Cooper Webb

m.j.jenga
Posts
11
Joined
3/22/2012
Location
Tallahassee, FL, USA
4/7/2012 5:59am
So the AMA chose a reputable person for the tear down but yet the bike was not torn down? Why not? Did Star continue to refuse...
So the AMA chose a reputable person for the tear down but yet the bike was not torn down? Why not? Did Star continue to refuse for tear down? It was said above someone was selected and did the tear down. I'm confused.

According to the rule book, the AMA is the director of the protest process. It doesn't give the protested in question a multiple choice as to who can perform the tear down, that discretion is up to the referee on site.

So if I understand this correctly, the protester called off the tear down part of the protest because he was satisfied with the DQ coming from the carb mod. I would sure like to hear from the protester to see if this is true. If this is correct, I think Cooper Webb and team should be thankful the bike wasn't found to be illegal after refusing the protest procedure and possibly losing his license to race for the one year period penalty that he would of received.
slumpstone wrote:
I think slow old guy explained it pretty good, he was found to be illegal and he was DQed. The carb was not completely stock and...
I think slow old guy explained it pretty good, he was found to be illegal and he was DQed. The carb was not completely stock and the protesting party said that was enough. The part of stopping the tear down after the first thing was found was suggested by the AMA as the conflict of interest issue would not come into play. There were at least 2 not stock modifications done to the carb.
Can you explain what the "conflict of interest" issue would be if the tear down had continued?
Walter
Posts
375
Joined
8/21/2008
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
4/7/2012 9:30am
IceMan446 wrote:
I hate to say this but, this kind of reminds me when a crew chief in NASCAR gets caught cheating. The crew chief is the one...
I hate to say this but, this kind of reminds me when a crew chief in NASCAR gets caught cheating.

The crew chief is the one in trouble and shoulders the blame, Coopers Mechanic or team manager should do the same.

Cooper rides what they give him, thinking that the people in the know, know what should and shouldn't be on the bike.

Disqualify him from the race, that's fair. But don't suspend him and hold it over his head for the rest of his am career.

I think once you get caught you should have to pass a post race inspection at ever major race the following year. Random parts of the bike should be checked each time.

That would deter some of those folks from cheating to begin with and make them think twice before trying to cheat again after they were caught.
In NASCAR the driver, owner and driver get hit...as they should. Hitting everyone makes everyone more conscientious about the rules and playing fair.

If you penalize the rider, the owner, builder, family paying for it, etc. all realize their efforts to cheat went for naught and may not do it again.

The old saw about a rider/driver not knowing about the rules violation and that they just rode/drove the thing...does not ring true in too many cases.
gyd58
Posts
74
Joined
9/7/2011
Location
USA
4/7/2012 9:53am
So the AMA chose a reputable person for the tear down but yet the bike was not torn down? Why not? Did Star continue to refuse...
So the AMA chose a reputable person for the tear down but yet the bike was not torn down? Why not? Did Star continue to refuse for tear down? It was said above someone was selected and did the tear down. I'm confused.

According to the rule book, the AMA is the director of the protest process. It doesn't give the protested in question a multiple choice as to who can perform the tear down, that discretion is up to the referee on site.

So if I understand this correctly, the protester called off the tear down part of the protest because he was satisfied with the DQ coming from the carb mod. I would sure like to hear from the protester to see if this is true. If this is correct, I think Cooper Webb and team should be thankful the bike wasn't found to be illegal after refusing the protest procedure and possibly losing his license to race for the one year period penalty that he would of received.
slumpstone wrote:
I think slow old guy explained it pretty good, he was found to be illegal and he was DQed. The carb was not completely stock and...
I think slow old guy explained it pretty good, he was found to be illegal and he was DQed. The carb was not completely stock and the protesting party said that was enough. The part of stopping the tear down after the first thing was found was suggested by the AMA as the conflict of interest issue would not come into play. There were at least 2 not stock modifications done to the carb.
m.j.jenga wrote:
Can you explain what the "conflict of interest" issue would be if the tear down had continued?
The evidence suggests the only reason a conflict of interest was brought up was to avoid the inspection. Mr. Webb said they wouldn't let the guy inspect the items protested because he had built motors for Dakota Alex. Dakota is on the KTM amateur factory team and he was not the rider that protested Cooper's bike. Old Slow Guy implies the engine builder was tied to the protesting rider and not impartial, what is he talking about? It sounds like he is part of the Starr/Webb PR team trying to do damage control. I bet he is friends with the Webb’s and either works for, or is sponsored by, Yamaha.

