AMA Appeal Process

The following original message is the full text of my July 21, 2001 e-mail in response to the www.roadracingworld.com article, dated 7/20/2001. Please read the article in its entirety at: http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/scripts/NewsInsert.asp?insert=1016.

The article stated, in part:
""The rule was originally put in place when AMA rules did not allow riders to change bikes during a race red flag situation; the rule was intended to prevent riders from going back into the paddock to swap bikes.

But in a cruel bit of irony, AMA rules now allow riders to use a back-up bike, so Hacking, who did not have a back-up bike, was disqualified for breaking an obsolete rule.

The Appeal Board ruling points out problems with the AMA appeal process, which allows 3-man appeal boards appointed by AMA Pro Racing Director of Competition Merrill Vanderslice to hear a rider's case and make a final ruling. The involved rider has no say in who is on the appeal board and cannot object to any member of the board, unlike jury rules in a normal courtroom.

Which makes it possible for appeals to be heard by "stacked" boards or by boards made up of people who do not understand the original intent and application of a given rule, and who instead decide appeals based purely on their literal interpretation of the rule in question. ""

End quote:

Since I was one of the three members of that ""stacked board"" I felt compelled to respond as follows with a quote from the rulebook regarding the power of the board to "waive or modify rules that were in place at the time of the matter under appeal."

""----- Original Message -----
From: Don Potter <[email protected]>
To: John Ulrich <e-mail address suppressed by Don Potter for privacy>
Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Obsolete Rules and Appeal Boards


> John:
> In reference to your article on the Hacking appeal, I respectfully call your
> attention to the following in paragraph 14 e on page 80 of the 2001 AMA Pro
> Racing rulebook.
>
> "It is the responsibility of the appeal board to rule on the matter at hand
> within the context of existing AMA rules and regulations. Appeal boards are
> encouraged to make recommendations regarding such rules and regulations but
> have no power whatsoever to waive or modify rules that were in place at the
> time of the matter under appeal."
>
> Regards,
> Don Potter
>""
End of Quote.

A subsequent article in www.roadracingworld.com dated 7/24/2001 is titled "Hacking Appeal Board Had No Choice, Reader Says." Please read entire text of the article at: http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/scripts/NewsInsert.asp?insert=1067

The 7/24 article says, in part:
""The AMA Appeal Board had no choice but to uphold the non-sensical disqualification of Jamie Hacking from the second Superbike race at Road America, due to wording of the rulebook, reader Don Potter says."" End of Quote.

Please reread my e-mail, above, to see where I said the appeals board had no choice...
I believe I merely quoted the rule book. I did not SAY that the board had no choice.

If the board had no choice, the process of receiving testimony, questioning witnesses, deliberating in closed session, and presenting the findings would not have taken almost three hours (even if I am as wordy in person as I am in print.)

The board had a choice to decide whether the actions of the racing team including Mr. Hacking, (hereafter referred to as Mr. Hacking's team for brevity.) constituted a violation of the rules.
We found that it did.

The board had a choice to determine whether or not errors on the part of track personnel or AMA officials were so serious that Mr. Hacking's team should be excused from the rule violation. It was a tough call, but we determined that although track personnel and AMA officials made errors of omission, there was ample opportunity for Mr. Hacking's team to correct these errors short of violation of the rules. (The crash truck, with Mr. Hacking on board delivered the crashed bike to the paddock - not the hot pits. Another senior member of Mr. Hacking's team was present and could have prevented the bike from being unloaded or immediately directed that the bike be moved to the hot pit area in compliance with the rules. According to testimony, the team pulled out the exhaust pipe, so the rear wheel could turn and removed the fairing. The bike was then placed on a shop lift for repairs. Only after another member of the team realized that work should not be done in the paddock was the bike moved to the hot pits where repairs continued.)

