231 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

I'm not entirely confident that this is the appropriate Forum for this topic - but what do our Aussie chums know/feel about this recent challenge to existing CAMS/FIA authority in amateur motor sport? Most notably, for TNF, in the Historic world????? I must say it all sounds pretty good fun....but is it???

For those who don't know, CAMS - the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport - has been lampooned for decades as being the 'Conspiracy Against Motor Sport' and it has a reputation - not always fitting - for being stiff, inflexible, self-important and generally unhelpful. As I - as a pom, 12,000 miles from the seat of the fire - understand it, at the Winton Historic meeting CAMS as the national governing body tried to charge an inflated fee for the standard event permit which Mick Ronke, the Winton promoter, declined to pay.

Instead, he and associated circuit promoters unleashed their secret weapon - their own sanctioning organisation, the AAA, providing public liability and personal insurance cover for competitors and officials without recourse to CAMS - which, as the national sporting body affiliated to the FIA, would normally provide, and charge for.

AAA I'm told shared part of the permit fee saving with their Winton competitors by reducing the entry fees, and now AAA seems to be poised to topple CAMS from wider motor sporting involvement in a number of other Australian events, not only Historic, but current Formulae as well....which I find truly fascinating; thin end of the wedge stuff. Is the FIA/national governing bodies' bluff being called at last - has it been recognised that the CAMS/FIA Emperor really has no new clothes and is stark naked - or is this a daft move surely doomed to disaster?

DCN

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
.....Is the FIA/national governing bodies' bluff being called at last - has it been recognised that the CAMS/FIA Emperor really has no new clothes and is stark naked - or is this a daft move surely doomed to disaster?

It's been called before, you know...

Doug, you must have been waiting for me to get out of bed. Lucky you are, too, because I'm basically offline for the next week.

The first major challenge to the CAMS' authority was a round Australia trial held about 1957/58... the people behind it were the people who had given up Bathurst in 1952 and taken on Gnoo Blas for whatever reasons, the Australian Sporting Car Club.

They ran their event, but then faced 'Court Martials' from CAMS and various penalties were applied. CAMS was young at this time, just a few years old, and they were out to set examples to cement their authority over potential rebels. Alex Strachan was one who received a lifetime ban from motor sport, a tough situation for a man who had always shown a devotion to the sport that few equalled, and there were many others.

Periodically there would be a similar occurrence when a driver appeared in a speedway event, speedway being separate from the CAMS system, but there was always some degree of turning of blind eyes in some places (like WA, for instance) and drivers entering rebel events at Bright, Wargunyah and similar dirt circuits in Victoria got away with it (usually) by using non-de-wheels.

So the pattern was set. CAMS members were in awe of the power of the governing body and feared being banned from their beloved sport. An irony is that the people who copped the flak in that late fifties sorting-out were the same ones who put Warwick Farm together... and I'm told that the way CAMS dealt with Warwick Farm showed that there was continued animosity towards these background people.

It was Bob Jane who finally sat the CAMS down and showed them that they weren't able to treat people this way.

Let's face it, the law of the land is above any CAMS or FIA law, right? And during the sixties a new law came into being in the land... The Trade Practices Act was enacted Federally and set forth rules about fair competition in business. The court ruled that motor racing, from a promoter's point of view, was business.

Bob Jane had the CAMS on toast over certain issues, and he pummelled them in the court. But he stopped short of destroying them, he left them there to administer racing and hoped they had learned their lesson. He was given a delegation as a result of this action that allowed him to run his Auscar racing in his own way, but it was still under the CAMS. In other words, like the Australian Karting Association, he was the governing body for a form of sport that was authorised by the CAMS but not under their direct control.

The AKA is another story, one of ineptitude gone mad. But I'm not sure of the whole thing so I'll leave that aside.

Even with Jane's example, there were still people in fear of the CAMS. In 1997, for instance, Max Stahl got jack of the high insurance costs associated with running the Camp Quality Caper (a charity rally) under the CAMS and told his crew he'd sourced his insurance elsewhere and was running without the august body in Melbourne.

