"For me, the greater the odds, the greater the shal-ahnje."
"And as always, I accept the shal-ahnje."--answer at the bottom
So these would be the threads to be refered to, then. From two years ago (Forum search capabilities used: Working backwards from the last page.)
Oregon Raceway- is it a go? Posted 6/9/2009-- First mention of the “punch list” in Memo #4.
ORP Update- Posted 7/12/2009-- Much more conjecture, and assumption. No new facts presented in regards to specifics of the “punch-list”, nor how that list was formulated and with regard to what set of documented standards, other than reference to SCCA. And much posturing to defend the Exec Board from essentially nothing that they had anything to do with. But the dancing, and beating of the drums made people feel like they were contributing to the health and welfare of ICSCC, and that's fun. There’s the usual amount of implied policy or regulations, and with no specifics.
Pet-peeve alert, and I too am guilty of this... but not often.
If you’re going paraphrase some regulation or policy please present some reference #s so people may edify themselves. Or de-bunk the assumptions with those reference points. Documented facts, please not man-u-facts.
Simple example: “Does the E-Board ask us if we would like them to sanction races where a section of track cannot be seen by any turn crew? Nope, it clearly states that is not allowed in the P&P.”
Whether this last part is a true statement or not, out of respect for the reader(s), be courteous enough to make an attempt at referencing the section that you are referring to. Otherwise, it may certainly be considered so much more of the smoke and mirrors of false credibility.
Oct 10/11 Championship Raceweekend Posted 7/22/2009—The final blow (off) for 2009. “ICSCC Headquarters has run out of time and must regrettably remove race #13, the Oct 10/11 Oregon Raceway Park hosted by Team Continental, from the 2009 Championship. In spite of Herculean efforts by T.C. and the full support of the e-board, the owners and managers of O.R.P. have been unable to complete the necessary track certification. Our insurance carrier will not insure an event staged on a new racetrack until that venue has received certification for racing by a recognized sanctioning body (i.e. F.I.A., S.C.C.A. or A.S.N.) This is not a new policy and has been in effect for a number of years. Headquarters is obligated to abide by ICSCC Competition rules #206, #207 and Policy and Procedures #15.2.1. These rules prohibit ICSCC from scheduling, sanctioning or conducting an event without having insurance in place, insurance that we are unable to purchase for O.R.P. until certification requirements are completed.” (there’s more, but that’s the essence)
Good references to policy. So I might understand this to say that, if those sanctions would provide insurance to race on a given circuit, then ICSCC’s insurance provider (same one?) will allow a certificate of insurance to be issued, and ICSCC may then race on it too.
So is the ICSCC’s insurance carrier (this year) using FIA’s Appendix “O” in Spokane’s situation? Or SCCA’s? And what other ASNs would be considered in authority regarding the qualifications necessary for the issuance of an insurance provider’s policy?
ORP receives certification Posted 11/16/2009 Jonathan sez: “Oregon Raceway Park received its SCCA certification and is now sanctioned to hold competition racing events."
Later Steve Adams sez: “Actually, it turns out there's no such thing as an "SCCA certification." It has, however, been approved for SCCA-sanctioned events... which amounts to the same thing as far as ICSCC is concerned.”
And pretty much everybody else sez: "Yay! Finally! Let’s go racing!" Or something to that affect
So again, thanks Steve. We still don’t know exactly what specific standard that the insurance carrier’s policy mandates for insurability. Only to say that, if any other recognized race sanctioning body other than ICSCC will provide sanction insurance for racing, then there are no reasons left to deny ICSCC insurability too.
Of course, the body of the ICSCC Executive Board may realize any reasons through their own devices. But that's just crazy talk.
Also, I’m happy that my rants regarding the term, “certification” were qualified. Unless the term is used in reference to the insurance certificate that must be issued (and usually must be presented to the facility operators per usage agreement).
I’d like to think that Appendix “O” is the particular standard guideline for ASN, which is to say SCCA. Because that document is easily available, and I’m still trying to find any specific documentation that SCCA uses to define proper construction and configuration for a racing circuit’s acceptance for sanction.
Still that niggling question remains. Is the local Stewardship of NWRSCCA in the drivers’ seat to qualify this newly configured Spokane Co. Raceway Park road coarse circuit, or was NWMS also forced to hire a representative from FIA/SCCA/ASN to consult, and issue a punch-list to be completed by June 15th. It's a true shame that the track development fund, or whatever it was called, disappeared a couple years back. That sure might have helped events like these along.
Not surprisingly, I have another question.
Who, whom, or what is NWMS really waiting for?