The 7/24 article says, in part,

""Which means that even though Hacking was disqualified for breaking an old rule intended to help enforce another rule that has since been changed, the Appeal Board was forced by this third rule to not do the logical thing and overturn Hacking's disqualification."" End of Quote.

The board had a choice to investigate the purpose of the rule. We asked. We were told that in addition to preventing illegal swapping of bikes, the intent of the rule had evolved to assure that all repairs were made under the view of technical inspectors at the hot pit. Other rationale for the rule was also discussed.

We wondered whether or not the rule had been considered obsolete prior to the incident in question. We asked. No one said that the apparent conflict between the no-work-in-the paddock rule and allowing back-up bikes had been considered before the incident. No one said that anyone had complained about the rule being obsolete before the incident occurred.

We were told that the race manager was approached by members of other teams who told him that Mr. Hacking's motorcycle had been worked on in the paddock. The other teams were concerned about the rule violation.

The board had a choice between finding an excuse for the rule violation or supporting the other teams, who had abided by the rule. We chose to uphold the rule that was in place at the time of the incident. The board had a responsibility to be fair to other competitors as well as to be compassionate to a team, which was led toward a rule violation by the errors of others.

The board chose to determine that every member of Mr. Hacking's team knew, or should have known the rule. We determined that more than one member of Mr. Hacking's team had the opportunity to terminate the incident short of a chargeable violation. No one took that opportunity.

Just as it is not appropriate for publication of jury deliberations, I do not believe it is fair to other board members to report on discussion in executive session. I have not done so. All the information provided above was presented in open session with both the AMA and members of Mr. Hacking's team present.

In the end, we regretted that errors on the part of the track personnel and the AMA led Mr. Hacking's team toward the rule violation. We considered the fairness to other teams who have avoided such violations. We decided that Mr. Hacking's team had several opportunities to ""Just Say No.""

WAS THE BOARD STACKED?
Speaking for myself, I have served only on one other appeals board. That board found the AMA partly at fault for inadequate evidence handling after the incident. We soundly criticized the AMA and reduced the penalty imposed. I was asked to serve on this board after that one. You decide whether or not the board was stacked.

WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED?
The appeal rules require that members' identities not be revealed publicly prior to the board to avoid attempts at influencing the board. The board members are not informed which matter they will be considering until they enter the room to hear the appeal. I had expected that I would be reviewing one of two other matters. (This is more convenient than sequestering a Jury.) Fair?? You decide. Are better procedures available? You suggest them. Make sure they avoid the appearance of attempts at influencing the board.

The 7/24 article also says, in part: ""Editorial Opinion: The AMA rulebook, the appeal process and AMA Pro Racing itself are corrupt and need to be exorcized immediately."" End of quote.

My Reader Opinion: If you believe such exorcism is necessary, participate in the service. Find those sections of the rulebook or the appeal process, which you believe to be unfair and write alternative language (Proposed replacement Rules.) Send your suggestion to AMA Pro Racing. If you believe that the rules should be flexible "whatever the board says in the appeal" say so. If you believe that there should be a clear set of rules so that everybody knows what they can and can't do when they get to the track, say that too. If you believe AMA Pro Racing itself should be changed, write to their board of directors.

P.S. If you are wondering how much appeal board members get paid... We get expenses: one meal, one night's lodging, mileage, and credentials for the race. Sorry; I didn't get to use my credentials, I had committed to support a grass-roots dirt track race 90 miles away. We're not in it for the money.

I hope this throws more light than heat on the issue.

Partial quotes of the www.roadracingworld.com articles are reproduced here for your convenience in comparisons with my statements. I believe this constitutes fair use. For fairness, please read the original articles in their entirety. URLs are as follows:
7/24/2001 http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/scripts/NewsInsert.asp?insert=1067
7/20/2001 http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/scripts/NewsInsert.asp?insert=1016
Or just go to www.roadracingworld.com

Please feel free to respond here or via e-mail to [email protected].

