By John Ulrich We’ve been over DMG’s history of selectively ignoring its own rules for commercial purposes and of selectively targeting out-of-favor riders for unjustified penalties during the three years since it took over management of AMA Pro Racing. We’ve discussed how AMA Pro Racing recently issued a way-too-late series of bulletins ordering riders to display the logos of class sponsors on their leathers (decreasing available prime real-estate for the logos of their own paying sponsors) upon threat of draconian penalties. And how the company followed up with phone calls to leathers suppliers reinforcing that the class sponsor logo placement was absolutely mandatory. We’ve seen how DMG Managing Partner David Atlas quickly denied that class sponsor logo placement was mandatory. And we’ve seen how his employees then issued another bulletin again referring to draconian penalties for not displaying “partner” logos in designated places on their leathers. Included in that bulletin was a rules clause that restricts the use of AMA Pro Racing trademarks and could have set up riders for all sorts of selective punishment for displaying the AMA Pro Racing logo on leathers or bodywork while running in non-AMA Pro events. That part of the bulletin text in question read, “AMA Pro Racing and the other logos and trademarks shown herein are licensed trademarks of AMA Pro Racing. Participants are to use the approved logos on number plates and apparel only when participating in AMA Pro Racing events. Any further use of the marks outside of this capacity is not permitted without prior written consent from AMA Pro Racing. Any further use of the marks (i.e., the AMA Pro Racing mark, and other AMA Pro Racing trademarks and logos) outside of this capacity is not permitted without a license from, or the express, written permission of AMA Pro Racing.” Now AMA Pro Racing has issued a statement that includes this explanation: “Rule 3.28.d.i from the original AMA Pro Road Racing Technical Bulletin #2012-04 included language which was adopted and slightly modified from the 2009 – 2012 AMA Pro Road Racing rulebooks, and that language had been copied directly from the 2008 AMA Superbike rulebook. It has been brought to our attention that the rule contains a key word that certainly conflicts with the spirit of the rule as intended. AMA Pro recognizes the word ‘only,’ highlighted above in red, to be inappropriate and the update to this bulletin strikes it from current and future regulation. We do not believe this rule ever intended to prohibit or inhibit AMA Pro competitors from participating in other activities outside AMA Pro Racing events.” The catch is that DMG employees have claimed they revised the rulebook line-by-line twice in the last three years. So it doesn’t make sense that they didn’t know what language was in the rulebook or didn’t know what it meant. If they didn’t know it was in the rulebook and didn’t understand the ramifications, why did they include the language in the bulletin they sent to all entrants on March 2nd, 2012? Moreover, the line “included language which was adopted and slightly modified from the 2009 – 2012 AMA Pro Road Racing rulebooks” in the explanation is an admission that somebody in DMG headquarters had read and tweaked the language in question. Meaning that they knew what was in the rule, and they should have known what it meant. Again, if they didn’t know what it meant, why did they include the language in the bulletin they sent to all entrants on March 2nd, 2012? This latest explanation issued by AMA Pro Racing is typical of the company’s rampant buck-passing, dodged responsibility and lack of accountability of late: It isn’t our fault. Somebody else did it. The old regime made it up. We’re too busy and overworked to keep track of what the employees are doing. The next ploy they’re likely to try will be claiming that the reason they have such a hard time following their own rules is because they just don’t have time to read the rulebook. None of those excuses fly. The most disturbing excuse, of course, involves the long, late hours David Atlas says he has endured at great personal cost. He has repeatedly said that his workload is so extreme that he can’t keep track of what his employees are doing, and thus it isn’t his fault that his employees have continued to do things he said they wouldn’t, after he said they wouldn’t. The biggest question is, what needs to happen now? The answer comes in two parts, dealing with the immediate short term, followed by the longer term. First, AMA Pro Racing has to recognize and dedicate itself to the fact that above all, it has a responsibility to follow its own rules and to enforce its rules fairly and equally, no matter who is involved in any given situation. Second, AMA Pro Racing has to remove commercial considerations from the rules-making process, which should instead emphasize rider safety, fair competition and the greater good of the paddock as a whole. Third, AMA Pro Racing has to actually embrace the concept of cost reduction, instead of just paying it lip service. Fourth, AMA Pro Racing needs to be led by an experienced, stable executive who not only understands racing and how to manage a business, but who also accepts responsibility and accountability. Somebody who will stand up and say, The Buck Stops Here. How do you make that happen? You find and hire a CEO, or contract another racing organization to operate the company. In the longer term, AMA Pro Racing the business, needs to isolate itself from the rules-making and rules-enforcing functions. No more bending the rules in a futile attempt to keep somebody from pulling their semi-truck out of the paddock and going home. No more ignoring the well-being of the majority of the paddock and forming the rules to meet the demands of one team that says, if we don’t get our way, we’re leaving. That’s the way truly successful motorcycle racing series are operated. The AMA Supercross Series, the AMA Motocross Championship, the MotoGP World Championship, the Superbike World Championship have all separated the commercial, deal-making function from the rule-making and rule-enforcement functions. It has to happen. If nothing else, the history of AMA Pro Racing–both before and after DMG took control–has convincingly demonstrated that combining the commercial functions and the officiating functions in one company will not result in anything even remotely close to fairness. More to follow”¦