.4 ROLLERBLADES, NON-MOTORIZED & MOTORIZED SKATE BOARDS, AND ROLLER SKATES are not permitted on Road America property.
- 2.5 BICYCLES are permitted but may not be used in the COMPETITION PADDOCK AREA – this is strictly PROHIBITED.
4.0 CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE COMPETITION PADDOCK UNTIL AFTER ALL RACE EVENTS HAVE CONCLUDED FOR THE DAY:
- 3.1 At no time is anyone allowed to park in fire lanes. Violators will be towed.
5.0 RACE ENGINES MAY NOT BE RUN WITHOUT ROAD AMERICA PERMISSION:
- 4.1 Spectators may only consume alcoholic beverages in the North Paddock, and other spectator areas.
6.0 ALL VEHICLES OR TENTS REMAINING OVERNIGHT ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY MUST HAVE:
- 5.1 Before 8:00 AM weekends/8:30 AM weekdays
- 5.2 After 6:00 PM weekends/5:00 PM weekdays
- 5.3 Car Clubs must vacate the property by 7:00 PM each day
- 5.4 On-Track Operations 8:00 – 6:00 Weekends, 8:30 – 5:00 Weekdays
- 5.5 When paddock space is in the Campground area, Campground quiet time of 10:00 pm applies. Generators can be used but must not disturb other teams or campers.
7.0 NO PETS ARE ALLOWED ON THE ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY WITHOUT ROAD AMERICA PERMISSION. PETS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY MUST EITHER BE:
- 6.1 A valid Road America overnight camping permit PROPERLY DISPLAYED.
- 6.2 Overnight stays are not permitted without formal tent or motor home equipment.
8.0 FIRES, WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT, MUST:
- 7.1 Kept within the vehicle with adequate ventilation and fresh drinking water.
- 7.2 Kept under control of a leash.
9.0 AT NO TIME SHALL A VEHICLE BE PERMITTED TO TRAVEL COUNTER–CLOCKWISE ON TRACK!
- 8.1 Be used for cooking only.
- 8.2 Be contained within a device designed for containing a fire.
- 8.3 Be completely extinguished before the coals, ashes, and remains are discarded.
- 8.4 Not be within 10 feet of spectator containment fence.
- 8.5 Not be within 100 feet of an occupied Road America concession stand.
- 8.6 Not be near other competitors’ gasoline storage areas.
10.0 DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY:
11.0 ILLEGAL DRUGS, FIREWORKS, FIREARMS OR ANY TYPE OF EXPLOSIVE ARE NOT ALLOWED ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY!
- 10.1 Please do not drive stakes or poles into any asphalt surfaces
- 10.2 Do not deface, cut, drive nails into or attach lines or any other objects to trees, bushes, light poles, site sign posts or buildings
- 10.3 Do not tamper with electrical facilities or any other facilities on Road America property. There are fines for any destruction of property.
- 10.4 RA is not responsible for damage caused by other’s actions.
- 10.5 Check voltage in electrical receptacles before using
12.0 VENDING is not allowed on Road America property without obtaining the proper permit. To obtain such permit, a vendor fee must be paid. This fee varies per event. Contact Road America for details and prices and to make arrangements. </B>
These premises are subject to video surveillance.
Revised 2/3/09
What bearing does that have on his suspension with the SCCA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
Precisely. In this particular case, the Steward(s?) in question defined their own code of social conduct, and enforced it upon a competitor. Nee, "this need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!" per Phil Creighton, BOD. In other words, somebody decided that they didn't like the cut of his jib, and came down with punitive punishment that had no relevance to the infraction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Warner
Cheers,
Rennie
Amen Rennie!
what was that movie/ book years ago where libel was alleged and the court found it to be true - and awarded the defendent a penny? The appeals court should have done the same! Violated rules - I guess - the harm - worthy of a penny!