Regards
Don Potter
FlatTrackVideo

 

Don--

I wish you had identified yourself as a member of the appeal board in your e-mail.

I have volunteered to help re-write the rulebook on several ocassions and have been denied.

Since you are such a fan of semantics (arguing over "says"), please note that I didn't say this appeal board was "stacked", I said they could be stacked.

I have also served on an appeal board, I think they inserted that rulebook wording after my appeal board blew the AMA arguments out, chastized them and told them to do the right thing in the future, in a public statement.

I've tried to fix the corruption, so don't lecture me on getting involved. A corrupt system resists change.

I AM NOT saying you are corrupt. I continue to maintain that the system is corrupt and the situation at Elkhart allowed other teams to beat Hacker with the rulebook instead of their bikes, something that is specifically addressed in the WERA rulebook, and flew in the face of the rule on changing bikes.

Gotta go back to work here at BIR. If you wanna discuss more I'll be back in my office Monda.

 

John:

Thanks for your reply to my (extremely wordy) post. Here is my (extremely wordy) reply.
Since there were no replies for more than a day, I was beginning to think that nobody cared. Now I'm wondering whether or not you and I are the only ones who care.

I was NOT addressing my post at you specifically; I was addressing my post to the roadracing/racing fans/participants at large.

However, I will address this post as an open letter to you, John. I will address your reply on a point-by-point basis.

Quote: "Don--
I wish you had identified yourself as a member of the appeal board in your e-mail." End Quote.
My Response: Why, as a journalist are you not supposed to "Revile your source?"

Quote: "I have volunteered to help re-write the rulebook on several ocassions (sic) and have been denied." End Quote.
My Response: That is part of the price you pay for being a journalist. Journalists are not welcomed into the inner circles of most organizations for fear they will go public when they don't get their way.

Quote: "Since you are such a fan of semantics (arguing over "says"), please note that I didn't say this appeal board was "stacked", I said they could be stacked." End Quote.
My Response: What you said about "stacked" could be characterized as innuendo. I could reasonably conclude that you assumed that most readers would infer that this appeal board was stacked.

Quote: "I have also served on an appeal board, I think they inserted that rulebook wording after my appeal board blew the AMA arguments out, chastized (sic) them and told them to do the right thing in the future, in a public statement." End Quote.
My Response: regarding "...told them ...in a public statement." See my comment above about "Journalists are not welcomed into the inner circles..."
My Response: John, were you aware of the rulebook wording limiting the power of appeal boards before you wrote the 7/20/2001 article expressing concern about "...boards made up of people who do not understand the original intent and application of a given rule"? If you were aware of this limitation, why complain about their lack of understanding?

Quote: "I've tried to fix the corruption, so don't lecture me on getting involved." End Quote.
My Response: John, I would not presume to lecture you about getting involved. Your Air Fence campaign was phenomenally successful. Your leadership undoubtedly shortened the time for deployment of Air Fence, has already prevented serious injury, and may save lives. You and all the contributors have my continuing respect and admiration for what you have done. It is unfortunate that your position as a journalist and the inertia inherent in large organizations forced you to work outside the system to accomplish this.
My Explanation: I was not addressing you specifically, John, when I said: "If you believe such exorcism is necessary, participate in the service." I was addressing the general audience "YOU," meaning ANYBODY WHO CARES. I know that you, John, participate to the extent allowed by your position as a journalist (...a voice crying in the wilderness.)

Quote: "A corrupt system resists change." End Quote.
My response: ANY system resists change. Organizations run on inertia or they wouldn't run at all. "An object in motion tends to remain in motion unless..." Isaac Newton

Quote: "I AM NOT saying you are corrupt. I continue to maintain that the system is corrupt and the situation at Elkhart allowed other teams to beat Hacker with the rulebook instead of their bikes, something that is specifically addressed in the WERA rulebook, and flew in the face of the rule on changing bikes." End Quote.
My response: I'm glad you are not saying I am corrupt. I am concerned that many of your readers may have inferred that you were saying so.