The septigenarian Des West, whose racing career spanned the whole of the sixties and a bit each side, and who competed in some rallying a little later on, but hadn't competed for years, told Max he couldn't be the course checker any more, or take part in any way because he didn't want to lose his CAMS licence.

For a while the Wakefield Park circuit had been running under Paul Samuels' direction without the CAMS. Because this was post-Jane's court case, the CAMS merely told them they'd be happy to sanction their racing when they changed their minds. And from time to time Wakefield ran events under the CAMS, but they had their own licensing system and ran most meetings without CAMS.

There were no reprisals for CAMS members competing there, in stark contrast to that trial in the fifties. CAMS, it would seem, had learned...

But the CAMS were going through some expensive times. They sold off the rights to the biggest racing series, the Australian Touring Car Championship, to AVESCO and then dealt with this group in such a way that they finished up not getting the just reward. But it was run under the CAMS authority.

Seemingly aloof from all realities, they were making decisions in their ivory tower that impacted tremendously on lower-rank competitors. Circa 1996 they demanded that all competitors in circuit events had triple-layer fireproof gear of the same standard used in F1. Fees were increasing yearly, and by handsome amounts in a general economic climate that was almost devoid of inflation.

In Historic racing circles they lowered the boom on competitors by demanding that all cars should have a 'Certificate of Description'... a document that laid out its history that had to be researched by the owner and put together by or for him, then approved by the CAMS and then they had to pay some huge fee for the privilege. This in addition to a log book, which got dearer all the time.

And if your car hadn't been log-booked by the beginning of this year, its roll cage or roll bar structure had no longer merely to comply to the CAMS specifications. You now have to have an engineer give a certificate and you must present this with the drawings to the CAMS for log book notation. Engineers might only charge you $250 for this, or maybe $400, but the CAMS applied a charge of $110 for inspecting the certificate and noting the book!

Of course, insurance costs were rising and just a couple of years ago the insurers put a $25,000 excess on any claim lodged. CAMS sheeted the responsibility for this excess to the promoters of major meetings, but copped it themselves for smaller events. A fund was set up to cover the costs...

The circuit owners last year got together and looked at the impact all this was making on grass roots racing, their bread and butter. They decided to set up their own system to enable them to provided the insurances and licences that would enable car clubs to continue to hire their circuits at a rate commensurate with the budgets of lower rank entrants. So was formed the Australian Auto-sports Alliance. They steadily advanced their plans with Wakefield Park, Oran Park, Winton, Calder and a couple of other circuits in train, paving the way to do this properly.

About March this year Bob Jane decided that Calder would no longer have anything to do with the CAMS. He shuffled his company structure so that the CAMS licence for the circuit would lapse and started preparing plans for circuit upgrades that were becoming necessary. He also set aside a budget for works to reinstate the Adelaide International Raceway some time in the near future, all of this with an eye to the steadily advancing state of preparedness of the AAA.

About July the CAMS announced that they had been able to secure their insurances for the coming year with no increase in charges! Their press releases waxed lyrical about this coup, but failed to note that the excess had grown from $25,000 to $100,000 and that the insurance companies no longer accepted litigation costs relating to claims as being outside the scope of the excess.

So, while a claim might be $30,000, the litigation might be twice that, and the whole amount was uninsured!

Prodded by interests close to the AAA, who knew theses details, the CAMS issued a fresh press release announcing that the $100,000 excess would be covered by the CAMS. But would this self-insurance reduce the cost to promoters who'd been fitted with the $25,000 excess that previously applied? It looked like CAMS were finally becoming a benevolent society...

And they soon saw this, and they covered their tails by sending faxes to the circuits explaining that the $25,000 would still be the circuits' responsibility. This wasn't publicised.

All was rosy in the garden...

