1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AHRMA Dissolution?

Discussion in 'WERA Vintage' started by 83BSA, Oct 30, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. charles

    charles The Transporter

    Yep...to all a very pleasant Holiday...eat, drink, and be content and thankful for all you have that counts...and then come out swingin'...:D

    and remember...

    'Deserves got nothin' to do with it."
  2. OldSwartout

    OldSwartout Well-Known Member

    Fort Walton Beach, FL Weather Forecast
    Updated 3:45 PM CST THU NOV 23 2006
    Lo: 39°

    Temperature getting a little chilly down there, Phantom? :D
  3. krypton7

    krypton7 Well-Known Member

    Just some rambling points to make here. I've seen a couple of references to me being a Team O supporter. I am. However, I'm not a full on TO guy at all. I had grown weary of the litigation quite some time ago. However, I've seen AHRMA's propaganda releases and thought that another perspective might help people realize that there are two sides to this conflict. So I posted the 'Carb Story' and the 'Nazi Story' to show that there is another look other than the AHRMA party line. I know that both stories are true and that Rob got pretty indignant about the episodes. This is not to justify his actions but to show how he might have got pointed in the direction that he did. I'll also tell the story soon about how Jeff Smith,The Jeff, physically assaulted Jim Redman at Daytona when he was riding for TO and AHRMA ignored thier rulebook to sanction The Jeff. Everyone should know by now that The Jeff is culpable for a good part of the mess that AHRMA is in as are a good part of the old Trustees. Also, everyone should know by now that AHRMA misused and misrepresented the Benevolent Fund. So I have an axe to grind with The Jeff running for trustee again and to have the association getting back in business in a 'business as usual' mode. Other than that, I have been a WERA member for 20 plus years and an AHRMA member for 16 or so. I make my stand for the racers, not for AHRMA, not for TO, not for The Jeff and not for Iannucci.

    By the way, watch for Garrett's press release. Yamaha Racing just hired him as their development rider thru Graves Motorsports for the AMA season in '07
  4. Yamaha Fan

    Yamaha Fan Well-Known Member


    In reading the AHRMA post I found it conspicuous that there was no mention of litigation prior to the current conflict other than the Bears case. Wasn't there a suit over the name "Supermono" that Rob/T.O. prevailed in? did this occur prior to the termination of Robs membership? I think there have been one other conflict also, I am not sure of the outcome of that one.
  5. krypton7

    krypton7 Well-Known Member

    I recall the Supermono issue vaguely too. However, can't recall the details. Seems that the two were married somehow, maybe not. Anyone else know anything?

    We had a drive by shooting in Detroit the other day. When the local camera crew went to the neighborhood, they found a old local resident to interview about the shooting. Here was his response: "I don't know nutin' about nutin'." Now that guy had both street smarts and longevity.

    That should have been my motto in life a long time ago.
  6. charles

    charles The Transporter

    :D :D LMAO..' don't know nutin' about nutin' ' I've heard it many times over in
    different forms...your last post very interesting, I can't wait to read about
    Redman stomping a big hole in Smith's chest. That's what happened, right?
    You're not gonna tell us that someone gets physically assaulted and no kind of retribution takes place, not even an oil can busted over someone's noggin'?
    Please don't tell us that...no wonder some people act like petty dictators,
    they never got their asses handed to them. But go ahead, weave the tale
    of Dismay at Daytona.
  7. STT-Rider

    STT-Rider Well-Known Member


    Monte and Bonnie from Sportbike Track Time here. Please pass on our congratulations to Garrett. He's one of our fav's in the paddock and a fine young man. Bonnie and I are pleased to see things working out for you guys after so much hard work.

    Happy holidays and we'll see you folks next season.
  8. 83BSA

    83BSA Well-Known Member

    Janiec's Nov. 22 Response


    While I appreciate your stated concern for AHRMA at the Barber Town Hall meeting, and in the below missive, I found it quite disingenuous given that:

    1) You seemed to have some inside information - maybe understandable given your access to federal legal filings as an attorney, but on the other hand, a smart attorney should have understood the risk to the corporation in this situation, or you could have been/be an agent of our plaintiffs?:
    2) You are well recognized as a long-time AHRMA critic;
    3) The questions you are/were asking were precisely those sought by Mr. Iannucci in depositions and court filings for the previous three months;
    4) A plaintiff in the litigation (EG) was not only in attendance at the town hall meeting, but was also observed with what clearly appeared to be a concealed tape recorder, and immediately followed your line of questioning;
    5) In spite of your offer below to reply to you in a "less contentious environment", you duplicitously posted on the WERA BBS that you would post my reply to this query on the same -BBS!