This was a stock class protest. Even if the guy built motors for the kid who protested Cooper, why in the world would they worry about him looking at a “stock” motor? Old Slow Guy seems to want to answer all the questions about the incident except that one. The only reason I can think of is the bike had modifications to it they didn’t want discovered. It is not like these inspections are done in secret, they are done with representatives of both the protesting rider and the protested rider present along with the AMA official. It just seems so ironic that a team running illegal bikes would question the integrity of the guy the AMA chooses to inspect the bike.

I know the engine builder who was asked to inspect Cooper’s bike, and before any motos were run at Mill Creek, this motor builder agreed to volunteer his time to the AMA and be available to handle technical teardowns should they arise. When the Webb protest was made he was asked to handle the inspection and make the appropriate measurements. He attempted to but, was not allowed to conduct the inspection of Cooper’s bike. This was all before the AMA had determined Cooper’s carb had illegal parts on it and before Cooper posted on twitter his bike was legal and on the way to the AMA. It is obvious; Star had no intention of letting that “stock” bike be inspected. The AMA officials, after inspection was denied, were able to determine the float bowl was not a Yamaha part and he was disqualified.

One of our problems is this type of activity is not only accepted, but it is condoned all for the sake of winning. The AMA chose a guy that had both the competence and integrity to do the inspection and the inspection should have taken place. If it were my son’s bike being protested I would want everybody that wanted to be present to be there at the inspection so they would all see the bike was legal.

Old Slow Guy asks, what should Star or Webb say about the incident? How about a public apology to the kids they raced against on the illegal bike or if they raced that bike in the stock class at other races like the Mini o’s, Freestone, or Oak Hill, maybe relinquishing the awards he may have won racing it.

In my opinion, the moment Star/Webb refused to allow the inspection; Cooper should have been disqualified from the event and suspended for a year. The reason the rules have such a penalty is to stop the very thing they did. Just like in most states, in a traffic stop, refusing to take a breath test to determine blood alcohol content, results in automatic penalties and license suspensions.
Walter
Posts
375
Joined
8/21/2008
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
4/7/2012 10:14am
The "conflict of interest" claim here as a basis for having only Yamaha do the examination is curious. Yamaha would have the biggest conflict of all: they built the bike and the support the rider and the team. They want to advertise wins to sell bikes. Why would you want to put a manufacturer in this spot anyway?

Any experienced engine builder who you would want to do these exams will have ties to some of the competitors. Choose someone who by acclamation is respected and honest. If that builder has direct ties to the protested team or to the one protesting, get someone else.

The prior posters are spot on when they ask why is there a problem with having anyone peer into a "stock" bike during a teardown. There should be nothing to protect from view (or to hide)...unless the cheating goes further than a mere carb part.

Like many other posters I am also troubled by the teardown stopping with the DQ for the carb part. The protesting rider should not control this, the sanctioning body should. If the illegal parts went far beyond the carb issue, it should have been found out and the penalty made more severe. The other competitors deserve this kind of rules enforcement.

The only way you will stop this is to impose some heavy penalties on the rider & the team when the violation is clear. Only taking away a single win will just make folks get more careful with hiding what they do.

The Shop

4/7/2012 11:34am
Walter hit the nail on the head. If I were the protesting party, I would not want the manufacturer being the one who decides what is stock and what is not. If I were the protested party, I would not want the guy who is building the guy who signed the protest's motors. It is not as easy as it sounds for the officials to find someone who is knowledgable enough yet impartial.

I think the penalty was fine. He was DQed and places on what amounts to a lifetime of probation in the stock class with a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward. Probably the harshest penalty I have ever seen in AM MX.
Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
4/7/2012 11:43am
Does the AMA even know what impartial means?
dboivin
Posts
3170
Joined
5/19/2010
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
4/7/2012 12:14pm
sounds like star threw the modified bowl out there as a sacrificial lamb. kept their bike intact and a mystery to what was actually in the bike concealed.
4/7/2012 5:43pm
SlowOldGuy wrote:
Walter hit the nail on the head. If I were the protesting party, I would not want the manufacturer being the one who decides what is...
Walter hit the nail on the head. If I were the protesting party, I would not want the manufacturer being the one who decides what is stock and what is not. If I were the protested party, I would not want the guy who is building the guy who signed the protest's motors. It is not as easy as it sounds for the officials to find someone who is knowledgable enough yet impartial.

