By David Swarts

Here is the second part of my taped, transcribed interview with AMA President and CEO Rob Dingman, covering AMA’s involvement in the long-standing dispute between AHRMA and its founder Rob Iannucci.

Roadracing World: What would you say to a blogger saying you screwed AHRMA?

Rob Dingman: There is a lot of misinformation out there. The fundamental issue is AHRMA had a dispute with its founder, Rob Iannucci, and AMA was pulled into that dispute because AMA co-sanctioned events with AHRMA. And when Rob Iannucci couldn’t get what he needed out of AHRMA, he said, ‘Hey, I can go this avenue also. I’ll sue the AMA as well.’

So the AMA got roped into a dispute between AHRMA and its founder, and we had very little to do with it — if anything to do with it — other than the fact that we co-sanctioned events to make sure AHRMA had the appropriate insurance to do events.

Over the course of the dispute between AHRMA and Iannucci the AMA spent $750,000 in legal fees for something that wasn’t our beef. It was between AHRMA and its founder. And AHRMA declared bankruptcy, and they believed that they got themselves off the hook by declaring bankruptcy.

Declaring bankruptcy wasn’t an option for AMA, and the truth of the matter was Mr. Iannucci made it clear that even though the bankruptcy made the underlying suit go away, the first time Team Obsolete riders were prohibited from racing in an AHRMA event they were going to be back in court. And that meant the AMA would continue to be in court.

Again it didn’t seem to make sense to the AMA to continue to spend money on legal fees to defend a situation that wasn’t our fight in the first place. Everybody says, ‘Dingman screwed AHRMA.’ Well, the truth of the matter is our Board of Directors directed me and our Chairman Stan Simpson to go do what’s right and settle this thing, and the only way we could settle it was to agree with Mr. Iannucci that if AHRMA couldn’t come to terms with him and resolve the differences it had with him then we couldn’t do business with them anymore. If doing business with an entity is going to suck you into a legal battle, a costly legal battle, then you don’t do business with that entity. That’s pretty simple.

RW: What about the aspect of AMA members’ rights being impeded, i.e. members of the AMA in good standing, riders who are also members of AHRMA being told that they cannot compete in an AMA-sanctioned event if they have a Team Obsolete sticker on their motorcycle? How about that?

Dingman: That was ridiculous to me, and when the Board said ‘go do the right thing,’ that was an element of it. The right thing was the AMA should have intervened in this a long time ago. It never should have gotten to the point that it got to. The AMA should have held AHRMA accountable for its own rulebook and for the AMA’s rulebook, and the AMA should have protected its members at that time. And frankly, we should have probably never have gotten to the point where we got to, where we spent $750,000. It should have been resolved.

RW: Why wasn’t it resolved then? I speculate that there may have been some conflicts of interest with leaders sitting on the Boards of both AHRMA and AMA.

Dingman: I think it had to do with personalities, and I think there was probably a conflict of interest there. I don’t know. I wasn’t around then, but I think you’re probably right. I think it did have to do with some crossover interests.

Again, the AMA and AHRMA have enjoyed a very close relationship over the years. It had been mutually beneficial, but when that relationship begins to cost the”¦the AMA has no ill will toward AHRMA or its members. It was just a business decision to say as long as the relationship is mutually beneficial we can continue down the path but when it becomes no longer beneficial to both organizations then you agree to disagree and go our separate ways. And that’s what we had to do.

There have been some changes with the recent AHRMA Board elections. It remains to be seen whether they made the policy changes necessary to either resolve their differences with Mr. Iannucci.

RW: Do you think the AMA’s position on the AHRMA vs. Iannucci deal was influenced by the fact that AHRMA members, and in one case a former AHRMA Executive Director, in Dal Smilie and Jeff Smith were on the AMA Board?

Dingman: That could very well be. I know that any of the [AMA] Board meetings that I participated in where the litigation was discussed Jeff Smith was excluded from those Board meetings. Jeff, to my knowledge, had no direct influence over the AMA’s position. Whether he exerted indirect influence or not I can’t say. I don’t know. But I could see how someone would draw that conclusion, for sure.

RW: What about Dal Smilie? He used to go to AHRMA races and race along with Jeff Smith.

Dingman: Clearly there’s a potential for there to have been some resistance to resolve the situation in a way that would favor Mr. Iannucci over AHRMA, but I don’t have any personal knowledge of that happening.

To be continued…

And now, some AHRMA-related reader comment:

FIRST PERSON/OPINION

Via e-mail:

I was pleased to see on AHRMA’s website today that Jeff Smith was soundly beaten in his bid to be re-elected as an AHRMA trustee. It gives me some faith that AHRMA can finally move forward. You can read about it here: ~http://www.ahrma.org/News/AHRMA_Ballot_Results.pdf~

Steve Thompson Bobcat Motorsports Former AHRMA National Champion Owner of www.vintagebikeracing.com Muncie, Indiana