Quote: "Gotta go back to work here at BIR. If you wanna discuss more I'll be back in my office Monda." End Quote.
My Response: Good coverage on BIR. However, I prefer to respond here, in print, where I can choose my words carefully and respond on a point-by-point basis.

My Summary: John, words and semantics are the tools of your trade as a journalist. You can use them to build things up or to tear them down. Or you can use them merely to increase circulation.

In the case of Air Fence, you used words to build up something great. You influenced many people to work together to meet that need. You have shown that you can convince others to work for common goals. You convinced them that it was in their own best interest to support Air Fence.

You seem to be having less success in other areas that don't catch the spirit of the times, as Air Fence did. Dale Carnegie, in his book "How to Win Friends and Influence People," emphasized that if you want to convince OTHERS to do something, you must convince THEM that it will be good for THEM.
It does no good to convince THEM that the proposed action will be good for YOU.
THEY must believe that something good will happen to THEM before they will take action.
The "something good" may be as simple as sleeping better at night or not being fired.
The "something good" may be much more complex.
Mr. Carnegie's point is that to be effective, your arguments to change the system must convince those in the system that CHANGE IS GOOD FOR THEM. It does no good to convince THEM that change will be GOOD FOR YOU OR ANYBODY ELSE. This is a universal concept applying to almost everyone; if you fail to follow it, your success in convincing others will be limited.

If those people you want to influence are burned when they associate with journalists, they will try to avoid associating with journalists. Those who get burned are like Mark Twain's cat. (Mark Twain claimed to have a cat that sat on a hot stove once. He said afterwards he couldn't get the cat to sit ANY stove, whether hot or cold.)

A journalist cannot both be inside an organization and criticize it in public. You may be able to influence others to work within an organization for change. You may even be able to influence others to overthrow an organization by revolution. However, your position as a journalist makes it extremely difficult for you to work from within those organizations on which you report.

Most people don't take kindly to having their motives or competence questioned in print or public (even if only by implication or innuendo.)
I know I didn't!

Unlike those who utter careless words verbally at trackside, you have the option of carefully choosing what you say in print. You have the option of revising what you write before you publish it. You can choose whether to use words that work for good, (as you did with Air Fence) or to use words that merely add more wood to the fire in the stove. You can choose whether to use words that bring people together or words that alienate them.

Well, John, that's the end of my lecture. Please feel free to reply.

Note to ANYONE WHO CARES: If you actually read this far, please respond here or drop me an e-mail at [email protected]. Even if John and I disagree on some of the details, and favor different aspects of our sport, both John and I love the sport. I'd like to know that John and I are not the only ones who are concerned.

Regards,
Don Potter
FlatTrackVideo
[email protected]

 

Don, what connection do you have to the AMA or AMA Pro Racing?

 

IMHO, AMA pro is more about the soap opera than about racing.

Yes the rider's ride hard but the organization is not set up to promote great racing, is it set up to:

A. Promote itself
B. Provide a spectacle
C. Sell motorcycles

There is too much back room double dealing to actually trust that the on-track activities are really an accurate reflection of the stated intent of the classes.

1. Go back and read the Dunlop tire race fixing articles in RW from six years ago. Do you really think much of that has changed? Do you really believe that you can buy the same tires that AMA superstock racers use? Do you really think that Dunlop doesn't still play favorites with the race teams?

2. A stock Kaw 6R is giving away almost ten bhp to the GSXR-600, do you believe that Eric is really THAT much of a better rider or do you think that maybe the teams/AMA are playing games with the engine tune to keep it competitive? And the last time you saw a F4i or a ZX-6 win a hard fought expert (non-AMA) race was...?