I think the penalty was fine. He was DQed and places on what amounts to a lifetime of probation in the stock class with a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward. Probably the harshest penalty I have ever seen in AM MX.
What do you mean...... " [a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward ]" Forget the future, what about NOW.
That sounds like "he better not do this again or else". SloOldGuy, we have a AMA rule book in place with rules laid out for this offense. It doesn't say "you get a freebie once" and then if it happens again you get a year suspension.

Look the bottom line is this: More than likely the motor had some kind of mod done and that's why the team didn't want the bike torn down. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Most rational people come away from this thinking he had something to hide.
If they didn't, then they ruined there credibility for nothing.

These actions do nothing good for our sport. Other riders family's travel from far away and make big financial sacrifices to attend these so called championship races with the expectation of it being ran fair and square for every paying participant regardless if your name is Big Kahuna or your one of the back markers. If I were a dad with a kid in the race and this happened, I'd feel cheated and belittled by the organizations running the circus. I put a vote of no confidence on this one.

The AMA needs to shit or get off the pot.
dak446
Posts
1052
Joined
3/28/2011
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
4/7/2012 7:55pm
dboivin wrote:
sounds like star threw the modified bowl out there as a sacrificial lamb. kept their bike intact and a mystery to what was actually in the...
sounds like star threw the modified bowl out there as a sacrificial lamb. kept their bike intact and a mystery to what was actually in the bike concealed.
That's the long and short of it.
gyd58
Posts
74
Joined
9/7/2011
Location
USA
4/8/2012 5:56am
"OldSlowGuy wrote:If I were the protested party, I would not want the guy who is building the guy who signed the protest's motors. It is not as easy as it sounds for the officials to find someone who is knowledgable enough yet impartial."

You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up, what are you talking about? Who was the rider who signed the protest? What is your basis for saying the man could not be impartial?

By saying he couldn’t be impartial, you are basically saying he could not decide the issues based upon the objective facts and therefore lacks integrity. This is not rocket science and there is not a lot of variables in measuring the diameter of a piston, the length of a rod or the stroke of a crank. Especially with no less than three other people watching everything you do.

The fact is, Cooper Webb’s dad specifically told the man he didn’t want him inspecting the illegal “stock” bike because he had built motors for Dakota Alex in the past. Dakota Alex did not file the protest against Cooper Webb. The more you Yamaha guys try to justify what happened, the worse it looks.
mx317
Posts
5335
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
4/8/2012 6:19am
They found an illegal part on his bike, he was DQ. That should be the end of it.
RACEGUY
Posts
1893
Joined
8/25/2009
Location
Moncton, CA
4/8/2012 6:33am
If they had a truly credible engine-builder offer his services, chances are very good someone on the gate was running his work. That's what gives him credibility in the first place. If he didn't build the motor for the protested rider, or for the rider filing the protest, where is your confilct of interest. If the guy needs to be an engine builder to properly perform the job, but is exempted because he builds engines, you seem to have a bit of a catch-22 here.

The conflict of interest is, until proven otherwise, a very shady smokescreen AND a slap in the face to the guy who volunteered his time to provide technical teardowns.
Walter
Posts
375
Joined
8/21/2008
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
4/8/2012 7:19am Edited Date/Time 4/8/2012 7:21am
mx317 wrote:
They found an illegal part on his bike, he was DQ. That should be the end of it.
Respectfully...it should not "...be the end of it."

Competitors do not control the inspection process, the sanctioning body does. Something needs to change here.

The severity of a penalty ought to mirror the gravity of the violation. Grip tape should warrant a lesser penalty than performance enhancing engine internal mods in a "stock" class. Simply put: the bigger the cheating, the heavier the sanction. You never know how bad it is/was unless you complete the inspection process.

