MM's win pending crank inspection

Bad example, the AMA published a competition bulletin on April 4, 2008 revising the belly pan rules. Rashid screwed the pooch later in May with his decision at Infineon by misinterpreting the rule. One bad decision doesn't make a conspiracy.

 

Sure it does I am wearing my tin foil hat

 

I am not arguing that it is or isn't - certainly endurance is a factor in performance, and thus something that enhances endurance (especially at no cost to other performance factors) is performance enhancing. In fact, the issue isn't even performance "enhancing" so much as it is "performance changing" with respect to whether something is homologated or not. To it's logical extreme, if Yosh went out to Suzuki's crank subcontractor, had them make a crank that was exactly like stock, then did the exact same finishing processing as the Suzuki factory, and then ran that, then that still wouldn't be homologated.

I only stated that AMA never stated that the penalty was due to the fact that the crank was performance enhancing...they only stated that the crank was "simply not homologated" - which is fine, but then they should at least offer an explanation of why it was a Type 1 and not a Type 2 penalty, and what are the criteria for determining if a particular penalty fits under Type 1 or Type 2 guidelines.

I happen to agree with AMA, but their public relations team is so weak that, even though they are likely trying to have a level playing field, they give the appearance of impropriety by not following the process. After all, that is why they have a process in the first place, as someone else posted here earlier.

 

I agree. If a football player pulls a gun and shoots the quarterback on the field during the Super Bowl in front of 80,000 people and half 1 billion TV viewers, he would still get a trial (probably a short one) before going to the electric chair. That's how you do it. Otherwise, there is no point having a process on the books.

 

they cheated. simple. the rest is just details.

 

No they didnt according to DMG they used a non homologated part that gave no performance advantage.

 

ummm...that's cheating.

 

DMG said that?

 

Shhh!!! you're letting facts get in the way again Darrin:tut:

 

I do agree that the dismissal of the appeal was way too offhand, considering what is at stake. I think even in NASCAR they at least summon tech offenders to HQ... before summarily executing them.

 

Show me where they said there was a clear performance enhancing done to the crank.

 

Depends on your definition of cheating.

 

show me where they said it wasn't performance enhancing...

the point your missing is IT DOESN'T MATTER. non-homogolated=illegal=cheating.

stop trying to split hairs.

 

I don't remember them stating one way or another.

If the materials were different, though........

 

nope...it actually depends on RE's definition of cheating and according to him, it was "cheating"...quote/unquote.

 

But they did follow the process, to a T. The process, according to the rulebook, is:

1. Appeal is filed.
2. Appeal is reviewed.
3. Appeals deemed frivolous by the review are dismissed.
4. Appeals deemed not frivolous cause an appeal board to be convened.

That's the process, and it stopped at step 3. You can't fault the AMA for following their own rules, even if you don't like the decision, and you can't accuse them of not following the process set forth in the rulebook when it was followed exactly.

 

same thing, Frank...pesky facts:tut::tut::tut:

 

Knowingly doing something that's not authorized.

Would that cover what they did?

 

Well if they are gonna follow the rules as written it is a level 2 penalty which means fine. I can show you where they said that it didnt matter about whether it was a performance advantage they said what mattered was that it was a non homologated part.