    Your certified mailings to the AHRMA board members and counsel (also duplicated and posted on BBSs) did nothing to lessen my questioning of your motives.

    After filing our chapter 11 petition, followed by our motion to estimate any remaining claim liability this week, we can now comment more freely. Please see our postings on our website as of today, Nov 21st. They should address your questions as well as others from concerned members.

    During the period of this 5 1/2 year suit, AHRMA trustees and officals have been subject to personal, legal and verbal attack as well as current veiled threats for more. It goes with the territory when one volunteers to serve and help advance an organization you love. In spite of these personal legal and verbal attacks, our predecessors and we have acted in best interests of the association's continued future, to the best of our abilities.

    David, I'm going to assume you are truly (and only) a concerned member and my concerns above are not accurate. If so, Please recognize that the AHRMA board members are a volunteer group, dedicated to providing great opportunities for our members to enjoy our shared passion for the old equipment, the competition and the camaraderie of like-minded folks. That is our only objective, and I would think it would be yours, as well. While our positions might not always be the same, we have the same ultimate goal, and we all want to be sharing fun on the track next year.

    See you on the track in '07 (Classic '60s?),
  9. 83BSA

    83BSA Well-Known Member

    Rutherford's Nov. 26 Response

    Dear Dave –

    Thank you for your response. I apologize for not responding sooner, but I have been away for Thanksgiving without email access.

    I wrote you twice, once on November 1, and again on November 2, 2006. The second time I wrote: “I’m not sure you received the attached. Please let me know, even if you elect to not communicate further with me. Thank you.” However, I received no response whatsoever until your November 22 email below. I surmise that you subscribe to the “better late than never” approach to life.

    I assume your statement that you found my November 1 inquiries to be “disingenuous” is why you have never answered those questions. However, there is nothing “disingenuous” about my efforts – they are, and they remain, quite sincere. Please review the definition of that term. The five (5) reasons you list in your email do not support a wholesale failure to provide any substantive response to a member’s questions:

    1) I “seem to have inside information”? What does that mean? I asked three questions at Barber. First how much money had AHRMA spent on the Iannucci/TO litigation? A timely and appropriate question, particularly given the fact that AHRMA has since admitted (via its Chp 11 filing) to have squandered its once considerable resources as a result of malfeasance and neglect. No “inside info” there. Second, what was the basis of the motion to withdraw filed by AHRMA’s attorneys in the ED NY litigation? It was a PUBLIC FILING. No inside info there. Third, I asked you if you knew the basis of the motion. You said you did. Inside info on my behalf? Hardly. Your first excuse merely creates a straw man to avoid the real, legitimate, issues.

    2) I am “well recognized as a long time AHRMA critic”? Please tell me more, that is news to me. What are the FACTS that support such a self-serving statement? I don’t know where to start with this excuse – “well recognized,” or “long time” or “critic” . . . . Does the fact that I have, from time to time, participated in discussions about AHRMA, asked questions at the appropriate times when invited, i.e., Barber, provided input and suggestions as to how to, in my opinion, better AHRMA and the vintage racing experience for all, mean that I am a “well recognized long time critic”? Apparently you believe that anyone who does not agree verbatim and lockstep with what some undisclosed entity within AHRMA deems to be best for the organization is an undesirable “critic.” That is precisely the dogmatic, myopic perspective that has resulted in the organization being stripped of its resources and forced to reorganize. You, and others on the attached email distribution list, may choose to follow blindly and not question, inquire or exercise independent thought, but I refuse to be such a follower. If that makes me a “well recognized long time critic,” so be it. I, unlike you and others, think for a living, and I do not stop thinking when I engage in motorcycling.

    3) I asked questions identical to those asked by the Iannucci/TO litigators? Again, I asked two substantive questions at Barber. If those were the same questions asked by others, MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE PERTINENT, IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. Imagine that, independent, unrelated folks assessing the same situation would come up with the same, basic, fundamental questions. While some would view that as a natural and probable consequence of exercising independent thought (there’s that whole “thinking” thing again), you see a conspiracy. Once you, and others, remove the blinders, exercise some independent thought, and quit jumping at the sight of your own shadows, you will realize many members want AHRMA to succeed and prosper. However, the fact that they have different “thoughts” or ideas than you does not mean they are out to destroy the organization. Thinking like yours is what resulted in the American Revolution, the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution and its Amendments, the Civil Rights movement, and the passage of laws to ensure that people are not castigated, criticized or demonized for simply being or thinking differently than those in positions of power. I guess I should be glad that I’m a middle aged, Caucasian male like you; I can only imagine how you would treat me if I were not.

