Pro Rule Change - What's the Real Reason?

[Al Peffley]

OK - So how does removing the World Championships' additional points provision solve the problem about a Hall of Champions induction being overly influenced by special event performances (like breaking a Kilo Record)? I don't get it. Can someone explain to me the logic behind this Rule 26 3.A change about modifying the Additional Points provisions?

Why doesn't APBA induct folks that obviously excel in a racing class category each year, if they meet some reasonably-do***ented criteria (J-Pro & OSY-400 entry level, Pro Hydro, Pro Runabout, & Antique - did I leave a major "category" out?) -- and especially if they become a "World" Champion? If you can run fast and "place" with the international "big dogs" (i.e. - UIM race teams), why not recognize this "World-level" accomplishment above US Pro Divisional points (where there may not be enough boats in some classes to have class eliminations)?

Al Peffley
R-25

[David Weaver]

Just a guess...

Not every APBA PRO Class has a UIM recognized world championship equivalent class. For instance, 250ccH has an equivalent in O-250. So, I am going to guess that some PRO participants competing in classes without a UIM equivalent consider themselves at a disadvantage. Of course, PRO drivers living in areas of the country without Kilo's courses in their areas consider themselves at a disadvantage.

Racing in a single class that is unbelievably competitive at every USTS event and major championship, I have no allusions of getting into the HOC. So, the above is just my guess and not an opinion.

[Al Peffley]

Still don't understand why this change is so important

Thanks, David. I wish the Pro Commission thought enough about other criteria areas to change the rules so the "basic" requirements make more sense to us pro racers at large. As for the HOC, I don't see myself as being a likely candidate in the future either. It just seems silly to vote on these obscure changes after all of the good dialogue over the HOC criteria and change suggestions that we talked about on this website last year (I think Chris started the thread last year). It's like the folks who dream up these things do not pay much attention to our community dialogues. I don't remember anything about this topic last year. I guess voting "no" solves my quandry...

Al

[bill van steenwyk]

If I was a betting man

I have a tendency to think that this might have something to do with the Antique group within the PRO Category. In fact if I was a betting man I would put some money on it. I'm not, but I have seen these same type of rule change proposals come year after year, especially with the PRO Chairman being an Antique owner and always very concerned to see that group is always represented in the HOC induction process. As is the case in any type politics, you represent the folks that get you there, and there is more than enough self interest there.

If you are really interested in an answer to your question, either poll your commissioners from your part of the country to see who introduced it and the reasons given for putting it on ballot. Also as in most rule change proposals, who does it benefit the most.

I also would suggest you might look at the PRO Commission minutes if they have ever been posted on the PRO website. Might be interesting reading if they have, and shed some light on the commission reasoning. Sometimes the published reasons are not always the real ones though, and sometimes the minutes do not always state who introduced what, or that has been the case in the past.

As to your comments about the "boat racing community" and their comments about proposed rule changes: Some time ago the statement was made, I believe by a commissioner at the time, that the PRO drivers as a group were wasting their time on the internet, as most of the commissioners either didn't use a computer in their daily activities, or didn't care. I will say this comment was made about two years ago, and there are some new younger members on the commission now that are active in various forums. These comments came to light during the "radio rule" controversy.

[Kristi Ellison]

This Commissioner uses the internet and is 100% against this rule change and fought against this at the meeting.....the minutes are posted on the PRO website and if you review them you can see the Commission was split. A World Championship is a huge honor and very difficult to attain and should be recognized. Those opposed think it should not be recognized because it is awarded by UIM. I disagree because APBA is the only sanctioning body recognized by UIM in the US and is very intertwinded with APBA with several board members serving within UIM.
Any APBA class with the exception of the UIM equivalents ( O125,O175,O250 etc,,) can apply for a World Championship. So there can never be a 125ccH, 250ccH etc. World Championship but the classes are so similiar and a legal O125 is a legal 125ccH so myself and many PRO members feel for HOC the "O" classes should be considered the same as there APBA equivalents. Those who want the rule changed, disagree and so they want to get rid of Worlds counting towards the HOC.
A World Championship should be recognized for what it is and should absolutely count towards the HOC. You are respresenting the US and APBA in one of the hardest most competitive international events and to win is the ultimate! The Worlds have counted toward the HOC since inception and they count in other catagories so maybe Bill Van has a point?
VOTE NO!!

[Guest]

Vote NO

I have voted NO and have sent in the ballot.

Kurps

[Lights]

A World Championship should be recognized for what it is and sould absolutely count towards the HOC. You are respresenting the US and APBA in one of the hardest most competitive international events and to win is the ultimate!

I agree with Kristi 100%. VOTE NO!

I voted no.

[Kristi Ellison]

The four Ellison ballots went out this AM......