The fallout from this is that the sanctioning body loses a lot of credibility among entrants, families, and spectators. The party involved comes off very poorly for not wanting the process to be done properly and throroughly, by protesting their innocence on other issues (yet trying to stop a more thorough inspection), and for attacking the process and the inspector w/o any valid reason. If you are clean, what is there to hide. I will also bet they get protested in the next event as well.

Transparency in this process works well for everybody and when it is not there...everybody loses.
4/8/2012 8:17am
I think we need an official from the AMA to respond with clarifications so that we all can sleep well.
4/8/2012 9:08am Edited Date/Time 4/8/2012 9:13am
You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up, what are you talking about? Who was the rider who signed the protest? What is your basis for saying the man could not be impartial?
Kristopher Dickinson signed the protest. I was told that the first guy proposed to do the teardown builds Kris' motors. I'm not saying the guy is not, could not be or would not be impartial. Just that if I were the guy getting my motor inspected I would certainly object if it were being inspected by the engine builder of the kid who protested me.

What do you mean...... " [a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward ]" Forget the future, what about NOW.
That sounds like "he better not do this again or else". SloOldGuy, we have a AMA rule book in place with rules laid out for this offense. It doesn't say "you get a freebie once" and then if it happens again you get a year suspension.
See, here is what I am talking about when I say misinformation. You look like an uninformed idiot here because this is exactly what the rule says. Here is is verbatim from the rule book:

Page 12 section 1.2 B #6

6. Violations of the stock class rules as determined by the
protest process or by the referee of the event will result in
disqualification from the event. A second violation of the
stock class rules will result in a disqualification from the
event and a suspension from AMA competition for one
year.


Cooper was DQed from every class that he rode that bike in just as the rule states. Also, based on the rule he is on probation for the rest of his amateur career as it pertains to the stock class and another violation will result in a 1 year suspension.

The rule was followed to a T.

Blame the rest of the bike not being torn down on the people who protested. Had it been me, I would have made them look at everything, but they chose not to.
mx184
Posts
131
Joined
8/26/2007
Location
AVA, IL, USA
4/8/2012 9:15am
I think we need an official from the AMA to respond with clarifications so that we all can sleep well.
I think Slow old Guy has pretty good ties with the AMA. It is this simple. The original protester was satisfied with the float bowl, Cooper got DQed. At this point it is done...You guys are beating this to death.
mx317
Posts
5335
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
4/8/2012 9:51am
SlowOldGuy wrote:
[quote]You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up...
You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up, what are you talking about? Who was the rider who signed the protest? What is your basis for saying the man could not be impartial?
Kristopher Dickinson signed the protest. I was told that the first guy proposed to do the teardown builds Kris' motors. I'm not saying the guy is not, could not be or would not be impartial. Just that if I were the guy getting my motor inspected I would certainly object if it were being inspected by the engine builder of the kid who protested me.

What do you mean...... " [a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward ]" Forget the future, what about NOW.
That sounds like "he better not do this again or else". SloOldGuy, we have a AMA rule book in place with rules laid out for this offense. It doesn't say "you get a freebie once" and then if it happens again you get a year suspension.
See, here is what I am talking about when I say misinformation. You look like an uninformed idiot here because this is exactly what the rule says. Here is is verbatim from the rule book:

Page 12 section 1.2 B #6

6. Violations of the stock class rules as determined by the
protest process or by the referee of the event will result in
disqualification from the event. A second violation of the
stock class rules will result in a disqualification from the
event and a suspension from AMA competition for one
year.


Cooper was DQed from every class that he rode that bike in just as the rule states. Also, based on the rule he is on probation for the rest of his amateur career as it pertains to the stock class and another violation will result in a 1 year suspension.

The rule was followed to a T.