3. AMA (and TV announcers) tell people that the reason the AMA factory superstock bikes are faster than your superstock bike is that the factories sort through all the parts to find ones with "production tolerance" differences and make better engines. Do you believe that Japanese CNC machines really have production variances great enough to make shorter cylinders, longer rods, taller pistons, smoother ports or do you believe that the factories make special runs of parts for their own purposes? (see, honda race team receipt for factory superstock race heads published in RW a few years ago).

The talk of fines and points is just bread and circus.

OT - Did anyone read the series of articles about NASCAR in the Washington Post a month ago? Zoinks. Anyone who wants to have a NASCAR paradigm for motorcycle racing should read those articles and reconsider.

 

Due North:
Other than having served on two appeal boards, I have no official connection with AMA Pro Racing. I am neither an AMA employee nor an AMA contractor. Everything I posted above is my own (unless identified as a quote.)

I am a 3-year AMA Member (If you don't count the years from 1960-1978). I raced amateur scrambles, hare & hound, TT, short track and 1/2 mile from 1960-1970 and again from 1973-1978 when I hung it up. I held an AMA Professional Dirt Track License from 1965-1968. (Three-year novice, no-talent Junior.) I consider myself to be a "recovering racer" -- I stay away from actually riding one-day-at-a-time.

I resumed attending AMA GNC Dirt Track races about 4 years ago when the son of my former hauling partner earned a National Number in Dirt Track. I resumed my photography hobby and morphed into an amateur videographer as a small sideline business. I was the official videotape concessionnaire, selling videotapes to participants at the AMA Amateur Dirt Track Grand Championships in 2000 and 2001 in Indiana. I also do selected AHRMA and other amateur dirt track events.

I also videotape selected AMA Pro Racing Dirt Track events, but I am not allowed to sell Pro Racing videos. I am permitted to capture single frames for posting on a website. See www.wheelingit.com for examples.

I post frequently (too frequently some would say) on Wayne Hosaka's forum at www.flattrack.com. I have great respect for the skill and courage of the professional racers and I am concerned for their safety. On the flattrack forum I have posted numerous suggestions for safety improvements.

I am retired from the US Air Force after 25 years. I have enough experience in a large organization to know how people in them behave and how they respond to public criticism.

Generally, I believe it is better to praise in public and to criticize in private. I have e-mailed numerous suggestions to the people at AMA Pro Racing. They don't always agree with my ideas, but they respond politely with rationale for their views. I do not go public when they don't agree with me.

However, in some cases (not AMA Pro Racing) sending my criticism in private via personal e-mail has backfired when the recipients chose to make my e-mail and their disagreement public. In such cases, I respond in the same public forum.

I believe that public criticism is often justified. For example, I have learned things from www.roadracingworld.com that I would not have learned anywhere else. I believe that working in cooperation with an organization is also often justified. However, because of the negative reaction of those who are criticized in public, it is extremely difficult for the same individual to do both things (criticize in public and work on the inside.)

I believe that if enough people take the time to identify their least favorite terms of the rules and to write suggested alternative language and to send their suggestions to AMA Pro Racing, there will be changes. The hard part is writing suggested alternative language and avoiding creating two problems while fixing one.

I hope this answers your questions.

Please feel free to reply here or via e-mail.

Regards
Don Potter
FlatTrackVideo
[email protected]

 

Don--

I have lots of experience working behind the scenes for as long as 6 months at a time, being completely unable to even get a fair hearing on issues that affect not just me, but also many other people.

Quick examples:

DOT tires in the rain. (actually close to 12 months)

Thursday practice. (No reply yet to letter dated November 20)

Air Fence. (3 years, not 6 months)

After getting no reponse or action or hearing for 6 or 12 months or 3 years, then I take it public and go after it.

And then you seem to come along and tell me how I shouldn't do that!

Don, I want to congratulate you on the great things you have accomplished working within the corrupt system, where I have been unable to get anything done by trying to have a discussion with them, writing up proposals and justifictions, etc. You, Don, are obviously a better man than I, plus you have the added advantage of having more experience than I do running race and title-winning programs in AMA Pro Racing, and at training and bringing up riders and mechanics. And thanks for the (sic) marks in quoting my posts, I appreciate your proofreading of the posts I fired off.

