OzVMX Forum
Clubroom => Competition => Topic started by: Nathan S on August 11, 2009, 01:51:05 pm
-
This thread is not intended to be a mud-slinging match! I have deliberately left out names, riding numbers etc for this reason.
I also invite the webmaster to moderate this thread as tightly as he wishes for the same reason.
I've started this thread for two reasons. The first reason is because I can see the rumours, gossip, half-truths and mis-truths gaining momentum, and if that's allowed to continue, then I fear that they'll develop a life of their own - I can see it becoming one of those 'thorn in the side' issues for the sport for years to come, so I'm attempting to drive a stake through its heart now, before it gets any bigger.
The second reason is simply that I'd hate to have the issue overshadow the efforts of many, many people involved in running a really brilliant event.
I was not personally involved in the protest at all, beyond being delayed in loading my own bike onto the trailer...
At the end of each bike's last race on Sunday afternoon, all bikes were impounded to allow a period of time for protests to be lodgeed, as per the event regs. The bikes from most classes were released after about 20 minutes.
While the pre-78 125s were impounded, it was announced that there had been a protest against three of the bikes, and no bikes were allowed to leave.
After some time had passed, it became apparent that the three bikes had been excluded from the results.
Bike A and Bike B were both a 1978 models, fitted with 1977 model fuel tanks. The 1978 versions are NOT allowed in pre-78 under the carry-over provisions, as they differ in a number of significant areas, including suspension travel, swing-arm construction, and having a floating rear brake.
Bike C was a legitimate 1977 model, however it was fitted with a complete front end (triple clamps, forks, front brake and front wheel) from a 1978 model. This front end features longer forks with 40mm of extra travel, and rubber mounted handlebars (among other differences, no doubt). Although clearly not era-correct, the rubber mounted handlebars were never the issue on this bike, they were simply another indicator of the incorrect forks.
This resulted in the person who lodged the protest being moved up the results, and onto the podium. At least one of the protested riders/owners spent some time inspecting the protester's bike.
No further protests were lodged.
The protest was lodged, heard and determined as per the MA procedure.
If any of the three riders genuinely felt that they were unfairly treated, then they are/were* able to take advantaged of MA's appeals procedure.
In other words: The right bikes were excluded for the right reasons, using the right procedures.
*I don't know what the time limit is to lodge an appeal - that may still be an option, or the time limit may have expired.
From a purely personal point of view:
As a tail-end punter in the class, it made no difference to me whether I was beaten by those bikes or not - I think the exclusions moved me up to 10th outright, or something similarly dismal.
I do understand the frustration and the dissappointment of those that were excluded, particularly if they honestly thought that their bikes were legal. However, I'd suggest that the frustration and disappointment should be directed at yourself, for failing to research these things properly - as the rules say, the rider is responsible for the machine that they present, and for proving its eligibility if required.
If the bikes have previously been raced in that configuration, then perhaps the riders should look at the 'glass half full' aspect and count themselves lucky that they have not been excluded at one of the earlier events where they presented a non-compliant machine.
The reality is that these are significant, performance enhancing components and they do not belong in the era - this is the National Championship so these things matter more that they ever will.
If you're just out for a blat around a paddock, then its just a matter of entering the bike in Evo (or fitting the correct components).
At least one of the excluded riders was heard to question why they were not pulled up until the end of the weekend. This raises two points:
1. Scrutineering is primarily about safety. No scrutineer can be expected to understand all of the finer details every single MX bike made before 1985, no matter how knowledgable they might be.
2. The event regs explained that the impounding process, at the end of the competition, was specifically to allow protests to be lodged.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether the bikes were not right by accident, or not right by a deliberate act of rule bending - they were not compliant and the bikes' owners (and their mates) need to cop it on the chin and learn from the experience.
I believe that the protester is copping some flak, which I think is very unfair - he has every right to dispute significant eligiblity issues, and he was right.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to say that I think it was a GOOD thing that someone has had the balls to ensure that the rules are upheld, rather than continue to allow the slide in standards, without being a pedant.
-
hi everyone,
in response to nathan s. i agree with every word and i WAS ON ONE OF THE BIKES PROTESTED AGAINST. ( i think he might be right that my bike is a c with a b tank on it) I really want to thank all the people involved in running the nationals. they were unpaid club people working for days and weeks so everyone else got to ride in a most memorable event. thank you, thank you to those people. the whole event ran so smooth. i hope the injured rider is recovering well. i had a ball and best of all i got gally and gunter to sign my helmet.
-
That all sounds perfectly fair and reasonable.
Nothing at all for anybody to arc up about.
-
Sorry i will keep my mouth shut dont wish detract from a great event.DREW
-
A well thought out and articulate post Nathan. I share Nathans opinion on this subject and agree with the end result. I have no animosity against those disqualified but going by the rumblings I heard, at least one of the disqualified owners had been fully aware of his bikes illegality for quite a while but still tried to get away with it.
believe that the protester is copping some flak, which I think is very unfair - he has every right to dispute significant eligiblity issues, and he was right.
This bloke thought long and hard before he did what he did but he'd had enough of seeing blatant cheats getting away with it meeting after meeting. For any class to succeed, the cutoffs have to be enforced. Another point to be made is that it's a big ask to expect the eligibility scrutineer to be an expert on everything. I observed a number of bikes getting through scrutineering that featured obviously ilegal components but didn't notice others. In other words the scrutineers aren't infallible. Protests and reporting ilegalities are the domain of the others in the class.
-
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif) ;D
-
Sorry i will keep my mouth shut dont wish detract from a great event.DREW
why aren't you at work sunny jim, recovery from the long drive?
-
I never understood this carry over provision that folks keep quoting.
What bikes would be an example of this?and is it in the GCR's?
Also I think the pre 78 125 class was won by NickSmith on a totally legal and outdated/out classed 76 or 77 CR125 ?
-
This is a great post on a very interesting subject. I've been waiting for something like this to happen at a National event here in the U.S. A few years back an RM125C won a National Championship in AHRMA's Historic Class (pre-78). The rider was never warned going through Tech and a competitor never protested the bike. Port, pipe, ignition, swingarm and full floating rear brake mods are allowed in the Historic class (as well as Simons forks), because they are period correct mods, so I'm not sure the RMC had any real advantages, but the rules are the rules and if he had been protested he would have lost. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse.
