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.
