Should BoD or Runoffs Class Entrants Decide Waivers??

peterzekert

peterzekert

Well-known member
Fellow Racers:

Should the BoD determine who does or does not qualify for a waiver of Runoffs Qualifications???

--OR--

Should that determination be made by the Qualified Entrants in that Runoffs Race Group??

Backstory:
Peter Shadowen in GTL raced 4 races this year, 3 wins and one DNF. He was preparing his car to go to the Aug. 31-Sep 2 Barber double, where just finishing one race would have completed his Runoffs Qualifications.

Hurricane Isaac got in Peter's way. He has a picture of his neighborhood and it looks like canals, not roads. He could not leave the area without leaving people and property at risk.

The BoD has read requests from Shadowen and from half of the GTL field asking for a waiver for Peter. BoD said no-no-no.

Why does the Board of Directors of a business (??) care whether or not the entrants of GTLite want to show a little compassion and add one more car to the Runoffs? [Insert your answer here _______________________ , because I can't type that on a forum.]

I am going to propose a change in the rule for Runoffs Qualifications. It will say:

"if a potential Runoffs entrant is denied a waiver of Runoffs Qualifications by the Board of Directors, the entrant can appeal to the qualified Runoffs entrants in the class. The Board of Directors will contact each of the Runoffs qualified entrants in the class. If 95% of the qualified entrants in the class agree to grant the waiver, the BoD will respect the wishes of the class entrants and grant the Runoffs requirement waiver."

Comments? Peter Zekert
 
This might not be a popular answer, but I applaud the BOD for standing firm on no waivers.

There were 80 plus National races this year. The rules were established early for all on what criteria must be met to attend. The basic rule for all ways to attend was finish 4 races. Thus, every single driver attending this year met that criteria. There were many drivers who had to make the long trips Labor Day. Another of our SEDiv drivers just barely squeaked in because on more driver in his class ran a race in RM Division making our guy the last eligible driver in his class in the Nationwide points.

Once you open the can of worms of waivers, all kinds of things will come into the picture including personalities, politics, etc.

The only thing that I personally think should be added is similar to what NASCAR uses, a past Champions provisional. I think one position should be open to a past class Champion who is not the current defending Champion. If that was in effect, then Peter could attend since he was Champion is 2010. Your suggestion would be too open to a personality contest.

And believe me, if I were going to let someone in, it would be Peter. But, as it is now, the rule need to stay the rule.

Glad to see you got your finish. See you there.
 
If the rule says no, then I am sorry. I agree, the answer should be no. I would not support your rule change either....leaving it up to the competitors isn't fair. I witnessed with my own eyes what this has done to a competitor. Another competitor, lets call him Mr. X, was in very much the same situation, I believe his issue was unfortunately a family tragedy. Mr X circulated a petiton to allow him to race, I was in the trailer at the Runoffs when one of his competitors was presented with his petition. The competitor did not want to support it, he told the story of what he went through to qualify to get to the runoffs, the money, the time, the effort and hurdles he cleared. While he felt for Mr. X, he didn't think it was fair. He begrudging signed the petition and supported it, simply because he didn't want to be "the guy" that kept Mr X out of the Runoffs. His motives were not becasue he didn't want to compete with Mr. X, they were simply a matter of the rules being met, and the qualification process and the "invite" meaning something. I am very critical of the BOD changing the rules to suit their fancy, they shouldn't be able too. I think it sucks that they pick this issue to all the sudden decide not to break the rules, but thats the BOD. The rule is what ever they want it to be. It wouldn't bother me if the rule was changed......but I don't like putting competitors on the spot and it is a rule now and shouldn't be broken. My 2cents.
 
FP Racer":3thz849k said:
The only thing that I personally think should be added is similar to what NASCAR uses, a past Champions provisional. I think one position should be open to a past class Champion who is not the current defending Champion.
Click to expand...

I agree with that... If you won and did not use your free pass the next year your should be able to put it in the bank.
 
One more thought. What about the guy in SRF, FV, or SM running in 20 car fields, that runs 6 to 10 nationals, never finishing in the points? Is he deserving of a waiver?
 
The fact is that in our current reality getting an invitation to the runoffs is not an honor of any kind. IMHO, the club would be better off (more honest) to just ask for a big check to get invited. I don't like this fact, but it's the current reality.