Blame the rest of the bike not being torn down on the people who protested. Had it been me, I would have made them look at everything, but they chose not to.
Perfect, rule was followed as it should have been. He was DQ and if it happens again, the penalty is much more severe. Like I said before, this should be the end of it.
JustMX
Posts
5273
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
4/8/2012 2:44pm
mx317 wrote:
Perfect, rule was followed as it should have been. He was DQ and if it happens again, the penalty is much more severe. Like I said...
Perfect, rule was followed as it should have been. He was DQ and if it happens again, the penalty is much more severe. Like I said before, this should be the end of it.
I would bet that his bike may be going home in a box at every big AMA event he runs until he turns pro.
4/8/2012 3:09pm Edited Date/Time 4/8/2012 3:10pm
SlowOldGuy wrote:
[quote]You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up...
You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up, what are you talking about? Who was the rider who signed the protest? What is your basis for saying the man could not be impartial?
Kristopher Dickinson signed the protest. I was told that the first guy proposed to do the teardown builds Kris' motors. I'm not saying the guy is not, could not be or would not be impartial. Just that if I were the guy getting my motor inspected I would certainly object if it were being inspected by the engine builder of the kid who protested me.

What do you mean...... " [a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward ]" Forget the future, what about NOW.
That sounds like "he better not do this again or else". SloOldGuy, we have a AMA rule book in place with rules laid out for this offense. It doesn't say "you get a freebie once" and then if it happens again you get a year suspension.
See, here is what I am talking about when I say misinformation. You look like an uninformed idiot here because this is exactly what the rule says. Here is is verbatim from the rule book:

Page 12 section 1.2 B #6

6. Violations of the stock class rules as determined by the
protest process or by the referee of the event will result in
disqualification from the event. A second violation of the
stock class rules will result in a disqualification from the
event and a suspension from AMA competition for one
year.


Cooper was DQed from every class that he rode that bike in just as the rule states. Also, based on the rule he is on probation for the rest of his amateur career as it pertains to the stock class and another violation will result in a 1 year suspension.

The rule was followed to a T.

Blame the rest of the bike not being torn down on the people who protested. Had it been me, I would have made them look at everything, but they chose not to.
It's funny how you say "Kristopher Dickinson" signed the protest. I'm sure he did, but he was nothing more than a way for the MTF rider to protest without his name getting thrown around.

And "they". You mean Bobby and Star
slumpstone
Posts
398
Joined
9/22/2006
Location
Thomasville, GA, USA
4/8/2012 3:22pm
My money says you wont see him on a stock bike again this year, schoolboy 2 and B mod." A" class next year which has no stock class at most am. nationals.
4/8/2012 3:45pm
It's funny how you say "Kristopher Dickinson" signed the protest. I'm sure he did, but he was nothing more than a way for the MTF rider...
It's funny how you say "Kristopher Dickinson" signed the protest. I'm sure he did, but he was nothing more than a way for the MTF rider to protest without his name getting thrown around.

And "they". You mean Bobby and Star
By they I mean the people who protested him.
4/8/2012 4:24pm
SlowOldGuy wrote:
[quote]You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up...
You keep spinning this allegation that the motor builder was tied to the protesting party and was therefore impartial. I will ask you again straight up, what are you talking about? Who was the rider who signed the protest? What is your basis for saying the man could not be impartial?
Kristopher Dickinson signed the protest. I was told that the first guy proposed to do the teardown builds Kris' motors. I'm not saying the guy is not, could not be or would not be impartial. Just that if I were the guy getting my motor inspected I would certainly object if it were being inspected by the engine builder of the kid who protested me.

What do you mean...... " [a year penalty mandatory for even the most minor offense going forward ]" Forget the future, what about NOW.
That sounds like "he better not do this again or else". SloOldGuy, we have a AMA rule book in place with rules laid out for this offense. It doesn't say "you get a freebie once" and then if it happens again you get a year suspension.
See, here is what I am talking about when I say misinformation. You look like an uninformed idiot here because this is exactly what the rule says. Here is is verbatim from the rule book:

Page 12 section 1.2 B #6

6. Violations of the stock class rules as determined by the
protest process or by the referee of the event will result in
disqualification from the event. A second violation of the
stock class rules will result in a disqualification from the
event and a suspension from AMA competition for one
year.


Cooper was DQed from every class that he rode that bike in just as the rule states. Also, based on the rule he is on probation for the rest of his amateur career as it pertains to the stock class and another violation will result in a 1 year suspension.

The rule was followed to a T.

Blame the rest of the bike not being torn down on the people who protested. Had it been me, I would have made them look at everything, but they chose not to.
I won't call you an idiot but I will point out one little problem with your Page 12 section 1.2 B#6 assessment. If I'm understanding the rules correctly as I read them, as you so graciously pointed out to us all.