[Ralph Donald]

Well said Kristi, However any APBA class that does not have a UIM equivalent can have a WC, as I have done with 500R and 1100H. All it takes is a request from an organizer, and of course paying the fees. The USTS could, if it wanted, have any of their races a WC for the non UIM classes. This is why I don't understand the logic taking away a WC from the HOC.

[bill van steenwyk]

it becomes clearer

Ralph mentioned "LOGIC. I mentioned "SELF INTEREST" That word and phrase very seldom fit together. I have watched this happen for a lot of years now, basically since the Antique group came back to the PRO Category.

And before I am accused of starting a fight amongst family, let me say I have no quarrel with the Antique group. They are by and large a good group, BUT when politics is played to give any one group a percieved advantage you need to look at the leadership and where the self interest lies. Human nature is very strong and hard to fight, and if you LET someone of a certain persuason lead you without question, then you don't have much excuse for where you end up. A very good example is when they came back to PRO, ALL the records were set back to -0-, and so everytime they had a Kilo or record race the first few years, it was automatically a record, and hence a lot of points for the HOC. This had to be approved by the Commission, and who were it's leaders and controlling votes at the time? Guess. If this is news to anybody and it smacks of cronyism and offends anyone, then vote next time. If you think they don't, you are very mistaken.

If you want to try to place blame, look in the mirror first. It has just been the last year or so that folks have gotten off their duff and voted in some new, younger PRO commission participants. In my humble opinoon it needs to go further.

[Kristi Ellison]

Ralph et al

Let me see if I can explain better:

Those who want this changed feel that the "O" classes are not the same or equivalent to the APBA classes therefore an O125, O175,O250,O350 World Championship should not count toward HOC points asthe APBA classes 125H, 175H etc. World Championship. An O125 is leagl to run in 125H however a 125H may not always be legal in O125.
My personal opinion and that of those PRO drivers I have discussed this with, they are fine with the fact that for the purpose of HOC the "O" classes are considered equivalent to their APBA counterparts and should count towards the HOC. The classes are so similiar UIM will not grant a World Championship for the APBA equivalent classes. UIM will grant a Worlds in all other classes.
Hope that helps.

[raceright]

Sam Same

Billy Van

You always say you don't want to start a fight but you do,
you don't want a pissing contest but you do. Grow up.

You tried to tell me what underhanded things the Pro Commission did and so I told you I would be careful and attempt to learn about the old guard by befriending some well I learned alot and if it wasn't for the old guard there might not be a Pro Category but gobbled up by other categories. I came into the Commission believing Mr. Greaves might need replacing WELL guess what That couldn't be further from the truth he is a true professional and handles everything the fairest way possible.

We all need to stick together (all engines that run on alcohol)is what I have learned and with proper planning and reasoning I have accomplished several thing's that I believe will help. You are more than welcome to join the ranks as I have but be positive and constructive or stay home and keep your nasty rhetoric to yourself.

Pat Wright

[bill van steenwyk]

another "kill the messenger" message

Hi Pat, Nice to see you are making it thru the winter OK.

Just so anyone who is interested in this conversation and your input into it, can participate,let me bring them up to date. You contacted me, I believe, when you were elected to the commission and wanted more complete information about some differences of opinion that were taking place between myself and certain members of the PRO commission on subjects such as, but not limited to, the "radio rule" and the anointing (oh my, forgive my slip of the tongue) I mean appointing of the PRO Nationals referee, and the PRO Commission's Chairman part in those decisions. Before I get into the details, I have the do***entation, e-mail copies, ets., to back up everything that is described here, and if I remember correctly you do also, as you asked for, and I sent copies of it to you. If you didn't read it, or did and don't care about the implications of that type of behaviour by someone who is supposed to lead the PRO Category, that says more about you than it does me. Again, I did not do any of these things, only provided proof to you of what you were getting yourself into and what type of behaviour had taken place in the past.

Re material transmitted about Referee selection for PRO Championships.

I believe I furnished you copies of e-mails that showed that the Commission Chairman lied by trying to impune the reputation of the WC 125 referee who officiated when the race held in Lakeland several years ago, so he might accomplish forcing HIS choice on USTS for the Nationals referee at DePue the following year. The promoter of the WC was the source given for disparaging comments about his performance, but when both he and the UIM observer were contacted after the accusation was made in an attempt to disqualify him, the only person found wanting was the Chairman. That is stooping pretty low and reflects very badly on the PRO Category, if the Commission Chairman will go to those lengths for whatever purpose when he did, when he did not have that power at that time. The only rule in the book covering that situation only states that the Referee for National Championships must be selected from an approved list, which this person was on. This was purely an ego trip by the Chairman to work his will on USTS and the sponsoring civic group putting on the race. He refused to approve the conducting clubs choice, after many problems with his selection in previous years because the person he personally selected was an activist referee that disregarded the rule book portions that cover the duties of a referee, and interjected himself into the actual conduct of the race when that is prohibited by the referee duties portion of the rule book. In some peoples opinion the Chairmans choice for referee changed the results of a National Championship by a ruling he made that he had no right or duty to.
I made a point of writing two letters to the commission members, Chairman included, pointing out numerous pertinent portions of the PRO and General rules that had not been followed in the conduct of the race. I was basically told to mind my own business, that the Chairman and the commission were a lot more capable than I about that sort of situation. It was interesting that some time later the Commission did put out a letter basically saying what I had brought up was correct and that the rule book needed to be and would be adhered to in the conduct of a National Championship, referee duties included. I guess that was one of those deals, if it is not their idea, it is not worth considering until the furor dies down. I did have a certain amount of satisfaction though, as that year was pretty much the end of the activist referee involving himself in the actual running of the race.
This situation went right up to the 30 day period before the race when the time limit expires for the sanction to be submitted, and could have jeprodized the running of the race.