So, with that in mind, understanding that this person is a recent national champion, paid four entry fees, started four races, and won three of them; you're really standing on the unsympathetic pillar of "the rules say blah"? Really?

I thought this was a club of like minded people trying to have fun with cars. It feels less and less like that's the case every day.

This kind of response makes me honestly sad.

-Kyle
 
When I think of what would be better about running with a "pro amatuer" series like the Mike Rand series, it's exactly this kind of crap (or the lack of it) that makes me think that would be more fun. When people say that vintage is more fun, it's exactly this kind of crap that they're talking about.

Decisions that put the club before the racer. That put the book before the fun.

No one would ever argue that Peter doesn't deserve an opportunity to attend the 2012 runoffs given the spirit of what we all know the runoffs is supposed to be about.

Yet here we are, saying he cant go because the book says so.

You get on the board because we expect you can make reasoned decisions. Denying a Mark Donahue Award winner who made an honest effort to qualify for the runoffs but who couldn't because of a natural disaster and other personal circumstances does not show the ability to make reasoned decisions. It shows the ability to read a book and fail to understand the purpose of that book (to facilitate having fun with cars). We can have an intern do that for us.

This utter blow hard BS of "there were 80 races" is the mark of a small person. Jim, you should be ashamed.

:-[... :-[... :-[...

-Kyle
 
Kyle, you gotta at least give me the benefit of the doubt from where I am sitting. A GP competitor who got royally screwed because the liars decided they will just temporarily change the rule for one guy/group and not another. The BOD murdered my class with "waivers". T3 gets a waiver, T3 gets a waiver again, GT3 gets a Waiver, GTL gets a reprive when the change the 2.5 rule. Im F'n sick of the rules changin whenever somethin doesn't go the way somebody thinks it should. Peter can't go, that sucks. He is a super nice guy, and a previous champion and as I far as I am concerned anybody who holds a current national license and is a past champion can attend the Runoffs in that class forever. But that isn't the way it is. If the membership doesn't like the rule, call your BOD member and get it changed. Permanently!!!! I don't care. But this "waiver" shit for one guy or one group is back door BS. This laze fair attitude about the rules that govern us has to stop. What sucks, and I know it, is they will stick to their guns about Peter, piss him off and then give some other waiver to something else for some other reason. I know the reality of whats going on here. My position has 0 to do with Peter. I don't like putting anything in the hands of competitors when it comes to who gets a waiver and who doesn't. The reasons for giving a "waiver" are the exact same as to eliminate the rule. If you have to circumvent the rule, then its no good. I said it when they were F'n us with the 24 class rule and I am saying now. Change the rule, don't just circumvent it.
 
Kevin,

I can understand your frustration. Trust me. I suspect I will understand it quite fully before long.

But is your premise really "They screwed me, so they should screw everyone else too"?

You're right. The BOD made an awful decision in what happened to GP. They've made far better decisions in what's happened with other classes since then (T3, etc). Should they have screwed over those classes too, just to be consistent?

How about in this case, we just skip the screwing, and go race cars?

-Kyle
 
disquek":24vm3khs said:
Kevin,
I can understand your frustration. Trust me. I suspect I will understand it quite fully before long.
But is your premise really "They screwed me, so they should screw everyone else too"?
You're right. The BOD made an awful decision in what happened to GP. They've made far better decisions in what's happened with other classes since then (T3, etc). Should they have screwed over those classes too, just to be consistent?
How about in this case, we just skip the screwing, and go race cars?
-Kyle
Click to expand...

No, exactly the opposite. I got screwed by inconsistent application of the rules. It just so happens that in this instance, inconsistent application of the rules would help a really nice guy. Next time the waiver or the breaking of the rules on a whim will hurt somebody like it did GP. Its the inconsistency I take issue with, and its the inconsistency that has to stop.
Should they have screwed over the other classes.......absolutely not. They should have enforced the rule, or changed it. They decided who the rule applied too and who it didn't apply too. If when the first waiver for T3 was given, somebody said if we aren't going to enforce this, we should eliminate it, Id be squaring off against certain MGA and an orange rabbit in 2 weeks. The participation rule as it pertains to a runoff invite applies to Peter just like everybody else, and thats the way it should be.
 