This above statute assumes the rider willfully complied with the protest witch would of possibly allowed the referee to find any offenses inside the motor and found to be any illegal mods and therefore reprimanded accordingly as stated above. Now if I'm not mistaken, the rider and or team, refused to grant the AMA referee the opportunity to do so BEFORE the carb mod or mods became an issue. So lets start with the first violation and go from there.

The rule that you point out brings me to another question know that you bring it up. Now follow me here.....It states as I read it above, that if a second violation is found that the rider is disqualified AND receives a SUSPENSION from AMA competition for one year. It doesn't refer to future events. It refers to the same event. It says...".A second violation of the stock class rules will result in a disqualification from "THE" event. Meaning the very event it is being protested, not some future event .
Was he not found in violation of at least TWO items witch would kick in the one year suspension?

Now mossy on down with me in the rule book if you will to Page #172 CHAPTER 5 – Section Offenses / Penalties Page and then on to page #175

B. General Offenses And Penalties

p. Refusing to submit a machine or component
(including fuel) for inspection, measurement or
testing. Such refusal will result in the forfeiture of all
points, prizes and rights at the race meet in question,
plus a fine AND one-year suspension.

This was the first violation to come into play, refusing to open up the motor. Again I wasn't there but this is how I understand it.

Now, call me an idiot if you will, and I have to admit that I'm not the smartest guy out there and I've been known to of made an ass out of myself before, but this is how I read it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Let the lashing begin.
RACEGUY
Posts
1893
Joined
8/25/2009
Location
Moncton, CA
4/8/2012 4:43pm
The way I interpreted it also, Works Pilot. It appears they cut a deal to overlook everything else based on the single DQ (visual inspection) item. Plead guilty to the float bowl, and everything else is dropped, including the failure to present the bike for an internal tear-down. A plea-bargain, if you will.
4/8/2012 6:37pm
Just so you know where I am coming from. First of all, for me this is not about Cooper Webb, it is about the process. It is about all of the BS that people are saying that has no basis in fact. Some of this stuff just didn't happen If it were Dakota Alix or Joey Savatgy or Kris Dickinson I would have exactly the same view. Ask Slumpstone (Savatgy's dad) and I would bet he would say the same thing. I spend a lot of my time refereeing races, working on AMA Congress, working on advancement appeals, and am the chairman of the AMA motocross committee this year. I spend a lot of time on the process, the rulebook, and helping anyone who calls (and it is quite a few) understand the rules, advancement, and any other stuff they need help with. I am also a huge fan of the protest process and think it needs to be utilized more. In this case, the process worked just like it is supposed to.

This above statute assumes the rider willfully complied with the protest witch would of possibly allowed the referee to find any offenses inside the motor and found to be any illegal mods and therefore reprimanded accordingly as stated above. Now if I'm not mistaken, the rider and or team, refused to grant the AMA referee the opportunity to do so BEFORE the carb mod or mods became an issue. So lets start with the first violation and go from there.
When a protest is filed before the final moto as this one was (after the second of three motos), the protested party is usually given the option of tearing it down right then and there or having the bike impounded and torn down after the final moto. In some cases the rider says lets get it over with because they dont want to have their bike impounded which is a pain in the butt. Most of the time, especially at a LL Regional qualifier they wait till after the final moto because time is short. I think Slumpstone protested three at LLs one year. Two chose to tear them down right away, the other wanted to wait till the final moto was run. I have never seen a rider forced to tear his bike down before the final moto. In this case the bike wasn't getting torn down till after the final moto. No one at Star ever refused to have the bike torn down. They objected to the initial person selected but that was a day or so before the teardown was to take place. By the time they got ready to do the actual inspection (a day later), a person both could agree upon had been selected.

The rule that you point out brings me to another question know that you bring it up. Now follow me here.....It states as I read it above, that if a second violation is found that the rider is disqualified AND receives a SUSPENSION from AMA competition for one year. It doesn't refer to future events. It refers to the same event. It says...".A second violation of the stock class rules will result in a disqualification from "THE" event. Meaning the very event it is being protested, not some future event .
Was he not found in violation of at least TWO items witch would kick in the one year suspension?