Rennie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
The gist of Phil's comments referenced above is that one should evaluate one's battles and decide when to dive in with all guns blazing (pardon the mixed metaphor) and when to strategically withdraw. In other words, pick your battles.
Injustices abound. There will always be someone with power in an argument of this nature. One of the hardest lessons in life is that we all must decide the appropriate avenue of addressing these injustices. Should we blaze away with little/no hope of a positive solution or should we evaluate our position and let discretion be the better part of valor. We have to ask ourselves . . . .what is the desired outcome? What are we willing to risk to make a point? Sometimes we just have to stand up for ourselves at the moment, regardless of consequences. (Believe me, I have more footprints on my tongue than most.) At other times we withdraw and formulate an alternate plan of attack.
You are correct that the stewards had the ability (if not moral imperative) to define the rules of engagement. The definitions of those rules may be appropriate or not. However, at that moment in time, they had the authority and ability of such definition and, as hard as it is to swalloow sometimes, that's the fact, Jack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Warner
Charles,
Don't misread me - I don't advocate provoking escalation in delicate situations such as this. I certainly grant that Joel may be guilty of exactly such a maneuver. However it's one thing to minimize contretemps in the middle of a situation, and entirely another to advocate a "lie back and enjoy it" approach as the rule to surviving encounters with SCCA stewards.
Saying that we should accept that as the status quo is just persisting the problem.
Cheers,
Rennie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
I think it could be reasonably expected that if walking the track carried a 6 month sentence and disqualification from the runoffs it does need to be in the supps.
Its funny. FA drivers have to compete regularly against a driver who crashes people out of races in almost every event he goes to and the SCCA won't do anything. But walking the track finds Joel out of the club. Sorry for the digression but there it is.
Warning - Soap Box Time -
I have often said that one of the problems that the SCCA suffers from is lack of leadership. Where are there leaders who can look at this (quickly) and say that this sentence is stupid? The current process is tedious and complicated. It seems to me that most reasonable people can look at this and say that Joel should not be out of the club. I also thought that most reasonable people wouldn't throw an FC driver out of the runoffs after he ran a whole season in a legal car. I still dream that just one official will take exception to drivers that think National races are demolition derbys. I was told at WGI that "it is not their job" to ensure the safety of competitors.
If I owned this sandbox, I would be concerned that decisions made, such as suspending track walkers, spread discontent and frustration and undo all of the good SCCA officials do. Most of whom I have met do great things for the club and its members. I have yet to see a 3 page discussion complimenting corner workers and officials when they normally deserve it.
All I know about this incident is what I have read on forums but I find it interesting that even though Joel was not the only driver to walk the track he was the only one suspended.
To use the drunk and disorderly comparison illustrated above, if I had a few too many on a Saturday night and fell down I would probably be treated different by the club that if I got drunk and started abusing the track manager.
Rennie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton
I agree completely.
There should be no way possible to talk yourself from a jaywalking charge to something tantamount to capital murder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
Joel was bad.
Reprimand and move on!
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.
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?[/quote]
Charlie, I am questioning why those that do not conduct themselves as gentlemen and get drunk and disorderly are to be punished. As all participants are subject to the GCR from the time of initial registration til they leave the track for the weekend.
This rule is not applied to everyone everywhere.Of course the prime reason to conduct ones self in a proper manner is a matter of respect of others.
But if someone can have their license suspended for activity clearly after the last checker of the day, then why is drunkeness and rude, ungentlemanly conduct apparently acceptable in other situations.
Is is so difficult for those tracks that don't want anyone on the track surface after competition hours to make that desire known to the competitors, either through well displayed and widely publicized track rules or by simple declaratory statements in the events Supps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
As competitors, we are not mind readers nor should we be expected to be about unpublished 'rules'. If it is a rule ...PUBLISH IT!.