Funny, all those people who kicked in for the Air Fence, or signed the tire and practice petitions, they obviously have no more faith in your ideal "work with them" scenario than I do.

And funny how when I presented the practice petitions to their Factory Few Advisory Board at BIR, it immediately became clear that most of them are more interested in conveniently parking their semi-trucks on Thursday than in what non-factory riders and teams see as essential practice, BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYBODY BUT THEMSELVES, period! (Which is not a charge you or anyone else can make a very good case for when refering to me and my actions).

Continue with your good work, Don, carry on.

I don't think you are corrupt. I think you are naive and that what you are advocating will not result in any good for anybody except The Factory Few and AMA officials who want to ignore the majority of riders in the paddock. This isn't the Army. Just because you say so, isn't good enough for me, and I'm not gonna do what you say just because you say I should.

And no, I didn't know about the new restrictions on the appeal process before you e-mailed me, with your e-mail "correcting" a post with no indication that it was meant to be private.

You do your thing, Don, as you did in the appeal board, follow the book and continue the overall injustice.

And that public statement you didn't like, the appeal board I was involved in was unanimous in issuing it as an appeal board statement, and in signing it.

Tell you what, Don: I'll do my thing, fight for what I (and all the people who signed my petitions and supported my programs) see as being right.

At the end of the day, we'll see which approach is more effective.

John Ulrich

 

Partial quotes included below, complete text of John's post is above.

End Quote:
Reply: No I didn't say you shouldn't criticize in public or work independently. I said you can't expect to work on the inside once you have done that. (I don't think Woodward and Bernstein got invited to White House parties after their Watergate exposes.)

End Quote.
Reply: I don't think it's obvious that I am a better man than you. I don't think you believe it either. As I said, you had phenomenal successs with the Air Fence campaign and deserve the credit for it.

End quote.
Reply: Remember Dale Carnegie; you only convince people to do something if you make them believe it will be GOOD FOR THEM.
Regarding self-interest: The story is told about Abraham Lincoln who was engaged in a debate with a fellow stage-coach passenger during a long ride. Lincoln was arguing that nobody did anything except for selfish reasons. The other passenger argued that people do things for unselfish reasons.
The coach happened to pass a pig pen where the pig was stuck under a fence and squealing in terror. Lincoln ordered the driver to stop, got down and freed the pig from under the fence, returning it to the pen.
When Lincoln returned to the coach, the fellow passenger said, "You have disproved your point. Your clothes are now covered with mud. You will be late for your court appearance. That was the most unselfish thing I have ever seen."
Lincoln supposedly replied. "On the contrary, it was purely selfish. If I hadn't done that, the pig's squeals would have bothered me the rest of the day."
John, what would bother you the rest of the day, or the rest of your life for that matter? I think you have told us that you would be bothered by not doing what could be done to make racing safer.

End Quote
Reply: I don't think you should do what I say. I believe both approaches have a place, but I think it's hard for one person to do both approaches.

End Quote.
Reply: The restrictions on the appeal process appear in the 2000 rule book as well as the 2001 rule book. I did not expect that an e-mail to an editor was private. I have had private e-mails published in other instances. What I did not expect was to have new words placed on my keyboard by your implications.

" End Quote
My Reply: John, agreed. I hope our two approaches are mutually supportive and help improve the sport we both love.

I just ask that you remember your feeling of being subjected to this public criticism in print and then have some understanding of the reactions of those who are the targets of your keyboard.

Regards
Don Potter
FlatTrackVideo
[email protected]

 

Can someone respond to AOD99's comments above? I have never thought about the "stock" difference between these bikes.

How is this possible?

What is in the tire issue?

but then again, how is it that Hopkins is hangin right in there with them?

