NHMS3 Protest/Appeal Result

[blindsidefive0]

As some of you may know - there was a protest at the NHMS3 event involving Chad Fox (protester) and Jeff Wasilko ("protestee"). Derek Tangard (Acting Chief Steward) and the Stewards in attendance at NHMS3 reviewed the protest and rendered a decision. This decision was appealed. Both the decision provided by the Stewards at NHMS3 and result of the appeal are below. No changes in event results or standings resulted from the decision or appeal.

Here is the official protest from the Acting Chief Steward for NHMS3, provided in email shortly after the event:

On the time trial day of NHMS 3, a T50 competitor protested car #08. The competitor claimed car #08 had an engine swap from a 1.6L to 1.8L Miata engine. Upon reviewing the VIN, the stewards determined the chassis of car #08 was manufactured in 1990. The 1990 Miata came from the factory with a 1.6L engine. The current engine in the vehicle is a later model 1.8L, and therefore the car is considered to have an engine swap. The rule book states peak horsepower figures must be used in the engine assessment for vehicles with engine swaps (see below).

"In some cases, specifically involving engine modifications not listed below and engine swaps, the Steward may require a Steward-provided Assessment. In these cases, the competitor must provide peak horsepower figure(s), and use of this Assessment is not optional, i.e. the competitor may not use an Assessment based on engine modifications..." (2014 Rule Book page 34)

Upon reviewing the competitor's sheet, it was found he was not using peak horsepower figures. The competitor instead added individual points for each engine modification. The competitor's vehicle was found to be in violation of the rules because of the engine swap.

Based on a previous conversation between the competitor and a former chief steward stating he could classify his car this way, a unanimous decision was made to allow the competitor to compete in this time trial. The event stewards also agreed the competitor must properly classify his car for the next event he attends.

And here is the official result provided last Saturday, July 19:

The protest and appeal process is complete - the decision rendered at NHMS3 has been overturned; Jeff's appeal was successful.

Further, the Stewards have clarified that the Year of the vehicle is determined by the chassis of the vehicle, but VIN is not always necessary - essentially, the "Factory Trim" definition of OEM-equivalency in terms of size/composition/fit/function/performance/etc. may be applied. However, in absence of a matching VIN on the chassis, the burden of proof is on the competitor to "prove" OEM-equivalency for the Year declared.

Jeff may continue to declare his vehicle as a 1994-1997 Mazda Miata for the purposes of base classing for the remainder of the 2014 season.

At midnight last night, the Stewards concluded the voting process. The vote whether to uphold or overturn the decision rendered at NHMS3 was split, 9-overturn to 5-uphold. However, Stewards were even more closely split regarding how to determine the Year of a vehicle, specifically 8 Stewards indicated that the Year of the vehicle could be determined based more on competitive advantage, similar to the "Factory Trim" definition; 6 stewards felt that the year of manufacture of the chassis, as indicated by VIN or statement of origin from the manufacturer, was the only suitable method.

During the discussion leading up to the vote, Tom's clarification to Jeff in writing last year played a factor for some Stewards who were on the fence and eventually decided to vote in Jeff's favor. Also of note was the strong indication from the Stewards that the ambiguity in the rules around determining base classification should be clarified during the year-end rules process along with more detailed process/procedures for protests/appeals.

I would like to thank the Stewards for their collective effort around this protest and appeal - they really are the unsung heroes of COMSCC volunteers. In particular, Derek Tangard and the team of Stewards at NHMS3 gave up their afternoon, including run sessions, to gather the facts and render a decision. While the decision was overturned, after reviewing the facts, I strongly believe that they did the best they could with the information available to render a decision. In addition, while the opinions of the Stewards were split, with a few Stewards changing their minds during the discussion, the active conversation leading up to the vote was always factually-based, constructive, and entirely respectful of the opinions of other Stewards. It was a pleasure for me to work with the Stewards through this difficult protest. Thank you for your commitment to the club.