I am a rules committee member and have also been protested and lost in other forms of racing. It's not easy to come back to the pits the next week and have people point at you and whisper. I think the best that can come from a situation like this is for everyone to learn and move onward and upward. The protestor and the protested should not be ridiculed or ostracized. Race your bikes in the proper class or build a bike that fits the class you wish to race in. Getting back out on the track and racing is the best way to heal these types of wounds. I hope all the parties involved have many more years of enjoyable Vintage racing!
-
Dead right TR. Firstly, hats off to Kane, who has been protested against but has copped it on the chin, and accepted the consequences without a hysterical over-reaction. Good on you mate, and best wishes for the future. It's just a pity that others pushed the rules to the limit and beyond, in view of the fact that this forum had an open line to eligibility for weeks before the meeting. Really, it does the organising club something of a disservice to allow these things to crop up and complicate what's already a very busy weekend for them, but I suppose you can do little more than advise them at scrutinering that they may be eligible for protests. Not sure what the answer is, but these things are usually best-advised and policed by other competitors in your category.... ::)
-
Not being there, not racing "classic" myself and at the risk of putting my foot in my mouth again. (I think I still have a pair of Dunlop K26ers in there from 81) There just a couple of points I'd like to cover and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I stray.
First of all I reitterated the sediments of everyone in agreeing with Nathan. If, and I say if, someone "knowingly", or though ignorance, cheats then they dont have the right to complain when caught and I congradulate Kane for taking it on the chin.
But secondly, as someone who regards themselves at being able to read and interpret most things to do with our sport I do get confused about some of our rules. Given I ride Viper and our rules are a little ambiguous at best is there a way of simplifying them? I've heard of protest, maybe chinese whispers, that guys have protested over nylock nuts being used?
If for instance you put a later model set of forks in but there is no advantage what's the harm? Off the top of my head later model DT175 forks will fit my YZ125E but they are virtually the same.
It is sometimes impossible to get the right or period part. Expansion chambers, not allowed to use a "Fatty" pipe cause they were not of the era. It is still just an expansion chamber and I personally wouldn't run one because they were design for a modern motor's powerband.
You are allowed to run fox shox right? Well they are far superior to my monoshock even with valve work.
And that's another thing, what about all the mods you cant see?
Cant we just look at the mods and deem if they are a unfair advantage?
If we are too tight on rules you may exclude many riders and their bike on technicalities which could hasten the end of our sport.
With so many "Do gooders" trying to shut us down should we be aiding from within.
Basically I'm all about letting people ride, sort out the other stuff over a beer.
I'm not talking about blatant cheating, USD fork disk brakes on a 73 model.
Or case in point above where the bikes were manafactured after a given date but again I say, simplify and look at "mods" with a little common sense.
I await the tirade for my ignorance.
Viper666
-
Very precise and well written post Nathan, its factual, to the point and doesn't name anyone and above all very interesting reading.
i also commend Kane for being a true gent in coping it sweet and must feel a little sorry for you as well, but glad you enjoyed the experience of participation just the same.
-
I never understood this carry over provision that folks keep quoting.
What bikes would be an example of this?and is it in the GCR's?
Also I think the pre 78 125 class was won by NickSmith on a totally legal and outdated/out classed 76 or 77 CR125 ?
A couple of examples of carry-over bikes are the 1975 CR125, and the 1975 DT125/175.
The DTs are mechanically identical to the earlier, legal bikes, so there's absolutely reason to exclude them from pre-75.
The CR is a little more complex and interesting. The '75 model has a different barrel to the' 74, but the '75 model's barrel was available in 1974, which means that you could have built a '75 model in '74. This makes the entire '75 model an acceptable carry-over model.
The 78 YZ125E is not an acceptable carry-over model for pre-78 racing, despite its similarities with the '77 model YZ125D. The E has an aluminium swingarm, different frame (even though they look the same at first glance), and a different barrel - and a few other trivial detail differences. As the frame, swing arm and barrel are significant parts of the motorbike, this excludes a stock 125E from being an acceptable pre-78 carry-over model.
The above refers to whole bikes. Individual parts can also be carry-over.
So if you have a 1974 Montesa VR250, and you fitted the identical forks from a 1975 model, then the bike is still pre-75 legal.
Similarly, if you were to take a YZ125E, and replace the frame, swing arm and barrel with D items, then you would have a legitimate pre-78 bike, as the E's wheels, forks, cases (etc etc) are the same as the D items.
The basic idea is that if a part that was made later than the cut-off date is identical/operationally identical to the part made before the cut-off date, then there's no point in prohibiting it.
Yes it is in the manual - within the Classic MX regs.
There are other ways to legally fit non-standard parts:
1. Accurate replicas of parts that were available in the day.
2. Items that are free in the regs - things like rear shocks, exhaust pipes, handle bars, grips etc. Of course, stuff like rear shocks have their own restrictions (travel, remotr cannisters in some eras) which must also be followed. But provided the shock meets those restrictions, then it can be made the day of the race meeting.
And yes, the pre-78 class was won by a bloke on what's supposed to be the worst bike in the field, and its apparently very close to stock!
-
Excellent work Nathan.
Good on you Kane, great attitude.
I have been involved for 3 odd years in vmx. What i didn't know i asked and if i had an incorrect part (once through not knowing) i was told it was incorrect and i changed it.
Its not rocket science by any means. If you do the right thing there are no problems.
It took balls to be the bad guy and full credit to him. He was disappointed that he made it into the top results due to the protest as that was not his motivation.
Its time to get your shit in order as vmx has grown from a couple of guys getting together for a hack, this is an era based sport and cheaters will be sorted.
And yes, the pre-78 class was won by a bloke on what's supposed to be the worst bike in the field, and its apparently very close to stock!
Also it was Nicks bike but it was his brother who rode it to a win
Nick did his shoulder early and didn't ride.
-
Great post .
I have one problem though -quote "This front end features longer forks with 40mm of extra travel"
I dont remember C model forks having 40 mm more travel than B models and if they did the a B model bike with C model forks wouldn't turn.