Gruber

 

Don--

Okay, we still disagree on some of this but some of your points are valid. Consider them taken.

I just have no patience for the "park our trucks, screw the privateers" type of attitude of the few in regards to the many. The only benefit I can see for them considering others is, if they do, they won't get criticized as much for being selfish. Apparently, that's not been an effective motivator to date.

JU

 

Although it is interesting reading, most of us(at least me) aren't educated enough on the trials and tribulations to be able to make a valid comment. So, we lurk and wait for those in-the-know to make it come alive.

And it's the nature of the BBS is to cut on someone for various things, but since most of us (probably) don't know you that well, we keep our distance. (Not sure if you'd like to be called a 'tard' or not )

I(and many others) have requested more of an AMA presence here on the BBS, especially with the "alliance" with WERA, so your conversation is welcome.

Most of us will never run anything more than a local AMA Supersport or Pro Thunder race, but we like to stay in the know about the behind the scenes going's on there in Pickerington.

 

Sounds like maybe these guys should get together, whip 'em out and commence to measuring.

For goodness sakes. This darn site is starting to sound like a family reunion after introducing a keg and elapsing two hours. I love you, I repect your opinion, you must respect mine, lets all get along, everyone hates me, I'm right, your wrong...

I'm not trying to hastle anyone, but give things a break. It sounds like the play ground at the local elementary in here sometimes...

Some people just wake up pissed I guess. I use to think it was great to sign on and laugh about things, or some people on their rants. Now, I think, it is a waste to see the same, and I do mean SAME things over and over.

From me to all of you, I promise that I'll try to reserve my ranting and b^tching comments from now on, and I'll just will not read some things/threads and let them get my Goat...Ha-ha.

Love the site, just too bummed to deal with the consistant negativity sometimes...I now return you to your regularly scheduled bantering...

 

I'm not inclined to take unsolicited advice from anybody who lists dogs and golf next to bikes on his profile, and I reserve the right to answer posts concerning anything I'm doing, which is how I first came to be on this BBS in the first place. If that bothers you, what are you doing here? And if you're inclined to pass judgement on others and want to be taken at all seriously, why don't you use your real name on your posts?

And lastly, the list of things you have done or attempted to do for the greater good of road racing is...what?

Improve the lot of the privateers or private teams?

Contribute to meaningful safety improvements?

Serve on an appeal board with the best of intentions?

What?

Or instead of doing, are you just one of those critic dudes, telling people who do stuff how bad they are?

 

I haven't had time to do more than scan this very wordy exchange, but am alarmed by Don's statement that those of us in the peewee gallery don't seem as concerned as JU because we haven't responded. So I won't make any criticisms at present, but will state, for Don's edification, that I generally support JU's position on the AMA leadership and it's policies. I'll read this in more detail later, but I didn't see anything that will substantially change that view.

 

Want to know why I haven't responded? Your posts are too darn long!!!

 

Partial quote below, see above for entire post.

John,
I think we've given this particular issue about all the space it deserves for now.

I suspect both of us have more important things to do than continue this thread.

Darn, I missed out on the keg that Scarbs is talking about, but the after race AHRMA party and Honda Hills OH was pretty good...

Regards
Don Potter
FlatTrackVideo
[email protected].

 

At the risk of infuriating Scab, I agree. See you at the races, Don.

JU

 

Ahhh, the great JU screed by which the value of one's commentary is determined. If you don't measure up, you're welcome to your opinion, just keep it to yourself.
Under my name on this list and on my AMA card it says member, and I would hope that alone is enough to make my opinion on issues involving either WERA or the AMA valuable enough to be judged on it's merits and not summarily dismissed as just more crying. If you want to criticize a man's opinion, do it. But don't question his right to voice his opinion or the value of his opinion simply because he hasn't performed enough public service. Just because I haven't run for mayor, doesn't mean I can't speak up at the town meeting.
Steve

 

Sorry!

 

It depends on what the word "is" is.