Track restrictions should be communicated at least as effectively to drivers as they are to security personnel. This communication should not be after a violation occurs and the unaware violator and paying customer should not be in a position where he is being yelled at or otherwise chastised by track personnel for commission of an offense about which neither he nor any reasonable and responsible person in his position would be aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
If Joel argued his point with more vigor than officials would have preferred perhaps they need to understand how his initial negative interaction with track representatives may have shaped his response. He obviously is a valued competitor as evidenced by the comments on this forum and should be a valued customer of RA and the SCCA. If the SCCA wants respect and calm debate in all its dealing with its members then it can start by refusing to tolerate a single incidence of unfairness and disrespect against any of its members and customers. Otherwise frustration with an unfair system that does not respect and afford due process to all its participants will have the same outcome here as it has thoughout history.
Folks,
We're in the SCCA.
If it doesn't say you can, you can't.
It doesn't say I can breathe, but I do.
touche'Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland V. Johnson
Careful Roland - you just haven't been protested on that yet!:D Is it breathing that everone has customarily done, and has been allowed in the past, and now you are excessively breathing????
Sorry to report that not much has changed since the early 70s. Why do you think they call themselves "Stupids"? Affectionately, of course. I was once heard to say at WGI: "When the officials start officiating, WATCH OUT". Leave it to some official to believe that walking can be more dangerous than driving a racer at (apparent) high speed. Okay, that's oversimplified. My take: Get some perspective, consider rules and insurance issues, and try not to personalize (ref: testosterone) everything that happens.
I appreciate that Stewarding is an unpaid an thankless job. But most SCCA racers are good citizens, and while perambulating their synapses fire pretty regularly. Not a group that needs too much mothering.
Riddle me the Sphinx: Is that a three-count felony?
Next question: "So, Joel... What are you in for?" Ask Arlo.... Littering??
Careful, or we'll all end up with an undersized restrictor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Which is? Are we "where we are at" because of the supps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
"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"
Or are we where we are at because Joel argued his point? 2 different stories from you, Phil.
First, I'm a former national chief steward. As such, I spent 90% of my time dealing with the same 10% of the competitors.
Second, I've had dealings with Joel Liperini, which I remember.
Third, I've always made it a rule to never argue with anyone who works security, because they are not paid to think, but to enforce whatever their boss tells them to enforce.
Fourth, yes, there are some stewards who aren't very good, but there are more that are damned good. Your probability of getting a good one is high (higher than the State of Arizona getting a good federal judge)
So it seems likely to me that Liperini was his typical self when dealing with a $10/hour guard, who responded in kind. Actually, it may have been the $10/hour guard who started yelling first--I don't know. I do know it was a "no win" situation for Liperini, and he should have realized it. It was then escalated to the stewards, who made their own determination. I don't know the details of the court action, but I do know the entire incident could have easily been avoided. Superficially the penalty seems extreme, but I'm 100% certain that we aren't being apprised of all of the details.
The SCCA has an extremely well-developed "process" for handling stewards actions, protests and appeals. Any seeming "arbitrary" actions can be elevated to the COA, which often finds in favor of the driver. After more than 10 years as a steward (and more as a driver), I find the system is not perfect, but mostly on target. Furthermore, the 90% of drivers that never have to deal with stewards shouldn't get swayed by biased reports from a few frequent miscreants.
IF you are ever insulted by a steward at the Saturday night bash, protest him on the basis of "unsportsmanlike conduct!" If you've got specific incidents, report them to the Division Exec Steward.
Larry Oliver
Thanks, Larry. I keep thinking we haven't seen anything official yet. IMO, it's silly for (some) people to think the penalty was for "walking the track".
:thumbsup: Well said Larry.
To continue the debate that Joel was suspended for walking on the track is akin to arguing that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil caused a tornado in Kansas. Other than being at opposite ends of a common chain of events - the two are no longer related.
I am a vigilant supporter of defending onself but you have to recognize when you are in a hole and to stop digging before it becomes your grave.
