MM's win pending crank inspection

If that is the case, then why did AMA/DMG state that, "[Yosh's appeal has been] deemed without merit and has been denied" ??? Why didn't they come out and state that Yosh missed the deadline for submitting the correct materials, and therefore the appeals process will not move forward?

Refer to this: http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34042

Next, refer to this: http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34109

In it they state clearly that Yosh's submitted appeal was not sufficient, NOT that it didn't meet the criteria to begin the appeals process.

Basically, if you read those press releases, what AMA/DMG is saying is:

1) We received the appeal materials from Yosh
2) We reviewed them and found them to be without merit (in about 30 minutes, BTW)
3) Based on that, we are issuing a summary judgment to uphold the appeal which is final and irrevocable.

So you tell me how that follows due process? The fault is NOT Yosh's for not meeting the criteria to begin the appeals process. If you still think that Yosh didn't meet the criteria to convene an appeals board, then refer to this:

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=34046

Obviously Yosh thinks that they did at least enough to merit a hearing. Nothing in AMA/DMG's press releases states that that was the reason for not convening a board. They simply stated that the appeal "was without merit," not that Yosh failed to produce the required evidence to convene an appeals board.

AMA/DMG is essentially saying, "Yes, we have an appeals process, but the process by which you are allowed to have a hearing is at our sole and subjective discretion."

 

AND the lack of chamfering on the oil delivery holes. Here is a picture of the crank in question:

http://www.roadracingworld.com/enlarge/?section=news&image=2215

Compare it to a picture of a stock crank, and you can clearly see the lack of chamfering on this one.

 

in my opinion they did not.they were asked proof it is production crank to go forward with process.they submitted analysis from somebody of crank that is suppose to be same.ama already checked crank.showing picture of forging mold and analysis was not what was asked for.
that is the way I read it.

 

I don't have a picture of a stock crank and the three I have are in motors...and only one of them is stock.

 

Because that's exactly what the rulebook specifies. If an appeal is deemed without merit, for whatever reason, no appeal board is convened, and the appeal is denied. There is no provision in the rules for anything else.

 

i was looking online for a pic of a stock crank, but had no luck. i refuse to pull the motor in the endurance bike apart just to compare it to a cheater crank i have no pic of.

 

OK, here is a picture showing detail of an oil hole chamfer:



Apologies for the size, but I had to try to focus on the oil delivery holes.

Here is the link to the pic of Mladin's crank that's in question:

http://www.roadracingworld.com/enlarge/?section=news&image=2215

Notice the extremely reduced depth of the chamfer on the latter. Yosh is claiming that that is the result of "...normal wear and journal polishing which is allowed under AMA rules..." I call BS on that, because that amount of reduction of the size of the journal as a result of wear and polishing would mean that the crank wouldn't fit (at least not with homologated bearings).

 

so kl, i see on the pic of your crank, it doesnt look like there are any grooves around the area of the chamfered hole, but yet on Mladin's, there is a groove around all but one. Is that normal?

 

Yes, but that's not what TWF2 is arguing. He is stating that Yosh's didn't submit the proper materials. If they flunked the pre-hearing review, that's one thing, but TWF2 is stating that they didn't even submit the proper materials.

 

I should have been clear that the pic that I posted is of an 02 crank - those grooves came out starting with the 03's. However, the chamfering has been about the same since 01. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture of a stock 05-08 crank, but I can attest that the oil hole chamfering has been the almost same from 01 to the present. If anyone thinks differently then I will find a picture of a current gen crank and prove that that is the case. In any case, the chamfering hasn't been reduced to the point as it was on Mladin's (at least not from the factory).

 

you don't see flaw there.
they sent their own crank to their crank company of choice to analyze it.
how can that prove it is production crank?they tried to argue performance and they were asked to provide proof of production,which they could not.

 

IMO if you attempted to write a rulebook that covered every possible scenario that could ever arise in racing you'd wind up with something that rivaled the federal tax code in size, and would require an army of lawyers to interpret. So instead you write one that describes general cases, and allows room for interpretation by the rule making authority. I think that's what's happened here. Regardless of whether they failed to provide convincing evidence, missed the mark on what the infraction was, or any other reason, the review found the appeal without merit. That's all the AMA has to say, they don't have to give a specific reason why.

In a nutshell, the AMA asked for proof that it was a production crank, and specified how that could be proven. Yosh failed. End of story.

 

You show me where they said this in there pr.

 

after all is said and done, thats pretty much how i see it, too.

 

It wouldn't matter if they showed up with 5 bikes with that crank in them...it would be said they put them there. Appeal Denied....Get a Rope.

 

drink the Koolaid Britt, drink the Koolaid.............

 

You are kidding me right if thats the case then why did they kick everyones but without having a engine failure when DMG ok'ed the cranks they used in the last race I must be missing something. They win every race cause they have the best two riders of the nation.

 

What does matter is that they couldn't produce even one...

 

and they said so ,needle in haystack
sounds like small limited production run.