Rubber mounted handle bars weren't on the 125's but then alot of Guys with old wrists prefer them.I don't think that they are a laptime advantage.I remove my standard rubber mounted bars and replace them with solid mounts because I prefer the more positive feel. Just a thought
-
So protests aside are the results available anywhere on the net??? Darcy :)
-
Orion Timing
-
i dont know but i think i got 5th overall before the protest. But i know that if i really thought i was a chance at getting a place i would have been all over my bike making sure it was legal before the titles. i am making it legal to race the Qld titles in a few weeks.
-
i dont know but i think i got 5th overall before the protest. But i know that if i really thought i was a chance at getting a place i would have been all over my bike making sure it was legal before the titles. i am making it legal to race the Qld titles in a few weeks.
Just ride Evolution , its still competitive and you got no legal issues.
-
I agree with motomaniac.
B model forks have the same travel as C's. I have half a dozen B and C forks and they all have the same amount of travel. One of the protests that was made was against the front forks and triple clamps on one of the riders bikes. The forks that were on the riders bike had alloy fork caps that were an after market accessory, which basically only allows the gas valves easier to get to. These caps don't increase the forks travel by 40mm or there performance. Which the bloke making the protest tried to make out. And as for the rubber handle bar mounts which were the only thing different on the bike. Did anyone take notice of the handle bar rises that the protester had on his bike... I am sure these weren't available back in the 75-77 period. This leaves me to believe the protest was a waste of time and just A way for the protester to make his way up the ladder. Seeing as the alloy fork caps wouldn't make the slightest difference to the bike. What make me angry is that the protest was made at the last minute on the third day of the event. There's always got to be one to goody tool to ruin such a great weekend.
-
Actually how do you tell the difference between B and C model forks? they look exactly the same.Im refering to 125's because 125 B's were the first to get the new style fork that later came on all C , c1 c 2 models
How many bikes had protaper type bars? They weren't available until the 90's.
-
Vintage, Have you read the rule book 18.7.6 thru to 18.7.8.1
-
Vintage, Have you read the rule book 18.7.6 thru to 18.7.8.1
YES
-
Kane, if your bike was disqualified for one of the piss poor reasons listed, IMO you have a right to be pissed off! What a load of utter B/S! Brake stay rods, top triple clamps with rubber mounts, C forks and air caps! You gotta be joking! Simple mods using non performance enhancing, readily available parts. Perhaps the guy who made the protest should invest in some riding lessons, practise more or just get a life! It's all good to say he didn't want to get in the points by way of his protest, but if that were the case, why protest? You can buy trophies you know. Next it'll be the incorrect paint color on your frame.
K
-
Vintageracer, are you suggesting that we take away the right of protest. Yes or no answer will be fine.
-
i think the point is, whats the point of calling a class, in this case 'pre 78' if later parts not identical to pre 78 parts are allowed or are turned a blind eye to? it kind of defeats the purpose of having era specific classes. As Nathan has said, if a part or a model a couple years later is visually identical and mechanically the same (so basically same part number) then yes thats ok, but if the part is visually or mechanically different then its not ok regardless if its performance enhancing or not.
-
i think the point is, whats the point of calling a class, in this case 'pre 78' if later parts not identical to pre 78 parts are allowed or are turned a blind eye to? it kind of defeats the purpose of having era specific classes. As Nathan has said, if a part or a model a couple years later is visually identical and mechanically the same (so basically same part number) then yes thats ok, but if the part is visually or mechanically different then its not ok regardless if its performance enhanching or not.
Yes okay I all for keeping it correct but then Belly's wave disc and protaper bars are blatantly out and Im not sure about Nathans examples .YZ125 forks are different internally, cylinders are ported different.75 CR125 cylinders aren't the same exactly as the 74 GP kits that were offered.
I think we are splitting hairs here .I would prefer not to have a carry over model rule just to keep it simple.
I wasn't at the event but it seemed strange to me that someone could pic a 78 model fork.A 78 model Maico fork for eg wouldnt be so easily noticed but they have 20mm more travel than 77 models .What do you do?
-
Kane, if your bike was disqualified for one of the piss poor reasons listed, IMO you have a right to be pissed off! What a load of utter B/S! Brake stay rods, top triple clamps with rubber mounts, C forks and air caps! You gotta be joking! Simple mods using non performance enhancing, readily available parts. Perhaps the guy who made the protest should invest in some riding lessons, practise more or just get a life! It's all good to say he didn't want to get in the points by way of his protest, but if that were the case, why protest? You can buy trophies you know. Next it'll be the incorrect paint color on your frame.
K
BIGK just go's to show that the Rule book NAZI's in the end win.
-
oh yes, wave rotors, modern tapered bars, modern shocks........ its really a can of worms waiting to be opened but i really dont know where things can go from here? perhaps there is room to have some changes made to the rules? or things left as they are now and we will always have questions, quiries, issues etc on whats legal and whats not. Im not that fussed as i know whats legal and of the correct period.
-
Kane, if your bike was disqualified for one of the piss poor reasons listed, IMO you have a right to be pissed off! What a load of utter B/S! Brake stay rods, top triple clamps with rubber mounts, C forks and air caps! You gotta be joking! Simple mods using non performance enhancing, readily available parts. Perhaps the guy who made the protest should invest in some riding lessons, practise more or just get a life! It's all good to say he didn't want to get in the points by way of his protest, but if that were the case, why protest? You can buy trophies you know. Next it'll be the incorrect paint color on your frame.
K
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/a-bomb.gif)
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif) ;D
(I think some facts should be established before this goes too far ;))
-
You've got it right Graeme. Slow down fella's and have a think about it.
-
You guys either dont read the thread properly or dont understand the rules as they stand or both. Two bikes were 125 C models with B tanks on them. Thats a no brainer. The other one has a complete front end off a 78 model bike (C again). We all know that handlebars,shocks within spec's, rims, pipes for example are all okay to be 2009 models.
Same as a cr125 '75 model IS A FOLLOW ON as per the rules. This is exactly what is needed to shake up all the bikes that dont comply. Time to get them right.