The other situation I will call to your attention, and I am not sure I furnished you with this do***entation or not, but it had to do with the Chairmans exteme dissatisfaction when the appeal of the radio rule went against him and the commission under his leadership was found to have overstepped their bounds by making the rule to start with under the guise of a safety rule, and without a vote of the membership. When the ruling went against him, he was EXTREMELY offended that someone would question and overturn the commissions actions. I am in possession of the following e-mail sent from him on 8-17-2004 to all commissioners at the time and I am copying verbatim his own words. I am not reproducing all of the do***ent as the first part is merely an explanation of some of the details of what he is proposing, but the pertinent part follows:

"Since the PRO Commission has not always seen eye to eye with the National Safety Committee, I suspect we'd prefer that any By-law change not include the requiremeent for approval by the National Safety Committee.

I have also seen no evidence of a push to resolve anything before the next Annual Meeting. However, it seems important to move this quickly along to a conclusion. With Commission elections right around the corner, I think (and I know many of you are thinking similarly) potential Commissioners need to know if they have any authority before they decide to got to the trouble of running, getting elected, and then spending their own money to attend the next Annual Meeting.

A strategy has been designed that should provide such a push. Please see the attached "KPH Ballot". This is just a proposal at the moment. With the approval of a majority of the Commission, I would propose that we send this letter to Gloria. (meaning Gloria Urban at APBA Headquarters) The concept is to demonstrate to the officers and board just how absurb the Hearing Committee's interpretation is when carried to it's logical conclusion. THE IDEA (emphasis mine) IS TO SEND AN EMERGENCY MEMBERSHIP BALLOT A SAFETY RULE THAT THE JONES BOARD (WITH STEVE HEARN ACTING AS LEGAL COUNCIL AT THE TIME) INSISTED THE COMMISSION MAKE, ON ITS OWN, WITH NO MEMBERSHIP BALLOT, BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD RETURN THE KPH CLASS TO THE PRO CATEGORY.

Please review the attachement. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU APPROVE OR DISSAPROVE OF THIS STRATEGY.(Chairman' emphasis) If it doesn't provide the push neccessary, there are more safety rules we could send to emergency ballot (reinforced cockpit, cut resistant suits, paddles, mandatory air, etc.) until we get the attention and proper resolution to this issue of Commissions authority." End of quote.

What follows next is the draft letter to APBA National Headquarters that would require the vote on KPH this time, to be followed with the others listed above.

Pat, I have the utmost respect for folks that spend their own money and time in a thankless job such as PRO Commissioner. What I object to is the job being turned into an ego trip, and a test of wills because of the obvious arrogance of a few people. What you have above is an indication of the length that someone will go to in attempting to have their own way just to say " thats the way I want it, so that is the way it is going to be done"
If that is the kind of person that you consider a "true professional", admire and look up to, then all I can say is everyone to their own opinion. But when folks take the type of actions shown above, my opinion of that type of person is vastly different from yours.

My rhetoric is only nasty because of the actions of the folks I am writing about. If you find it unpleasant, then PLEASE do something to correct it. You are in the right place to try.

[raceright]

Sugar Not Salt

Bill
Weather any of your comments are just or not consider this
While I was in my mid thirties (young fool) I was the head coach of my Son Davids football team in Fla. He was the Quaterback (right away jealous Parents) after numorus complaints by parents I put another kid in the middle of a game at QB we then started to loose the game.. During half time this kid and MANY OTHERS said to me Coach put David back in he is much better and we want to win the game and I did and we did, David went to college on a Football Scolarship and would probably be playng Pro right now except he hurt his knee and ended his football playing,, Why this EXAMPLE I learned that people in charge always get told there wrong but when in charge
be careful what you listen to because most complainers
are just jealous and if they don't like the coach then put up and coach...

Pat

[raceright]

oh

Bill
On another note if you are serious about any of your Ideas
talking about them will be just that talk,,You need to take action in a positive way noone I repeat noone ever changed any thing with negative rhetoric, not my belief just fact..
Pat