Sure the no walking on the track wasn't published - I agree it is should be because it is allowed at many other tracks. Joel learned of the rule without yelling or confrontation the first night he went out there. If there were any further questions regarding the rule, then he should have been taken up with the Track - not the security guard or club renting it during the day.
:twocents:
Jonathan
I tried the diplomatic approach with the scca about an abusive chief steward. I wrote a letter to the club reporting an on going pattern of abusive behavior from said steward. To date there has been no response and i've only been waiting over a year.
Cool -
I had a very constructive call today with SCCA regarding walking the track at Road America. We are working on a solution. The best fit for a track walk may be a two part deal (half one day, half a second day). The best fit looks to make it part of the "Mentor Program" which takes place at the Runoffs. As an aside - its a great program and I encourage new drivers to signup for it and learn from others who know the pitfalls of the track and the runoffs.
A number of great ideas and debates have come from this thread and other threads on this topic. I wish to thank everybody that has contributed in a positive manner. I would also like to thank those that have commented in a positive manner but may not have agreed with what I did. In the end, I promised that this would never happen again to another driver -and I hope my actions and suspension will help that happen.
My best wishes to all of you. I write this as we drive to the BeaveRun national. My revised suspension has expired and I am now on a 60 day probation. With a good showing at BeaveRun I should be in good shape for the Divisional Championship, Super Sweeps possibility and the Runoffs.
Now the other part......
Not Cool - I take offense to what Larry Oliver and other Stewards have posted. Just because in the past I have not agreed with your way of thinking or your position on a topic - you clearly hold it against a driver FOREVER.
Look at my record - PERIOD. Until what I list below, I have never had points on my license, I have never had an action written up against me, have never been on probation nor have I ever been abusive to a Steward, Registrar or Volunteer - They are Facts - PERIOD, research it and prove me wrong.
My record now: In 2009 I was given a DQ and points for a fuel cap check engine light code (a Showroom Stock rule thing) - 4 automatic points. And now 6 points for a "walking the track violation". That's it....period.
Now I see Larry Oliver and others seem to find it necessary to drag a person's name through the mud - for what? What point are you trying to make? Do you get pleasure from abusing others? I have offered full disclosure regarding this scenerio at Road America. Agreeing to a lie detector test, offering copies of testimony given, providing the taped recording, etc. (There is nothing more to the story- no drinking, fist fights, etc. My side of the story backed up by 3 other witnesses).
Larry - you demonstrate what the problem is here - get some authority and you abuse it. A person disagrees, offers a debate over a situation or asks for clarification and you brand them a trouble maker forever. Then followup with an abuse of power to show that a steward has a bigger stick than the driver. You should be ashamed of what you posted.
I fight for rule changes I think are worth fighting for. I have and will continue to go to the mat for a fellow driver (new or old) that I feel is wronged. I will speak out when no other driver has the guts to standup for themselves. I push to get results - we had safety items changed forever (the manufacturer's tags sewn on driver gloves and balaclavas are now on the sewn on the outside because of near fatal burns I received back in 1997 in a car fire). We pushed and had fuel rules changed based on a questionable disqualification. In the end it is a member driven Club and every member should be willing to fight for what they believe is the correct without the fear of being branded.
Now does my "way" of dealing with things and people or my approach bite me in the butt sometimes - YES...but that's what makes each of us different - NOT WRONG. I never claimed to be the most diplomatic person when getting issues resolved - hell I'm half Italian and half German!!! But please remember - I have never complained, criticized or asked for any sort of rule change or procedure without providing a viable solution first during the process.
I get disappointed with the SCCA but continue to support the club whenever I can (donate to worker funds, volunteer time and volunteer my company's time on special design projects).
Larry and the rest of the "personal bashers" here - you have my email, telephone number or you can PM me. Feel free to explain yourself in any arena you choose. Provide actual sustainable facts as to your "prior dealings" with me that irritated you so much to brand me a trouble maker for life. I'll say it again - You should be ashamed of what you posted.