Also as said by Nathan in the beginning, that the time that you protest a bike is at the end of the third race when the bikes are impounded. That is why it was done then.
(I think some facts should be established before this goes too far
Exactly! Most of the opinions are from people that weren't even at the event.
-
oh yes, wave rotors, modern tapered bars, modern shocks........ its really a can of worms waiting to be opened but i really dont know where things can go from here? perhaps there is room to have some changes made to the rules? or things left as they are now and we will always have questions, quiries, issues etc on whats legal and whats not. Im not that fussed as i know whats legal and of the correct period.
Agreed, Im not fussed either as my bikes are simple no carry on models .
The pre 78 class is the first that I would look at "no more than 9" of travel regards less" that means Huskies,Monties, YZ's Maicos ,Bultacos all have to be modified form stock to be legal.HUH?
-
Yes okay I all for keeping it correct but then Belly's wave disc and protaper bars are blatantly out and Im not sure about Nathans examples .YZ125 forks are different internally, cylinders are ported different.75 CR125 cylinders aren't the same exactly as the 74 GP kits that were offered.
I think we are splitting hairs here .I would prefer not to have a carry over model rule just to keep it simple.
I wasn't at the event but it seemed strange to me that someone could pic a 78 model fork.A 78 model Maico fork for eg wouldnt be so easily noticed but they have 20mm more travel than 77 models .What do you do?
The thing to remember is that a lot of stuff can be modified legally - if the later part is the same as the legally modified earlier part, then its OK (like the 75 CR barrel).
Alternatively, the porting in a '78 YZ125 barrel is impossible to replicate in a '77 one, so there's no way the later barrel will be acceptable (plus they're visibly different from the outside, but even if you ignore that, the porting is enough).
Fork internals are an interesting one. The simple version is that 'everyone' accepts that internals are free provided they have the correct travel, are of the correct diameter and look correct (including details). If nothing else, it would be impossible to enforce a rule that demanded original internals - imagine trying to prove that someone had 1978 damper rods in their 1977 forks. Apart from the huge hassle of pulling forks apart every event, it would be impossible to prove exactly what every different model's internals actually looked like.
-
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw????????????????
Dont think so??????????????????????????
I checked
Get off your high horse
Maico stu
I have NFI whether Brad had limited his travel - same goes for the other bikes motomaniac mentioned.
But if it was a problem for anyone, then they would have been 100% within their rights to protest and (if the bikes had more than 9" of travel) they would have won and Brad (or whoever) would have had to suck it up.
Technically its the same, but morally I think there's a significant difference between changing a bike to improve it (while also making it illegal), and using the stock bits that fall otside of the rules.
-
An interesting thread and I think Nathan has done an admirable job in summing it all up. I must admit I don't follow some of the arguments. It would seem pretty simple to me.
1. It's a National event, run according to the MoMS. It is probable that the MoMS is not as detailed as it could be.
2. We ALL know what it means however.
3. We are ALL free to ride bikes that are not 100% legal, and we ALL know that if that's so, someone else can protest.
4. There is every likelihood that people will 'cheat', knowingly or otherwise.
5. The responsibility rests with the rider to ensure compliance.
The issue is whether or not a protest itself is within the 'spirit' of the event, and sadly there are no rules for that. This can give rise to situations such as those described as happening at earlier Nats (eg the Vern Grayson debacle).
Personally IF a bike is a 78 model masquerading as a 77, it's a no-brainer. IF it's more murky such as the suggestion that fork extender caps were fitted, then personally I couldn't care less and wouldn't protest. BUT, anyone who does is entirely within their rights. Of course I can imagine being a bit cheesed off if I were the one being protested against.
Mind you, I don't know the details of it all not having been there, and it's obvious some emotions are running high. So I think the thread is a good discussion about the issue, but let's just avoid TOO much individual criticism and questioning of motives. Keep it to the actual issue of elgibility etc. Ta.
-
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw?
If it's such a bother to you Stu, why didn't you protest Brad?
Restrictors or not, Brad still would have won the class.
-
You watch now, every slightly ilegal bike will be outed in the name of revenge. Get a grip Stu, Jimmy and others.
-
THE RULES ARE FOR EVERY ONE AND PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSE.S SHOULD NOT CAST THE FIRST STONE
-
I think the whole meeting's results should be null and ran again this Sunday at Barrabool.... :D
(You'll have to fight out the Pre 75 stuff the following week at Shepparton)
-
I THINK AFTER READING THESE THREADS THAT THERE WERE PROBABLY BIKES WITH ISSUES AND THAT IN THE SPIRIT OFF RACEING THEY WERE OVER LOOKED BUT UNTILL SOME ACTUALLY DID PROTEST ON A COUPLE OFF BIKES/ NOW SHITE HAS HIT THE FAN SO TO SPEAK
-
Will someone please establish the facts.
If the facts are as Nathan so precisely described than the Offenders haven't a leg to stand on and I applaud the Protester, if he advanced his cause or if he did it as a Matter of Principle.
And I applaud the Officials.
If the facts are otherwise I suggest the Offenders appeal using the MA rules.
If the MA appeals are exhausted and they want to turn the incident into a debate about the rules will they please establish the facts here with photos and other such clear, concise, reliable evidence.
If the Offenders want to moan, groan and generally whinge 'that I've raced like this for the last five years' or 'what about Bloggies' Yondasaki's suspension' then please go elsewhere and chill out, read up on the meaning of amateur, sport, sportsmanship, and a few others. Failing that seek psychological help.
-
A very interesting posting! It's great to see some passion in the sport and healthy debate on the topic of eligibility and sorting out rules. Prior to forums these kinds of discussions went on behind closed doors and rumours grew dangerously and many careers and friendships have been wrecked due to it. As an ex-spanner turner for winning Castrol 6 Hour / Bathurst production (ha,ha,ha) teams in the mid 80's I have seen my fair share of tweaks & mods etc that people seemed to need to have that psychological edge. In the end if you get caught take it on the chin
It's not cheating unless you get caught
by famous Australian Road Racing Champion & World 500GP bike technician! If the mods are minor and slip through it's already been proven last weekend and several 100 times in all motor sports that cheating doesn't always help the winner just good riding / driving.