Any time a rider is found to be in violation of the stock class rules they are DQed from the event on the spot. The event is specified in the rulebook as a race within a meet. Since you can't be disqualified from the same class more than once, that is your first occurance. A second violation would be in a subsequent event. The language in the rule should probably be cleaned up a little, but that is the intent.

Now mossy on down with me in the rule book if you will to Page #172 CHAPTER 5 – Section Offenses / Penalties Page and then on to page #175

B. General Offenses And Penalties

p. Refusing to submit a machine or component
(including fuel) for inspection, measurement or
testing. Such refusal will result in the forfeiture of all
points, prizes and rights at the race meet in question,
plus a fine AND one-year suspension.


See above on this. If they had refused to let the bike be torn down it would have been an automatic suspension for 1 year. I have seen it happen twice in 11 years so they do enforce it. I have several teardowns where I was the referee and had to explain the rule to people who ended up getting busted for overbores and faced less of a penalty for that than for refusing the teardown. In this case the inspection was to be done after the final moto. I missed that part but it is my understanding that after the final moto the bike was washed and and the inspection started. They found the carb mods and the person who protested (the only person who could say to stop) said DQ him and lets be done with it. I don't know who the people on the protesting side who were making the decisions were but it was their call to stop. Had the carb not been illegal, they would have moved on to the next easiest item on the list to inspect and so on till they got to last one. Had the carb been legal and they went on to the next item and Star had said you can't look at it, that would have been an automatic year. That never happened so the year suspension is a moot point under the refusal to teardown rule.

Finally, for those who think I am soft on cheating, I have proposed much stiffer mandatory penalties for first time offenders three years in a row at AMA Congress but can never muster the support to get it through the motocross committee.
4/8/2012 8:55pm
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure from many to just settle for the DQ and move on after a day of deliberations. I believe you stated earlier that the referee even suggested it. I may be wrong on that but I thought you said that.

You can't be disqualified twice from the same class as you state but you can be found with multiple violations that would require disqualification AND suspension from the same protest therefore receiving two penalties for the same class as the rules are written now. I think as you sated, the rules need to reflect more in writing for a clearer intent. As it stands, it can be argued as I see it.
mcopsey
Posts
452
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
4/8/2012 9:04pm
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure...
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure from many to just settle for the DQ and move on after a day of deliberations. I believe you stated earlier that the referee even suggested it. I may be wrong on that but I thought you said that.

You can't be disqualified twice from the same class as you state but you can be found with multiple violations that would require disqualification AND suspension from the same protest therefore receiving two penalties for the same class as the rules are written now. I think as you sated, the rules need to reflect more in writing for a clearer intent. As it stands, it can be argued as I see it.
Your last paragraph makes no sense...you are either cheating or you aren't the amount should have no bearing on the penalty.


Also, just curious, what's your stake in all of this? You seem to have a big interest in it being applied at the maximum penalty.
dboivin
Posts
3170
Joined
5/19/2010
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
4/8/2012 9:38pm Edited Date/Time 4/8/2012 9:39pm
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure...
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure from many to just settle for the DQ and move on after a day of deliberations. I believe you stated earlier that the referee even suggested it. I may be wrong on that but I thought you said that.

You can't be disqualified twice from the same class as you state but you can be found with multiple violations that would require disqualification AND suspension from the same protest therefore receiving two penalties for the same class as the rules are written now. I think as you sated, the rules need to reflect more in writing for a clearer intent. As it stands, it can be argued as I see it.
dude your reading the rules how you want them to be interpreted.

my reading: one race, one protest, any violation and your dq'd. if it happens again your subject to suspension.


your reading it like this. 1.) carb violation = dq 2.) some other violation = suspension. this is wrong.

basically if CW shows up at another ama event this year and gets protested...and is found in violation, he would be suspended. he was put on notice...thats all that needs to happen and thats why the guy stopped the tear down. it wouldn't have caused any more penalties at that point...and there was no point to go further.

slowoldguy has spelled this out about as clearly as anyone could ever explain the events..yet you don't get it. wtf? www.readingcomprehension.com
dboivin
Posts
3170
Joined
5/19/2010
Location
Saginaw, MI, USA
4/8/2012 9:42pm
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure...
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure from many to just settle for the DQ and move on after a day of deliberations. I believe you stated earlier that the referee even suggested it. I may be wrong on that but I thought you said that.

