Copyright 2001, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

First Person/Opinion

By John Ulrich

AMA Pro Racing’s much heralded news rules comment procedure is little more than an attempt to create the illusion of participation by and communication with the people who actually race with AMA, the riders, mechanics and team owners.

The AMA Pro Racing press release announcing the new procedure, issued on September 12, was headlined “AMA Pro Racing creates open forum for two-way communication regarding new racing rules.”

The release continued, “AMA Pro Racing announced today the creation of a new forum for two-way communication with the racing community, an avenue that provides racers with the means to review and comment on proposed changes regarding racing rules….The proposed rules changes can be viewed at AMA Pro Racing’s new racing community website…This website is password protect for exclusive use by AMA Pro Racing credentialed riders, team owners and managers, mechanics and other key industry members….The comment period serves as the official forum for AMA Pro Racing participants to communicate their thoughts and reactions to the proposed rules changes, and comments are encouraged. This new venue for two-way communication is the first in a series of anticipated changes in the rules-making process designed to engage the racing community in an early and more active role in the process.”

The release went on to explain “The catalyst for this newly formalized means of active communication is an outgrowth of a six-month consulting study by former Indy Racing League executive director Leo Mehl for the expressed purpose of enhancing consensus and participation within the racing community. Mehl gathered input from participants of each AMA Pro Racing discipline and melded that with the best practices from other race sanctioning bodies in his recommendations.

“On a regular basis, rules changes are proposed, drafted and recommended to and by AMA Pro Racing Competition Advisory Boards in each racing discipline. These advisory boards consist of riders, mechanics, other team members, manufacturer representatives and promoters. These boards meet quarterly to discuss potential rules changes for proposal to the AMA Pro Racing Board of Directors.”

Even ignoring the fact that at least one rule change first posted for comment on September 14 had actually been put into practice in June, without comment, the entire process remains flawed. To start with, the Road Racing Advisory Board is non-representative, stacked with factory team representatives who seem more interested in convenient parking of their semi-trucks than in the greater good of the majority of the paddock. Nobody racing in Pro Thunder or 750cc Supersport is included, and all the members are hand-picked by the AMA Director of Professional Competition.

But the biggest indicator that the system is fatally flawed is the fact that nowhere in the proposed rules changes for 2002 is there any mention or discussion or consideration of the need for unrestricted Thursday practice, despite the fact that 133 Pro Racing participants—76 licensed racers and 57 team owners, mechanics and crew members—signed petitions in support of unrestricted Thursday practice, with copies going to every member of the AMA Pro Racing Board of Directors as well as being delivered to the Road Racing Advisory Board at Brainerd, in July.

The signatories included a who’s who of non-factory team owners, managers, crew chiefs, mechanics and crew members. Rich Oliver of Team Oliver Yamaha. Chuck Graves of Graves Yamaha. Richard Stanboli of Attack Suzuki. Carry Andrew and Landers Sevier of Corona Ebsco Suzuki. Keith Perry of Team Valvoline EMGO Suzuki. Gary Ricci of Ricci Motorsports. James Siddall of Corbin Yamaha. Brian Turfrey of PJ1 Techstar Team Turfrey. Tom Montano of Munroe Motors Ducati. Jeff Nash of AMS Ducati. Henry Duga of Buell. That group alone accounted for first, second and third in the 2001 AMA 250cc Grand Prix Championship; first, second and third in the 2001 AMA Formula Xtreme Championship; first, second and third in the 2001 AMA 750cc Supersport Championship; and first, second and third in the 2001 AMA Pro Thunder Championship.

Yet despite support from the men who run the teams that took the top three positions in four out of six AMA Pro Racing Championships in 2001, the proposal to allow unrestricted Thursday practice apparently didn’t even merit consideration, and never even got to the comment stage.

And instead of even considering the expressed support for unrestricted Thursday practice, AMA Pro Racing has instead actively sought to eliminate Thursday practice altogether for 2002.

Whatever that is, it isn’t “two-way communication” and it isn’t “active communication.”

What it is, is the same old BS in a new package, providing the look of change without actually delivering change.

And another convincing argument for the total overhaul of AMA Pro Racing, from the top down.



See related posts:

7/28/01, Who Attended AMA Road Racing Advisory Board Meeting At Brainerd Friday Evening

7/28/01, 76 AMA Pro Racers And 57 Team Owners And Crew Members Support Thursday Practice Opposed By Factory Few