-
While all of these RM125 protests were going on there was another more interesting protest going on in pre 65. It was more interesting because of the characters involved, Peter and Brook Lawson, eligibility scrutineer David Tanner and Firko. The protest was dismissed for lack of solid evidence but Dave is taking it to the next level. What's the background Dave or Firko?
-
While all of these RM125 protests were going on there was another more interesting protest going on in pre 65. It was more interesting because of the characters involved, Peter and Brook Lawson, eligibility scrutineer David Tanner and Firko. The protest was dismissed for lack of solid evidence but Dave is taking it to the next level. What's the background Dave or Firko?
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/a-bomb.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/a-bomb.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/a-bomb.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/a-bomb.gif)
(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif) ;D
(Nothing quite like a little 'red herring' thread hijack to muddy the waters ::) and stir the emotions ;).)
-
The rules are at best flawed and anyone could find something to pick on virtually any bike and have it upheld if they wanted to, which leaves the whole situation open more to an individuals personality. Forget the '78 bikes masquerading as '77, no qualms there, but rubber mounted bar clamps is total BS. I find it hard to believe that you can have modern shocks, tapered bars, modern style expansion chambers etc, but yet to race a bog stock off the showroom floor, '77 Husqvarna or Montesa, you have to REDUCE the suspension travel. Huh? As for Belly's brakes, IMO they are not legal as they are clearly a performance advantage. That .2 of a second he gained every corner of every lap certainly helped his lap times, even though he still could have won by a country mile on the standard items. Maybe this is why his bike didn't get a protest, but it seems he was cut some "slack" or maybe his status was intimidating to the other riders. Going on the pre '78 125 solo protest, any rider in Belly's class could have protested and have had it upheld. Wouldn't that have put the cat amongst the pidgeons? The guy who made the protest in pre '78 125's was beaten by better riders, pure & simple. He knows it too.
K
-
What's the background Dave or Firko?
I was called in to make an opinion on the protest as the meetings designated eligibility steward, Dave Tanner was the actual protestor. I gave the chief steward an opinion on Daves protest which I'd be better keeping to myself at this point as the matter is going on to the next level of judiciary.
-
The guy who made the protest in pre '78 125's was beaten by better riders, pure & simple. He knows it too.
Absolutely - on both counts.
But he was also beaten by illegal bikes, which IS fair enough to protest.
I don't believe that the motivation for the protest was about results - it was much more about getting people to stick to the rules that we all agree to race under. To continue to turn a blind eye is to invite further "testing" of the rules - at some point, someone is going to have to say "This is not on - I am going to protest that bike".
I wonder what the response would have been if the protest had been lodged by a back-marker like myself? I'll bet money that there'd be an even bigger outcry: "F**king wanker back in 11th place knocks out three of the top riders - he'd have been beaten anyhow, so I don't know WTF he thinks he's doing!"... Can't win...
The real way to avoid these dramas is to race legal (not illegal or even 'almost legal') bikes. And now everyone is on notice, so maybe we'll be granted a few drama-free years now?
I'm keen to hear about the pre-65 stuff too.
-
Nathan, you would have had every right to protest had you seen fit, but perhaps it would not have been "in the spirit" of the event. I am also led to believe the same possibly goes for the protester, who according to my information was about 10-15 seconds behind the leaders. I doubt the listed discrepancies with the bikes had anything to with the gap being so substantial. If it were 1-2 seconds and meant the difference between 1st & 2nd, then maybe, but IMO even that's a stretch. The '78 bikes made to look like '77 were wrong, if indeed that was the case, but to sook about air valve caps & rubber bar mounts is trivial. I don't know the guy but I think he made a poor decison. Still in 20 years time I suppose he will be the only one who will remember how he "won" his trophy.
K
-
This sounds like the system is working..
the onus is on riders to compete,protest and appeal within the framework set out by MA,the GCRs and/or supp regs.Sounds like it was well handled by those on the ground.Vigorous discussion by those involved and on the sidelines facilitated by Nathan's thread is healthy as maybe it might lead to changes if some are needed.Can the system be improved?maybe:who would undertake this?who knows.What would a nationals be without some controversy?
-
Huh? As for Belly's brakes, IMO they are not legal as they are clearly a performance advantage. That .2 of a second he gained every corner of every lap certainly helped his lap times, even though he still could have won by a country mile on the standard items. Maybe this is why his bike didn't get a protest, but it seems he was cut some "slack" or maybe his status was intimidating to the other riders. K
100% totally agree. I'm sure had someone (where ever they were running in the proceedings) protested this bike they would have been howled down by the VMX hiarchy but they'd be well within their rights and going by some of these other protest, it would have to be upheld.
-
Huh? As for Belly's brakes, IMO they are not legal as they are clearly a performance advantage. That .2 of a second he gained every corner of every lap certainly helped his lap times, even though he still could have won by a country mile on the standard items. Maybe this is why his bike didn't get a protest, but it seems he was cut some "slack" or maybe his status was intimidating to the other riders. K
100% totally agree. I'm sure had someone (where ever they were running in the proceedings) protested this bike they would have been howled down by the VMX hiarchy but they'd be well within their rights and going by some of these other protest, it would have to be upheld.
I agree; mutton dressed as lamb - wank, wank. Ditto black rims et al. The performance difference is a poofteenth, the appearance is abysmal - should be charged by the police and locked up for 'offences in a public place' or 'lewd act' or something similar.
Recommence normal transmission.(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)(http://i323.photobucket.com/albums/nn458/mx250syd/funnies/popcorn.gif)
-
Huh? As for Belly's brakes, IMO they are not legal as they are clearly a performance advantage. That .2 of a second he gained every corner of every lap certainly helped his lap times, even though he still could have won by a country mile on the standard items. Maybe this is why his bike didn't get a protest, but it seems he was cut some "slack" or maybe his status was intimidating to the other riders. K
100% totally agree. I'm sure had someone (where ever they were running in the proceedings) protested this bike they would have been howled down by the VMX hiarchy but they'd be well within their rights and going by some of these other protest, it would have to be upheld.