Now back to the Cool - thanks for a healthy debate over this situation... feel free to stop by our paddock space and chat whenever you are at the same race as us - its an open invitation.
Best Regards to all - Joel Lipperini
WELL SAID!!!! :D :checkered:
Ted Klaus
Joel- I found the situation with bad Stewards who abuse their powers,workers and competitors as well very much a problem in my Division.The issue was resolved after I got elected Director.I appointed the right Executive Steward and made sure we did not assign the bad Stewards anymore.The problem was fixed in less than 3 months.The rebuilding takes much longer.I believe the Stewards program still has some bad Stewards that enjoy the power trip.But it is now the exception and not the rule.The Executive Steward of your Division can fix almost all the problems.If he/she is part of the problem your issues and many others will never get fixed.I understand your frustration I had my times thrown out at the Runoffs at Mid Ohio for a safety issue with my car.The Chief Steward had stated we would not loose any times in qualifying for a safety issue.But it happened to me and I did not protest it. I made the changes and took my lumps.I believe the only reason that happened was because I was a Director and not one of them(Stewards).Had I been a Steward I am sure they would have dealt with me differently.It was embarrassing to me that the club still had this kind of vendictive sort of mind set with a tech Steward.Some more cleansing and now it is better but not perfect.It will never be perfect because we are dealing with humans and we all have our fears,faults and opinions.I am glad that the court reduced your penalty.I believe as many others do it was the correct thing to do.
"I've never had an action written up against me."
----------------------------------------------------
It took me 2 minutes to find the following:
Lipperini vs. SOM
Finding of the Court of Appeals
FasTrack Sept 2005 (upholding the SOM)
Larry Oliver
[FONT=BookmanOldStyle-Bold][FONT=BookmanOldStyle-Bold] [/FONT][/FONT]
Am I on another planet?
This is the best that you can find???
Something I actually mention in my post above regarding fuel?
So let me get this straight everybody...
Am I reading this correct?
I had a fuel compliance issue 5 years ago....filed an appeal to defend my position and lost my appeal. I said nothing against the appeal and walked away with the decision. Then we lobbied to get the rule changed so it wouldn't happen to another SS or Touring class driver. I didn't complain, nor jump up and down about the court's decision.
This marks me as a trouble maker and the bad 10% of SCCA members that cause all the problems in the SCCA??? This is your basis for defaming me publicly on this forum? Your comments should have you ejected and suspended from the club for unsportsmanlike conduct. How dare you defame somebody publicly with no basis.
You appear to be one of the people that make up the 10% of bad club members.
I think it is fairly obvious who has the wrong attitude here about the us vs. them issue.
And as a note on the 2005 issue.... as posted above, "We pushed and had fuel rules changed based on a questionable disqualification."....yes - I was DQ'd and we pushed the club to change the fuel rules for Showroom Stock & Touring class cars. The rule was contradictory and it took a DQ to get enough attention drawn to the issue to get it changed. The club saw the problem and changed the rule. That is causing a problem - its solving one and making our club a better place to play.
Let me know what other earth shattering information you come up with...we will all be waiting.....
or you can just say here publicly:
I'm sorry Joel, I may have been misinformed. I will consider your invitation and welcome the opportunity to spend some time with you at a National race.Maybe my opinion of you was not well-founded.
We shall see.......Joel
PS - Had a great first weekend back from my suspension...a National Win, Pole Position, Flag to Flag Victory and Smashed the TRACK RECORD in my old Honda while the Acura is being prepped for the Runoffs....off to Pocono next!
Ok guys, let's ease up on the stone trowing at this point. The issue has been resolved and everyone can go back to racing now.
I don't think any more needs to be said on this subject.
Joel, glad things worked out for you. Good luck at the RunOffs, and welcome to the forums here. Wish it could have been under better circumstances.
doug