    4) Someone else had a tape recorder at the Barber meeting? How does that relate to me? A further manifestation of your (and others’) unfathomable paranoia? Even if true, so what? Do the AHRMA representatives who advertised, encouraged and solicited the Barber Town Hall meeting not want to be bound by what was asked and said IN PUBLIC at that meeting? And you call me “disingenuous”? I call that outright deceptive. This entire point is a complete logical non-sequitor to me, i.e., it makes absolutely no sense as it has no logical relationship to why you continue to refuse to answer my legitimate questions and concerns.

    5) This particular point ignores one very important aspect and one very critical fact: timing and your wholesale failure to respond. There is nothing “duplicitous” about my actions. I contacted you via what has since been proven to be a correct and appropriate method of communicating with you. I asked that you simply confirm receipt and I even suggested that you tell me you preferred not to respond to me. I heard nothing for 21 days, three full weeks. Not even a “piss off” or “ I’ve got it and will get back to you in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time.” Nothing. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Silence. You had your chance. I, in the face of what I perceived (and still do perceive) as yet further “stonewalling,” felt it was appropriate to advise other AHRMA members of what was, and was not occurring. Nothing secretive or deceptive about that. It would have been “duplicitous” for me to promise you confidentiality and then not honor that promise. I offered and you failed to accept. You waived and missed any opportunity to conduct communications in a particular fashion. I, on the other hand, was, have been, and continue to be open, honest and forthright about all my communications. Perhaps you have been dealing in deception and misrepresentation so long you no longer recognize the truth and honesty when confronted with it?

    My certified mailings “did nothing to lessen [your] questioning of my motives”? (Emphasis in original) How can that be? You fail to respond in any way to me, so I write all of the elected AHRMA personnel via US mail. Nothing secretive about that. My seeking responses from AHRMA when nothing is forthcoming from you increases your suspicion of my motives? I think that falls squarely within the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” arena.

    You emphasize twice that the AHRMA trustees are volunteers. Does that somehow lessen or alleviate their fiduciary responsibilities? Is it AHRMA’s position that the trustees are to be held to a lesser standard because they knowingly and willfully sought, campaigned, and in many instances repeatedly elected to hold a trustee position? One the one hand you claim that because the trustees are elected, their actions and motives are not to be questioned. Yet, when things turn sour, you suggest their failures to act appropriately be excused because they are “volunteers.” Please allow me to refer you once again to the definition of “disingenuous.” You might also want to review “paradoxical” and “ironic” while you’ve got Webster’s handy.

    I looked briefly at the recent postings on the AHRMA site. I will review them in detail to determine what, if any, new, substantive and meaningful information is contained there. Thank you.
  10. OldSwartout

    OldSwartout Well-Known Member

    Rutherford's Nov. 26 Response

    It's easy to see where your prejudices lie - AHRMA admitted to spending its money to defend a frivolous lawsuit by T.O., not "malfeasance and neglect". What would you have had them do - just stop showing up in court as Rob went for continuance after continuance and modified his complaints ad infinitum? That would have been "malfeasance and neglect", which you seem to be promoting. Instead, they tried to defend the corporation as best as they could for as long as they could. Maybe you are smart enough in hindsight to give them some better legal advice than their attorney at the time. If so, would you please spell out what should have been done (something feasible, please, not some mumbo-jumbo about letting Rob back in, since it is pretty obvious that wasn't his goal)?

    I was there. The questions you asked were good questions and on many member's minds. However, they were answered as expected and within the guidelines I would have expected from responsible corporate trustees. What would you have had them do, go against advice of counsel? Why would you encourage the trustees to go against advice of counsel? Would you not have answered the same way if you were in that postion? If you would have answered against advice of counsel, I, for one, am very happy you are not in that position. Now that there have been some legal hurdles cleared, they have answered those questions. Sorry you got your feelings hurt - waaaaaaaa!

    Sounds like he hit the nail directly on the head. You are twisting AHRMA's published information and court documents to suit your motives and asked them to go against advice of counsel. Maybe YOU should look up the meaning.