I agree; mutton dressed as lamb - wank, wank. Ditto black rims et al. The performance difference is a poofteenth, the appearance is abysmal - should be charged by the police and locked up for 'offences in a public place' or 'lewd act' or something similar.
And how many poofteenths of a difference do you think rubber mounted handlebars and extended forkcaps make???
Some consistancey please.
-
Nathan, you would have had every right to protest had you seen fit, but perhaps it would not have been "in the spirit" of the event. I am also led to believe the same possibly goes for the protester, who according to my information was about 10-15 seconds behind the leaders. I doubt the listed discrepancies with the bikes had anything to with the gap being so substantial. If it were 1-2 seconds and meant the difference between 1st & 2nd, then maybe, but IMO even that's a stretch. The '78 bikes made to look like '77 were wrong, if indeed that was the case, but to sook about air valve caps & rubber bar mounts is trivial. I don't know the guy but I think he made a poor decison. Still in 20 years time I suppose he will be the only one who will remember how he "won" his trophy.
K
I do see your point, but where is the line drawn? Everybody has their own point where they say "That's taking things too far" - obviously the protester thought that this time.
To try to vilify him as a trophy hunting pedant is wide of the mark.
-
well guys, first i think this discussion is healthy. From this incident i do not think there will be an increase in riders protesting minor stuff. My view is that if a bike lines up in pre 78 with 12" of suspension at both ends, we would all tell him to piss off! no need for formal protest! The smaller stuff doesnt worry me.
-
Not trying to vilify anyone. Maybe he was after a trophy, maybe not although from where I'm standing the former looks to be the case, otherwise why protest, just because he can? And for such trivial points which are then upheld and someone is disqualified who may have well been innocent of "cheating". My point is the rules are way off the mark and are easily manipulated according to whatever agenda might suit. Maybe, just maybe, someone got in that fellows ear and urged him to make a protest for the hell of it just to see what eventuated. Could quite easily happen. If I were on the judiciary that day and heard that protest, I would have dismissed it on the grounds of stupidity and saved everyone a lot of heartache. By the way did anyone actually proove the bike to have an extra 40mm of fork travel or just take it on say so because it had a different triple clamp? I'm led to beleive the bike's suspension limit was well within the legal limits. Fair point Kane, nice & simple.
K
-
You watch now, every slightly ilegal bike will be outed in the name of revenge. Get a grip Stu, Jimmy and others.
Hang on Firko.Get a grip on what ?On one hand you praise Dean Burts merticulous bike prep with PDvavles and Wilburs etc and Belly's 500 , and I'm not against all that .Its one of the attractions of the sport.But then another guy gets pummelled for having a much more stock looking bike with rubber handle bar mounts and extended fork caps???Both these items where common place in the era.If there was some extra travel it couldn't have been the said 40mm unless they were from a 79 model .
Whatever it would have been a joke of a bike if that was the case and would n't turn.
On one hand you have guys saying go by the rules and then you have guys(sometimes the same guys) calling people rule book Nazis.You have people carrying on about some guy fromWA causing trouble pointing the finger at bikes and everyone wants to spit on him ,then someone points the finger at some fork caps and rubber mounts but thats okay suddenly.
One guys says there is such a thing as carry over models and parts and another guys says Handle bars ,disc brakes suspension etc are okay to be 09 stuff .Yet the rule book says 18.7.14.4 All components will be of the period the machine was manufactured.???
Yes well we don't want every sligtly illegal bike to be outed do we? But IT SEEMS TO ME THATS THE WHOLE POINT .
some consistency please.
-
I think the whole meeting's results should be null and ran again this Sunday at Barrabool.... :D
(You'll have to fight out the Pre 75 stuff the following week at Shepparton)
though that was closing ? or are you sponsoring there big WALL with a monty sell off ?
-
log books anyone?
-
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw????????????????
Dont think so??????????????????????????
I checked
Get off your high horse
Maico stu
Please elaborate? I am assuming you mean my rear shocks are not legal?
-
This "Trophy Hunting" phrase being used in a derogatory way is a cheap shot. Do you think Bell, Ballard, Bert et al turned up at the Nats to run a fine fifth?. Pigs A.... Some riders put in the effort required to run at the pointy end, some just like to race for 10th or some just to have a ride,BUT why single out the guys who have a chance at a podium.Tall Poppy stuff if you ask me.
On another topic- I spoke to a guy who was running at or near the front in pre-75 and pre-78 125. His bikes looked pretty similar except for a couple of inches of travel.(74 & 77 CR). He said that the difference between them was huge due to those extra couple of inches of travel.
To ridicule a guy for protesting is BS . So, for example, would the protester be" OK" with his detractors if his subject had 11in's of travel instead of 10in's. Personally I think it has to be " an inch is as good as a mile" or where will it stop.It would very soon degenerate into a free for all where the rule book is out the window. If the protest is upheld whos fault is that? Not the guy who lodged it, that is for sure.
-
I haven't bothered posting in this topic as I knew exactly the direction it would head even though in the opening post it stated
This thread is not intended to be a mud-slinging match!
why don't we all just stick to the rules and live happilly ever after! This in house fighting is more than half the reason I've never had time for clubs and official events..he did she did he said she said they said I said, I couldn't care less or give a rats arse when all I'm out to do is have some enjoyment in the years I have left. This type of petty whining stuff is not my idea of fun and rifts will emerge from it guarantee'd!
If the rules were broken then they were broken so why argue! Bottomline, it is the owner/rider responsibilty to make sure everything conforms if he/she wishes to enter into a titles event where people do take things a little more seriously. It was a great event and the positives far out weighed the negatives so why dwell on the latter!
-
I think the whole meeting's results should be null and ran again this Sunday at Barrabool.... :D
(You'll have to fight out the Pre 75 stuff the following week at Shepparton)
though that was closing ? or are you sponsoring there big WALL with a monty sell off ?
Mate. They only need one million, not six....... 8)
-
For the sake of interest, I went back and read a test of the RM125C and the differences between it and the B with regard to the front end assembly.
The changes made in the front end assembly were supposedly as follows:
- Triple Clamps had 3mm reduced offset to improve steering
- Different Spring rates, to allow a lower air pressure to be run
- Rubber mounted bars, which were rearset compared to the B model
Fork travel and front wheel assembly were unchanged.
