Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
That's a great description of what John goes through on every decision.
Again, I don't agree with all his decisions, or sometimes lack of a decisive decision.
He's got a harder job then most of ya'all think or can appreciate. And for those calling for him to lose his job, I think you are all keyboard warrior assholes who wouldn't last 5 seconds doing his job.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
I never saw it as a punishment, though. I got $20 bucks for candy
Things I would like to see changed in the rules are:
1. Black flag limited to situations involving safety.
2. Penalties be decided by a 3 member panel comprised of the race director, a former racer and a third official with penalties handed out within 24 hours of the race. Give them time to review.
3. CONSISTENT penalties for the same behavior.
4. An option of issuing a penalty, staying the penalty by putting the rider on probation. If another infraction occurs the rider pays the original penalty plus the penalty for the new infraction. This approach would do more to correct behavior than the current super secret probation or talking to.
5. All penalties are issued with a public statement of the penalty and actions that resulted in the penalty.
Just some thoughts.
On non moto examples you listed, I agree there can be problems. The safety valve to these problems is prosecutorial discretion which handles it pretty well in most cases with the exception of some of the craziness happening in the schools where blind application of the rules brings about a clearly unintended result.
C'mon GuyB, don't you think that you having gone to high school with the guy is clouding your overall judgement? No one is saying he is a bad guy out of work. But, that interview, coupled with his on the job poor decisions do not give him a good look. Have you noticed that you close knit "in the know" guys won't say a bad word. But, the non bias fans and outsiders see the situation in a totally different perspective.
As others have said, I sure wouldn't want the gig. You're doomed to make someone unhappy.
Why is he above judgement on a professional level...especially because you know him personally? your ok with criticism as long as it's people you don't know or like? I mean, in your eye's, when is it ok to criticize someone?
people have been complaining about AMA officiating for as long as I can remember, and his name has come up a lot. no one is talking shit. they are saying he isn't very good at his job and they wish for him to be replaced. it isn't nice but that doesn't mean it isn't fair. I understand that it would be impossible not to take that criticism personal, but thats the way it works when you put yourself out there as a "professional" or an "authority" on a subject. Anyone who's ever been paid to do anything falls under that umbrella.
Even in his own words he is inconsistent? how can that be ok?
rationalizations are related to perspective. not everyone has the same perspective.
so as long as everyone understands them in the context in which they were meant (a context which can be clearly defined), rules are unaffected by perspective. they're a fundamental constant.
In principal, I'm actually ok with officiating that can defer to discretion instead of hard rules, but there's no getting away from the fact that that leaves, not only room for tons of error, but a nice margin for manipulation and favoritism...and that's a hard pill to swallow.
Who's been the best one that you guys have races under ?
He has the experience, he already has the responsibility/power, now give him the resources (full-time position) and see if it improves. If he doesn't want to go full time or officiating doesn't improve after a full season then fill the position with another candidate.
(obviously this is just a spitball idea but I think it has merit)
Pit Row
I'm pretty sure Justin could give a shit less about screwing the "other guy" but I'm not positive. His history would lead me to believe that. Mother Hubbard Gallagher should put one of his 12 trustworthy dorks over by the exiting tunnel. I'm pretty sure I seen Anderson take himself out swinging on Vince. It looked horribly embarrassing and you can't argue he learned something from that. I would think if he learned something from it, he shouldnt have been disqualified. Atleast that's what Dr Gallagher said!
Anyway, my take on the interview is that reading John's explanations regarding rule enforcement makes him appear inconsistent. I believe he runs a tight ship and has a no nonsense approach with the riders. The Barcia and Tickle incident explanation didn't sound right. If there's a clear and blatant violation of a specific rule, then that rule should be enforced and not explaind away by the rule enforcer. Not everything is black and white of course.... but when it is it needs of be equal in consequences of violation.
If anyone cares to chime in that has personal knowledge.
Has this guy ever given better treatment to someone because they are a long time friend?
Maybe been easy on a racer because he knows the team manager for many years and they eat out together?
Acted harder or more stern because the racer doesn't like him?
Does he judge softly if you buy lunch?
A yes or no will do.
Post a reply to: John Gallagher:"Bottom line it ends with me!"