I agree with not granting waivers on "good guy" approach but what will qualify for a waiver if not a natural disaster. Certainly there are were other opertunities nationwide for competition but running 6 races and planning on using the last weekend to get 4 finishes dosen't seem like unreasonable planning. I'm relative new at this but don't recall any waiver ever issued. Can anyone quote one? if they are not going to be used let's get rid of the waiver completely.
 
We all should do the Florida Double Double or the back to back Lone Star/ Houston double weekends and not worry about the rest of the regions holding races the rest of the season.

Not every body can make every race weekend. On the ones we do make not everything always goes according to plan. Some times we need that late season weekend to qualify for the runons due to circumstances beyond our control. This is why the waiver process was put in the book. If there is no intention to grant waivers remove the process from the GCR.

Let the man race, unless he cut the levee and flooded his neighborhood to have an excuse to skip one race.
 
Frogeye,

No one asked for a "good guy" waiver.

Peter deserves to go because he is fast. The runoffs should be a race for the best to sort out who is top dog.

Waivers have been granted in the past.

Kyle
 
I don't think the BoD has ever given a waiver for any reason. Atleast not recently in the modern era.
 
Kyle, I gotta ask. What if Peter were just another slow car? Should his waiver only be granted if he is fast? If GTL had a 30 car field would that effect the decision? .
 
Mazda Jon":18wizlot said:
I don't think the BoD has ever given a waiver for any reason. Atleast not recently in the modern era.
Click to expand...

2005 Dave Finch was the last Runoffs waiver that I knew of.
 
racingspridget":1oaccngk said:
What if Peter were just another slow car? Should his waiver only be granted if he is fast?
Click to expand...
I would not recommend a waiver for someone that was clearly off the pace. The runoffs loses meaning when it's not the best of the best. Peter is certainly among the best. I seriously doubt you could find anyone to dispute that. We need to do what's right for the sport. The GCR is supposed to describe "what's right for the sport", but it's not perfect. That's why we have groups like the BOD and the CRB. To fill in the gaps (via waiver) when the GCR doesn't.

racingspridget":1oaccngk said:
If GTL had a 30 car field would that effect the decision?
Click to expand...
Not one bit. As I said above, the Runoffs is supposed to be a race of champions.

racingspridget":1oaccngk said:
The four races he ran were in Jan. He had the entire year to get another finish and choose to wait till the last race. No one to blame but himself for that.
Click to expand...
Please stop making assumptions about other people. Not everything is as straight forward as it seems.

-Kyle
 
Mr Finch was the last waiver I know of. A few years ago when P.L. Newmans request for a waiver was denied I suspected that was the end of that. No comment on deserving or not but I agree with Kevin, right or wrong you cannot just rewrite rules when they are inconvenient. Change them or live with them, that is what so many of us have complained about for years now. We would be wrong to fight for an exception now after calling foul about the same rules shifting before.

Bryan Floyd
 
I figured someone would take a pot shot at me. Thanks Kyle! Makes me always wonder why I post here.

I stated facts. There were actually 84 National races for all in 2012. Peter ran his last race on January 15th after having a DNF the day before. We had 6 more races in SEDiv before Barber for a total of 12 Nationals.

There were at least 12 others drivers running their 4th races last weekend who made the Runoffs-- Coffey in EP(went to HPR), Hines in T3(Barber), Zekert in GTL(Barber), Istook in STU(MSR), Brand in STU(Barber), Marie in SSC(Buttonwillow), Niffengger(Buttonwillow) in SSB, Stinehefler(HPR) in GT3, Derhnel in GT2(Barber), Noble in F500(HPR), Kinlaw(Barber) in FE & Cooper(Barber) in FB. There were several who ran and did not make the 4th finish. Coffey is from Cen Div and went all the way to Colorado to rent a car to get his 4th finish. He already had 3 DNF's to go with his 3 finishes. He got 2 finishes and ended up 2nd in CenDiv.

So, how do we decide who gets to go and who does not? How do we decide who has a good excuse?

The answer is the rules.

I'm finished.

I've got to print all the Runoffs impound sheets. See you after qualifying, all 78 of you!

Good luck to each of you. I hope you finish well and have fun while there.
 
Another reason there should be no National/regional crap. Everyone should be able to qualify, take the top 20 and race. If this is a "Club" of racers, than the "class" should be able to decide if the guy can race, simple as that. The club is suppose to be member driven, not bitch driven.
Many of you take this way too serious. Big picture, no one gives a shit who wins.
Please go elsewhere and share your love for fellow racers. MM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top