Clearly, the fact that the C model front end installed on a B model would result in steering geometry changes to the bike, makes this a potential performance modification, even if the rider involved may not even have known that was indeed a consequence of fitting an RM125C front end to a B. Why else would Suzuki have done it in 1978?
I think the bottom line though in this whole affair is that the Vintage Nationals are just that - for Vintage bikes in their respective eras. Also, being National titles, there should be an increased scrutiny of the correctness of the bikes in respect to their era class. In other words, what might be deemed OK at a club round may not necessarily be OK at the Nationals.
So on the face of it, the protest was totally "in the spirit" of the competition and of course the decision reflects that.
-
the bottom line is the forks /triples were off a 78 model and are different to the 77 items which is not allowed, end of story.The protestor was only doing the right thing, well done on him for having the balls to do it. If the rules are not enforced then whats the point? Its is unfair on all the people who do make the effort to follow the rules.
-
it does not matter to me what is discussed here. i wont allow a rift to occur with me cause racing vmx is SO MUCH BLOODY GOOD FUN!
-
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw?
If it's such a bother to you Stu, why didn't you protest Brad?
Restrictors or not, Brad still would have won the class.
Its The same as why didnt they all protest about the 81 490 maico riding in pre85 or evo last year at the nats ??? If it was such a bother, why didnt they protest then? Saying Brad would of won anyway with or without the restrictors... As Shaun would of won on on a 74.5 maico in evo or pre85. Its beside the whole point of being legal.
-
Hey Brad , Did you have restrictors in your aw????????????????
Dont think so??????????????????????????
I checked
Get off your high horse
Maico stu
Please elaborate? I am assuming you mean my rear shocks are not legal?
I would like a reply thanks Stu so this can be sorted .
-
Hey Brad,
Pre 78 Classes Eligibility:
Under the GCR's rule 18.7.7.1 a) Regardless of original specification no motorcycle may have more than 229mm (9") of suspension travel at the front & rear wheels.
You raced a 1977 Maico 400 (which I loved) but unfortunately under the Pre78 rules your suspension front & back is more than 9" in stock trim.
Technically your bike is illegal in stock trim and the only difference between you and the 125 is that he got "protested".
Are you going to hand your Trophy back? You won it fair and square because you were miles in front of the other guys however the rule still applies.
Maybe you should check in, your own backyard before being so critical of others. Nothing personal brad but these are my feelings.
Maico Stu
-
Okay. After you posted the fact that that i have a bike with illegal suspension, i took the time to measure the rear shocks for wheel travel.
I measured fully extended and dropped it off the stand and measured again. Measurements were 465mm extended and 290mm compressed on the bike. The difference is 175mm which converts to 6.889 inches.
I never measured the front but safe to say the bike looks correct between front and back so if the front was wrong it would look like a chopper.
Am i still missing something?
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/030.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/029.JPG)
-
Could you get them YSS shocks in 77 ??? Compared to standard maico 77 shocks, Are they adjustable from the outside or anything alike that would gain you an advantage? Just asking for relevance to era of machine, as era is so important?
-
Perhaps i have missed something in translation.
If i get what you have written, you have measured shock absorber stroke, which is different to suspension travel.
-
Could you get them YSS shocks in 77 ??? Compared to standard maico 77 shocks, Are they adjustable from the outside or anything alike that would gain you an advantage? Just asking for relevance to era of machine, as era is so important?
You seem to ask the same questions by making the point that shocks are new etc. You should know by now as it has been said so many times on this forum that new shocks are legal to use. Same as pro taper bars , same as brand new pipes and mufflers, same as rims, same as spokes...............
And yes new shocks are an advantage BUT LEGAL!!!
-
Perhaps i have missed something in translation.
If i get what you have written, you have measured shock absorber stroke, which is different to suspension travel.
Ithink he measured without compressing the bump stop . 175mm is about what 75 maicos had ,77 had 240mm.front an back
-
Could you get them YSS shocks in 77 ??? Compared to standard maico 77 shocks, Are they adjustable from the outside or anything alike that would gain you an advantage? Just asking for relevance to era of machine, as era is so important?
You seem to ask the same questions by making the point that shocks are new etc. You should know by now as it has been said so many times on this forum that new shocks are legal to use. Same as pro taper bars , same as brand new pipes and mufflers, same as rims, same as spokes...............
And yes new shocks are an advantage BUT LEGAL!!!
Thats all i asked, i am all for having better suspension, as if it eliminates a risk of injury... Fuggin great!!!
I do remember you talking about "era" in another humerous thread so much, so i had it in my head that your bikes would be all in standard looking trim.
-
Perhaps i have missed something in translation.
If i get what you have written, you have measured shock absorber stroke, which is different to suspension travel.
If you look at the pics you can see that i took one shock off and the spring off the other. I could have measured shock travel without pulling it apart.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/031.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/032.JPG)
-
Could you get them YSS shocks in 77 ??? Compared to standard maico 77 shocks, Are they adjustable from the outside or anything alike that would gain you an advantage? Just asking for relevance to era of machine, as era is so important?
You seem to ask the same questions by making the point that shocks are new etc. You should know by now as it has been said so many times on this forum that new shocks are legal to use. Same as pro taper bars , same as brand new pipes and mufflers, same as rims, same as spokes...............
And yes new shocks are an advantage BUT LEGAL!!!
Thats all i asked, i am all for having better suspension, as if it eliminates a risk of injury... Fuggin great!!!
I do remember you talking about "era" in another humerous thread so much, so i had it in my head that your bikes would be all in standard looking trim.
Mate, let it go.
Shocks can be changed, provided the travel is within the class limits. You know it, Brad knows it, I know it, the whole fikken world knows it - using it to score points against someone is just tedious.
-
thats my old maico and im preety sure it has stock 77 front fork because when i bought it it had the wrong forks in it and i got them changed to 77 S
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP1980.jpg)
Read any DB or MXA from 77 - maicos have more than 9" travel that year.