You can't be disqualified twice from the same class as you state but you can be found with multiple violations that would require disqualification AND suspension from the same protest therefore receiving two penalties for the same class as the rules are written now. I think as you sated, the rules need to reflect more in writing for a clearer intent. As it stands, it can be argued as I see it.
another example to help you understand since you can't.


if i show up with a big bore kit bike and ride the stock class...i will be protested and tore down. they will DQ me and put me on probation for a year.

they aren't gonna spec the piston and find me in violation #1....then spec the bore and find me in violation #2 and then suspend me for multiple violations??????do you understand now?
4/8/2012 11:45pm Edited Date/Time 4/8/2012 11:49pm
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure...
I understand the protester has the authority to call off the protest and that's fair enough but I bet the protester had come under great pressure from many to just settle for the DQ and move on after a day of deliberations. I believe you stated earlier that the referee even suggested it. I may be wrong on that but I thought you said that.

You can't be disqualified twice from the same class as you state but you can be found with multiple violations that would require disqualification AND suspension from the same protest therefore receiving two penalties for the same class as the rules are written now. I think as you sated, the rules need to reflect more in writing for a clearer intent. As it stands, it can be argued as I see it.
dboivin wrote:
another example to help you understand since you can't. if i show up with a big bore kit bike and ride the stock class...i will be...
another example to help you understand since you can't.


if i show up with a big bore kit bike and ride the stock class...i will be protested and tore down. they will DQ me and put me on probation for a year.

they aren't gonna spec the piston and find me in violation #1....then spec the bore and find me in violation #2 and then suspend me for multiple violations??????do you understand now?
Lets say for instance you show up with your big bore kit and you're protested along with other issues brought to the AMA. Maybe a carb mod lets say. Lets say you were found to be out of compliance with said mod.
Lets say the protester is hell bent on finding you out as a cheater, only this protester doesn't call off any of the other issues to be protested. He doesn't want to settle for just a simple carb mod violation resulting in a DQ. He feels like you robed him of his big win so he presses forward to expose you and to vindicate his feelings of you cheating and is waiting for the AMA's inspector to start tearing into the motor to check on the other items he paid to protest on.
Remember, the protester is the only one who can call off a protest.

Violation #1 would be for running an illegal carb mod resulting in a DQ

Now based on SloOldGuys own words, and I quote " Blame the rest of the bike not being torn down on the people who protested. Had it been me, I would have made them look at everything, but they chose not to". end quote.

Because of SloOldGuys vast knowledge in this regard, I would assume the first part that is found to be illegal does not necessarily constitute the protest process to automatically end at this point.. The protester has the right to continue on with the other inspections he brings.

So lets say you decide that because you know for a fact the motor has mods in it that are not deemed legal and you want to save face in front of everybody watching this circus act going on....you decide to refuse to have the motor torn down for what ever reason you come up with.
I ask? Are you allowed to just walk away at that point and take your DQ or would this not bring in to play a Second Penalty from the AMA in the same race/class for refusing a tear down in the middle of an ongoing protest procedure?

Violation # 2 p. Refusing to submit a machine or component
(including fuel) for inspection, measurement or
testing. Such refusal will result in the forfeiture of all
points, prizes and rights at the race meet in question,
plus a fine AND one-year suspension.

This is why I said earlier that the Webb camp should be happy the issue wasn't pressed any further by the protester. Remember, the bike was not torn down regardless of whether it was ok'd by the Webb camp to do so or not.
One of Two things would have happened IMO if it was pressed further. First the team refuses the tear down and receives a FINE and a One Year Suspension or the team permits the bike to be torn down and walks away with egg on there face in disgrace when motor is found to be non compliant.


I don't have an axe to grind with anyone. I just want to see the rules applied fairly across the board to every competitor that shows up to race. I don't have a horse in the race if you will. I'm Just a dumb truck driver.
4/8/2012 11:56pm
I'll add another thing. If indeed the team never refused to have the bike torn down in the end and it just wasn't done because the protester gave up, then I would go on record to not accuse or assume the team of wrong doing in the first place. Although I do not think the team should be the one that has the say on who is approved to perform the tear down. The AMA should have this in place before it happens so everyone knows ahead of time.

Post a reply to: Cooper Webb

The Latest