    The postings have been up for 5 days. In the time it took you to write that diatribe, you could have read the postings, studied them and learned something. I guess it was more important to slam a trustee, eh!
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2006
  11. bax504

    bax504 Well-Known Member

    Give em hell Karl. BTW I renew my AHRMA License on Friday. Cheers.:beer:
  12. weber#465

    weber#465 mud fight

    Careful BAX and Swartout someone will show up an say that your missing the point and will try to cover up all the "cheerleading" and “disingenuous”... stuff that is pouring out here.
  13. WERA33

    WERA33 Well-Known Member

    i believe this will help ahrma. ive met a few riders racing with wera that were tired of the politics within ahrma similar to what stu had mentioned about the protests. you could also throw in the protest bs with tim joyce and his thruxton this year if your familiar that. even and fair(unbiased) application of the rulebook is essential and i dont beieve anyone would disagree with that.
    i will be voting in the trustee election and i hope jeff smith will not win. he and rob i should either walk from vinatge or just race and stay away from running for office.
  14. Yamaha Fan

    Yamaha Fan Well-Known Member

    It is obvious that both sides antagonized each other into this idiotic battle..

    Reading the propaganda from both parties reminds me of what it would be like to listen to two teenagers who when entrusted with the use of the precious family car can only argue over who started the fight that caused them to wreck it...

    Who started it is not relevant.. the fact that they were so absorbed by he conflict that they wrecked the car is the real core of the issue... Asking the one driving what the hell he was doing carrying on a fight while he was driving is not an improper line of questioning...

    It is obvious there was/is bad blood between Rob I and AHRMA. It is obvious that both have a history of antagonizing each other, ignoring this does nothing to exonerate either party...

    It is just a shame that people could not respect those that make AHRMA possible (THE MEMBERS) enough to keep from running headlong into the current ditch....
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2006
  15. charles

    charles The Transporter

    In all due respect (sincerely), could you give some guidance here? For example, what was so secretive and impossible to tell members about the ongoing litigation? The legal strategy? The cost of legal fees? The merits of
    Ianucci's claims? Was the membership felt to be unsupportive? If they had known those factual matters, would they have insisted on changing the course of events? Were all the trustees in accordance with the course of
    action taken over the years- were there any voices of dissent? Did the attorneys representing AHRMA (the nonprofit corp.) actually direct trustees
    not to divulge any information to the members of AHRMA? Last, did AHRMA
    (the nonprofit corp.) respond to all public requests for IRS Form 990's? Perhaps you know something about these things and that could be helpful.
  16. bax504

    bax504 Well-Known Member

    Bottomline to me is I just want to race next year. I will with or without AHRMA. I personally want it to survive. Are there idiots involved with AHRMA, yes. Did the TO lawsuit get them to this point or did the trustees do it. It has been mentioned before about how poorly the members has responded in voting. Shame on them. Where has all of these haters been the past few years? When they realize that AHRMA is in trouble they all come out of the wood work. Guys, bitching and complaining won"t solve a dam thing. And nothing can be fully settled till the lawsuit is over. Vote for new faces such as Carl, but keep some of the old ones too, Mark. And for all of these haters with all of these complaints. Put that time and energy into something productive, such as solving world hunger, AIDS, or ending all wars. Otherwise shut the hell up and let's fix this situation for the benefit of the majority, not your personal agenda. Cheers.:D
  17. lizard84

    lizard84 My “fuck it” list is lengthy

    I thought we were talking about AHRMA, Not GS's in F500 being limited to 55cc less then all the other 4 strokes...:tut:


    ;) :beer:
  18. weber#465

    weber#465 mud fight

    Good points.:up:
    This is some of the stuff that needs to get started for a change. Change is good.
    Who do you hope will run and win?:beer:
  19. weber#465

    weber#465 mud fight

    :beer: :bow: :up:
    Now after you say all that, it does make a lot of good points, Charles will say your wrong, Stu will post another story, and David will post another link to T/O showing where someone is wanting all of your thoughts to stop. (thought police) and we will keep going nowhere:Poke:
    other that Carl, who else do you think would be a good person for some of the openings?
  20. 83BSA

    83BSA Well-Known Member

    I'm Clueless . . . ?????

    ". . . David will post another link to T/O showing where someone is wanting all of your thoughts to stop. (thought police) . . . ."

    I started this thread in an effort to get people to think and question the info, or more appropriately the lack of info, they had been, and were being (or not being) given. I understand your comment to suggest (state?) that somehow I want to limit people's thoughts, i.e., I am the "thought police"? I don't understand. Please educate me.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page