|
|
|
CSBK Grand Bend Pro Sportbike
- Thread starter Slick_Steveo
- Start date
I don't like how the rule was written and I think that is the cause of the confusion. I think their logic is Bauer caused Tremblay to crash so he is out, the crash caused the red flag so Tremblay is out. If Tremblay had stayed up (which was damn near impossible since he got punted in a corner) there wouldn't have been a red flag.
Hopefully they clear up the wording for next year. Maybe separate the "cause of the race-stopping incident" from "the riders who fell". In this case those were likely two separate riders. I would argue that the fair treatment would have been Bauer to the back of the lap and Tremblay gets the win (assuming you didn't restart the race which obviously there is also some debate about). With the rule as written, I don't think you could get this result.
Last edited:
TK4
Well-known member
My note to the MCC about Grand Bend -
"Perhaps you can explain to me (and likely others) about how and when the MCC Competition Council Tribunal was created and for what purpose ? It seems unusual that the MCC would be involved in something that could likely have been handled as a CSBK internal matter ? The case is closed, I understand that and am not objecting to the conclusion - I have no dog in the fight - but how it came to be is of interest to me."
[/FONT]
"Perhaps you can explain to me (and likely others) about how and when the MCC Competition Council Tribunal was created and for what purpose ? It seems unusual that the MCC would be involved in something that could likely have been handled as a CSBK internal matter ? The case is closed, I understand that and am not objecting to the conclusion - I have no dog in the fight - but how it came to be is of interest to me."
[/FONT]
TK4
Well-known member
Why wasn't there a restart ? That's my question...?
I think the lack of a restart was due to time restraints-and plus the additional ambulance time on track treating Tremblay, at least that's what i read on the book of faces.
The Pro600 class is somewhat similar to MOTO2 and MOTO3 to use as a loose example. The young kids, are really young and will make mistakes, however none of these kids are dirty riders. I like the fact that MCC was involved, and i think they made the right ruling-although it sucks for Tremblay who has had two potential victories or podiums taken away from him due to others.
Re modding the rules to remove the rider "at fault" from the results as opposed to the rider "lying on the ground", who might not necessarily be the same person (sometimes is, sometimes isn't) ...
The problem is that this potentially requires a fairly detailed analysis of available evidence (and there might not always be sufficient evidence to clearly show what happened). Gathering that evidence and analysing it takes TIME. Time is certainly not something that is available trackside (and do you want that wait while delaying the race restart until such time as the decision is made???).
It's easy to establish who's lying on the ground waiting for the ambulance. That's clear-cut.
My initial thought upon seeing the crash was that Tremblay turned into Bauer. But the angle that I saw it from (grandstand) didn't reveal that Bauer was in fact behind and did not "have" the racing line. That became clear from video review later. Not always possible or practical trackside ... there's not always video to review.
I agree with MCC's decision.
The problem is that this potentially requires a fairly detailed analysis of available evidence (and there might not always be sufficient evidence to clearly show what happened). Gathering that evidence and analysing it takes TIME. Time is certainly not something that is available trackside (and do you want that wait while delaying the race restart until such time as the decision is made???).
It's easy to establish who's lying on the ground waiting for the ambulance. That's clear-cut.
My initial thought upon seeing the crash was that Tremblay turned into Bauer. But the angle that I saw it from (grandstand) didn't reveal that Bauer was in fact behind and did not "have" the racing line. That became clear from video review later. Not always possible or practical trackside ... there's not always video to review.
I agree with MCC's decision.
gammaguy21
Well-known member
stupid phone...
Ignore this post.
Ignore this post.
Last edited:
TK4
Well-known member
This just in -
Thank you for your question, the MCC tribunal was created in the spring of 2019 at the request of management at the Motorsports Racing Corporation (Canadian Rockstar Arena Cross Series and Supercross Motocross series). The ask came at the request of their race teams to have a fair, impartial and arms length tribunal ready to provide dispute resolution when it is not possible to do so "at the track". MRC formerly CMRC, Canadian SuperBike, and other major motorcycle racing organizations have been members of MCC for many years. MCC and the Competition Council members agreed to accept the responsibility because collectively we have the expertise from the leaders of the major racing organizations along with other impartial motorcycling experts in Canada already assembled, who are ready and willing to take on the responsibility.
When CSBK had the unfortunate incident in Grand Bend last weekend, the promoters of the series asked MCC's Tribunal to review and rule on the registered protest. MCC's role is to provide an impartial and unbiased decision on a dispute, within 72 business hours for the incident. Each time the Tribunal is asked to make a ruling the panel selects from among its members the ones who do not have any interest or real/perceived conflict in the outcome whatsoever.
The MCC Tribunal does not interfere in the decision making process for any race organization in Canada, unless specifically asked to do so by the race promoter.
MCC is much more than Competition motorcycling, in fact, MCC is "the Voice" for on-road, off-road and competition motorcycling in Canada and our members are derived from the Canadian provincial motorcycle organizations and most of the national race series organizations from across the country. I would invite you to check us out at motorcycling.ca.
Thank you for your question, the MCC tribunal was created in the spring of 2019 at the request of management at the Motorsports Racing Corporation (Canadian Rockstar Arena Cross Series and Supercross Motocross series). The ask came at the request of their race teams to have a fair, impartial and arms length tribunal ready to provide dispute resolution when it is not possible to do so "at the track". MRC formerly CMRC, Canadian SuperBike, and other major motorcycle racing organizations have been members of MCC for many years. MCC and the Competition Council members agreed to accept the responsibility because collectively we have the expertise from the leaders of the major racing organizations along with other impartial motorcycling experts in Canada already assembled, who are ready and willing to take on the responsibility.
When CSBK had the unfortunate incident in Grand Bend last weekend, the promoters of the series asked MCC's Tribunal to review and rule on the registered protest. MCC's role is to provide an impartial and unbiased decision on a dispute, within 72 business hours for the incident. Each time the Tribunal is asked to make a ruling the panel selects from among its members the ones who do not have any interest or real/perceived conflict in the outcome whatsoever.
The MCC Tribunal does not interfere in the decision making process for any race organization in Canada, unless specifically asked to do so by the race promoter.
MCC is much more than Competition motorcycling, in fact, MCC is "the Voice" for on-road, off-road and competition motorcycling in Canada and our members are derived from the Canadian provincial motorcycle organizations and most of the national race series organizations from across the country. I would invite you to check us out at motorcycling.ca.
boyoboy
Well-known member
YES. I agree with the decision as the rules are written.
I do however believe there should be a clause to show "at fault" - at the appeal level. But that opens up another can of worms - what if there was a re-start..?penalties ? etc. determining if there was "at fault" or just a "racing incident" etc.. Not likely to happen. Catch 22.
Very unfortunate, but the rules are the rules.
Thanks to all posters for the input. I learned something.
|
|
|
|
|