| Main Startline Menu | Main Monoposto Menu | For Sale |
|
|
Startline OnLine | ||
|
| Editorial Discipline, Justice, Fairness, and Other Concepts
Freedom of the air is a myth, a quick look at any aeronautical chart will convince the uninitiated that the air above our heads is as full of exclusion zones as a busy city. Likewise, freedom to drive flat out on a racing circuit is frequently restricted by the presence of yellow flags. An aircraft, being airborne, functions in an environment where there are a lack of markings and signposts to stop the unwary who may be blundering into controlled airspace and incurring the wrath of officialdom, a similar fate awaits any driver who fails to notice flag signals. In both cases officials take the matter very seriously, decisions may be taken that ruin a driver's or a pilot's day. Each month, accounts of incidents and accidents are circulated to pilots, backed up by a quarterly GASCo Flight Safety magazine. It is a statement of the obvious, that a century ago there was no controlled airspace, and thus it was impossible to infringe a CTA ("Control Area") or a MATZ (Military Air Traffic Zone"). Fair enough there were few flying machine capable of doing any infringing. Now there are thousands of cubic miles of controlled airspace and it keeps increasing .......... as do the infringements, there is obviously a correlation between the increase in controlled airspace and the number of infringements; yellow flags and penalties for drivers who fail to notice or observe them show similar linkage. Word has it that there were rather a lot of yellow flags at Brands Hatch, and this was matched by the number of drivers being disciplined for non observance of these warning flags. Usually when a driver is in such a situation one hears little about it, other than an announcement over the PA that driver X or driver Y has to see the Clerk of the Course. Brands was different, there were a number of drivers complaining because they believed that the officials had not understood their situation and overreacted.
One problem is that, as with all such disciplinary systems, once set in motion, e. g. by a report from a Marshal's post, it is difficult to stop, and nearly impossible to reverse. Once the marshal’s report has goneto the Clerk of the Course, and he or she has made a decision, the adjudication becomes official, and can only be reversed by appeal. The intention to appeal usually has to be made within thirty minutes of the end of the race, or the session or interview, and backed up by a sizeable payment returnable if the appeal is won. Most solo drivers find it impossible to comply with the time constraints, and think several times before risking a large sum of money on an appeal, which judging by the reports in 'Motorsport Now' is unlikely to be successful. I sometimes think that the main purpose of 'Motorsport Now ' is to dissuade the average driver from making an appeal, by convincing him or her that the chances of success are minimal. To a certain extent it is possible to justify the rough justice approach to competitor discipline, a practice that is unversal throughout sport. Everyone involved in a sport wants results, results that will not be changed, results that can be used to construct points tables and award trophies. What they don't want is a drawn-out legal process that leaves everybody uncertain as to the outcome of their day's entertainment as they leave the circuit, pitch, or stadium. In no way is motor racing unique, all sports function the same way, don't expect the results of a rugby match, a football game, or a game of cricket, to be reversed if a post event video shows that a ball was not grounded, the scorer offside, or the catch dropped. The back pages of newspapers provide a form of certainty that is in contrast to the prevarication that rules in the political section and the spun statements that dominate the financial pages.
However, there is a cost to rough justice in an amateur sport, put simply it is possible to offend competitors who, in our sport, have invested a considerable amount of money so they can compete. From the MSA's viewpoint this is relatively unimportant, taken as a whole competitor numbers keep increasing, maintaining their financial base, and proving to the MSA that they are working successfully. The individual club's viewpoint is different, if too many of their drivers are aggrieved, they may decide not to race. For different reasons this why we chose not to race at Cadwell Park, the membership has had too many poor experiences at this circuit recently, admittedly most being weather related. There is little that club officials can do about perceived miscarriages of justice beyond expressing sympathy. As previously explained, there is effectively a procedural lockout that kicks in after fifteen or thirty minutes. Experience has shown that even when many competitors are aggrieved this will be upheld. Thus, as a club, the only realistic way we have of reducing yellow flag related disciplinary incidents, is to reduce the number of yellow flags. This comes down to pleading with competitors not to get involved with incidents that generate yellow flags, and reinforcing this with a championship points system that rewards finishing.
And Finally..... One usually considers motor racing an expensive activity, but did you see the Dispatches programme last week? One would consider that running for charity on the streets of London would involve nominal expense. But if the event is The London Marathon it could cost you more than a whole season racing on privately owned tracks with Monoposto! The Dispatches programme also claimed that only 25% of the millions collected annually by the organisers went to charity*. One notes the location of the London Marathon and once again smells the presence of 'fat rats', 'fat cats' being far too cuddly animals. * The editor is not referring to the competitors who undertake this arduous event and usually contribute 100% of the money collected (less their entry fee) to charity. Patrick Huston
|
||||||
