Wow...this doesn't sound like it's going in the right direction!

[Simon]

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/article/?article=32836

[kl3640]

Wow, and this quote from Roger Edmonson is perhaps the most stunning:

"I have no idea," said Edmondson. "I know that there is one, but I don't know who they are. But this is not an issue that riders should be taking up, in my mind. It's not appropriate that one rider determines whether or not another rider can ride. It's only appropriate that one rider determines whether or not he rides."

If riders aren't stakeholders in "rider safety," then who is?  Guys who never have any of their own skin in the game, literally?  I don't know how the Safety Council membership is selected, but if it's somehow representative of the riders' opinions as a group (i.e., the AMA member riders help select the council members), then the notion that those opinions shouldn't be counted is ridiculous.  I wonder if this is the attitude that DMG will take on other issues as well.

[unter_kid]

Could this guy sound any more pompus?  What qualifies him to make a safety decision?  The riders who are out there putting their neck on the line SHOULD be the ones contributing to safety concerns.

"This is my chance for a big payday"..........WTF is that?  Tell that to the two riders his ignorance almost killed at Iowa

[Mongo]

I think that comment was more about his feeling that the riders committee would be biased, I don't think he meant that about himself.

[Xian_13]

Thats odd...

Nascar doesn't race in the rain.


XIII

[kl3640]

OK, his follow-up email is even more ridiculous.  First, it doesn't even mention anything about his previous comment regarding the Safety Council and his outrageous statement that riders shouldn't be the ones deciding what's safe and what's not.

Then, he goes on:

"Our television partner must have the assurance that we are going to provide them with content for the time slot reserved for our races...Our promoters must be able to sell advance tickets and sponsorships with confidence that we will meet our contractual obligations to organize an event..."

I don't follow NASCAR, but IF they don't race in the rain, as someone else posted above, then wouldn't Edmonson's statements be just a bit hypocritical?  Or is he implying something about the relative popularity of the various series, that NASCAR can withstand such things and other series, such as AMA Pro Racing, cannot?  This guy is really showing his true colors here.  I understand that financial considerations are vital to the survival of the sport at a high level, but to offer no explanation as to why not running in the rain is OK for some series and not others just highlights his double-talk.

Furthermore, this statement is also ridiculous:

"There are no statistics that prove or even imply that wet conditions are a special hazard too great to be chanced...I cannot accept that the four facilities that are the subject of this document represent such unique characteristics that they must be "cut from the herd" and singled out for such discrimination."

Again, without even going in to why NASCAR doesn't race in the rain, he's trying to make the objections to these specific tracks seem to be part of a general objection to racing in the rain, which they're clearly NOT.  Why doesn't he just do the obvious thing, which is to take a list of the demanded improvements in order for those tracks to be approved for wet racing, and then go down the list and demonstrate that each item on the list has been addressed?  All he said about Mid-Ohio was that it had complied with AMA's requests, and he provided some high-level facts about Road Atlanta, but that's it.

Instead, the heavy-handed approach that he's taking gives the appearance that he's just trying to have his way without debating the facts, probably to set precedent going forward that DMG is The Boss and the riders had dare not challenge their word, in a, "So Let it be Written, So let it be Done..." sort of way.

[Mongo]

The first one on RRW was a phone interview with Dave Swarts.  The second was an email Roger sent out to clarify things.

[spyderchick]

The more I read and hear what RE has to say, the more I'm convinced he's channeling Bernie Ecclestone of the FIA ;)

[Simon]

OK, his follow-up email is even more ridiculous. 

I'm not sure if thats his attempt at damage control, but it sure didn't make me feel ay better!

[Tornado Bait]

It's clearly all bout the mighty $.  They are more concerned with production costs and sponsorships than human lives.

[Woofentino Pugrossi]

Thats odd...

Nascar doesn't race in the rain.


XIII

Neither do they at the Indy 500 or any other oval race. Certain tracks just are not safe when wet period. Doesnt matter if its 2 or 4 wheels.

[kl3640]

Interestingly, I just read this article today:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/06/11/nascar-car-values-biz-cx_jg_0611nascar_land.html?feed=rss_popstories

It kind of highlights how much of a "big business" a motorsports series can be, as these teams can't make this kind of money without a series in which to showcase themselves (and by extension, their sponsors).  The values of these teams really says something about their series.

I'm sure that R.E. and DMG are hoping to replicate the financial success of NASCAR to some extent (though I doubt that motorcycle racing could every reach that size in an absolute sense, it could certainly have a lot of value in its own right).

I have no doubt that all of their moves are with that goal in mind, and not the advancement of motorcycle sport.