-
thats my old maico and im preety sure it has stock 77 front fork because when i bought it it had the wrong forks in it and i got them changed to 77 S
(http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo263/ozmaico/IMGP1980.jpg)
just checked the parts book yep there 77,s
Thats looks sweet paul, there is one in dads shed the same, cant wait to see it all together
-
Obviously lost in translation :-[
-
I was going to put a photo of a 450 Husky that was so wrong it shouted "protest me!!!" to all and sundry but in the interest of fairness I'm leaving it alone. The character assasinations here are making me ill. Calling people cheats and sprouting correctness to all is a glass house thing, it's all well to raise hypotheticals but the personal slags are wrong.. I've been a scrutineer for zonks and could have picked many more bikes than you blokes have picked out but what's the end result going to be? All you are doing is belittling the hardworking eligibility steward at the Nats, by assuming he missed all of these alleged ilegal bikes. He's a good man who according to you braniacs is expected to know everything about every bike.
If you blokes are so riteous about Brads bike why not protest him on the day rather than attack him on a forking forum? The bloke who protested the RMs is a good bloke with a good legal bike and is embarrassed to accept the trophy for his class that he now has by default. He knows quite well he was beaten fairly but he made his stance on principal. Good on you Kane for copping it on the chin. Not a lot of others would have been so cool about it. I've been protested myself and it's hard to take but in the end I accept the wrongs on those bikes, fixed them and moved on.
-
... The character assasinations here are making me ill. Calling people cheats and sprouting correctness to all is a glass house thing, it's all well to raise hypotheticals but the personal slags are wrong.. I've been a scrutineer for zonks and could have picked many more bikes than you blokes have picked out but what's the end result going to be? All you are doing is belittling the hardworking eligibility steward at the Nats, by assuming he missed all of these alleged ilegal bikes. He's a good man who according to you braniacs is expected to know everything about every bike.
If you blokes are so riteous about Brads bike why not protest him on the day rather than attack him on a forking forum? The bloke who protested the RMs is a good bloke with a good legal bike and is embarrassed to accept the trophy for his class that he now has by default. He knows quite well he was beaten fairly but he made his stance on principal. Good on you Kane for copping it on the chin. Not a lot of others would have been so cool about it. I've been protested myself and it's hard to take but in the end I accept the wrongs on those bikes, fixed them and moved on.
Best post of the thread.
-
I think that the hypocrisy of the whole thing is the point.
No one protested ,Brad , Belly, Burty etc etc but on eguy with rubber mounted handle bars and apparently a 3mm different offset in his fork triples was .Wheteher 3 mm less offset was better suited to that track or not is up to personal opinion.
Disguising (why a B model tank?) bikes is a different story than a set off swept back rubber handlebar mounts.
As AJ already correctly docoed the forks are the same save spring rates etc.
Trivial?
-
Nathan , Brad doesnt get that his bike has more than 9" of travel ( he certainly doesnt know to measure it )This is what your thread is all about . He had an illilegal bike so he shouldnt be saying about the 125 because they in the same boat.
Brad do you understand
1977 in stock trim is illegal
You have more than 9" of travel
You needed to put limiters in the front and back
maico stu
You are wearing thin with the accusations and personal attacks. Be constructive eh? My bike is not in standard trim as it has aftermarket shocks on the back. If there is an issue with my bike i want to fix it. I have a few photos of me measuring it but i am having issues loading them up. I have one of the bike fully compressed and its at least 80mm off the rear guard. That 80mm of suspension i dont have.Measuring centre of axle to point on the frame i made my measurements. I went down just now and double checked that i am doing it right and i am.I measured the forks by simply measuring under the bottom triple to the seal wiper. It measures 235mm which converts to 9.25 inches. That is the MOST it could be. I wasn't prepared to pull the forks apart as i haven't even washed it yet.
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/036.JPG)
-
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/037.JPG)
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2007-5/1259377/038.JPG)
As you can see in photos the way i have been measuring. I am confident i am doing it right. Same point on the axle and frame.
I will be checking the front properly when i clean it and start prepping for the next event.
-
For what it's worth I had a good look at Brad van Barellos AW Maico and I reckon it's 100% legal. It's very unfair to sprout accusations on a public forum without proof to back you up. Can we move on and talk about the 99%of the bikes that were Kosher?
-
who cares
-
I competed at the titles and had a super time, unfortunately the pre 78 125 protest soured the finish to the event for me.
All bikes were checked for safety and unfortunately not for eligability, all bikes should have been checked by the officials during scruiteneering process.
Seeing pre 75 husky,s with thor alloy swingarms get through scruteneering was a shock to me.
Suspect bikes could have been checked then rider given the option to risk being protested or move up a class, say pre 78 to evo
-
At what point does pre78 not mean pre78 ? ?
If someone protests a bike, it will either pass the test or fail. The 'Protester' isnt the judge, he is just voicing his concerns over the legitimacy of a bike. Then its up to the the appropiate people/judges/committee to up-hold or decline the protest. If the bike doesnt pass then the "Protester" was right in doing what he did. Some of you need to take your personal feeling out of the equation and also read the rules.. At what point dont you understand ? ?
Why are people commenting on other bikes that didnt get protested "on the day" when the appropiate time and facilities were available ? ? Havnt they got the balls to do it ? ?
It seems strange to bring it up now for the world to see ? ?
-
Spot on, DJ! ;)
-
F*ck me - SIX PAGES!! Anyone here watch European soccer?
I do, and it's embarrassing and tedious to watch the Players surround the Ref and dispute the decision when he penalises the 'rule breaker'.
They're not going to change his mind, he's made his decision according to the rules.
But on and on they go... harp, rant, rave, whinge, bitch, moan, groan and carry on!!
Look, the opposing camps are obviously divided on this pre '78 protest saga and I can see both sides - no really, I can.
But if you think the rules need amending, if they're too bloody anal and pedantic - then have a go at changing them.
Put forward your proposed amendments and see how you go.
But right here and now the rules are what they are.
This drama shows why we have a rule book. The protest was considered, the Gurus checked and the protest was upheld.
Seriously, what's done is done and it's been done as per the current set of GCR's.
I'm looking forward to the Qld titles in a coupla weeks time... ::) :-\
-
Nicely put Wombat. Let's move on.