Then the AAA put forth their insurance, sourced from the same brokers, which had 18 points of coverage not included in the CAMS' insurance. And with no excesses. The only real difference was that there was a ceiling of $10,000,000 per claim instead of CAMS' ceiling of ten times that. Mind you, the state governments don't ask anything like that of any sporting bodies and there has never been a claim in that realm.

In the midst of this, Winton put in their permit application for their Historic 'Festival' meeting in October. The $10,000 permit fee was the standard one, and it was approved. But then Mick Ronke responded to requests and decided to allow some '80s touring cars and late '80s FFs run at the meeting. These blokes have no place to race and it seemed a good thing to do... so he told the CAMS he was adding these classes to the list they already had.

"That will put the permit fee up to $17,000," he was told. "But that's the same as a title event fee," he responded. "Oh, yes, sorry, well a $12,000 fee will cover that meeting then."

Now Ronke knew that other circuits ran extra classes on top of their Historic fields without this impost, so he asked CAMS to negotiate a figure between the $10,000 and $12,000 sums.

"Do you mean to say," Rob Nethercote of the CAMS said to Mick on the phone, "that for the sake of $2,000 you would go elsewhere?"... elsewhere meaning AAA, of course.

"Do you mean to say," Mick replied, "that for the sake of less than $2,000 you would lose the meeting altogether?"

Nethercote terminated the conversation. Arrangements were made to accelerate the AAA's position so they could sanction the race meeting. This was not in their original plans, but they did it and the event ran smoothly.

There was some dissension among the ranks. The Victorian Flagging Team officially told their members they weren't to go to the event, or that if they did they weren't to have their VFT badges visible. Members of the team didn't like this...

CAMS are said to have gone to certain frontline officials and explained to them that if they helped out at Winton they might no longer be on the list of people invited to assist at the Australian Grand Prix.

And at the same time, the Jaguar club were arranging some kind of event at Calder and received a letter from the CAMS telling them that if it went ahead (remember, Calder no longer has a CAMS track licence) the CAMS could not guarantee they would get permission to run events under the CAMS sanction in the future. "Other clubs would be asked to decide that issue," the letter apparently said.

In the end, Winton had its full complement of officials. The VFT had had a change of heart when the office bearers started listening to their members and arrived in strength. Not only that, they wore their badges quite openly and proudly, and they told Mick Ronke that they wanted to use their own flags, not those belonging to the circuit!

The scrutineers, apparently under quite some pressure from the CAMS, phoned Ronke and told him they would be there... just in case he was concerned.

A fortnight before the event, a peace pipe was offered to Winton by the CAMS. They were told they could have their permit for the original $10,000 and the CAMS would be happy to sanction the event. Not only that, there would be no late fee charged!

This was naturally rejected... AAA's fee was $7,000. Oh, and going back to your question about entry fees, no this meeting didn't have reduced entry fees. But that will come. And other lovely things will come. Licence costs under the AAA will be minimal, and providing the licences are issued under the same conditions as the CAMS' licences the CAMS will have to accept them at their events!

As CAMS log books weren't required at this meeting, cars which otherwise aren't allowed to race for obscure or purely obstructive reasons got to run. One driver, who competed through the sixties and seventies before losing an eye in the early nineties, had his first race since that accident... CAMS' insist that monocular vision is unacceptable for a CAMS licence, but allow monocular overseas racers to compete in International events!

The dam wall is bursting and there are many people who look forward to new freedoms that will allow them to race more freely. Graeme Snape, for instance, has had a runnning battle with the CAMS over the necessity to put an "A" symbol on his car to denote alcohol fuel. "Why should I," he insists, "it never had it when it was built and if there's a fire it simply means you can put it out with water!" The Eclipse Zephyr is a lovely thing and should be aired... it seems that now it will...

And so it was, smiles were returning to the faces of people who knew how to enjoy their Historic racing and there were no untoward incidents. In fact, the meeting kept getting ahead of schedule and extra races were thrown in. Unfortunately, local heavy rains in places like Wangaratta and Albury and Shepparton early in the day deterred many spectators.

Oh yes, there was one more thing. The CAMS insisted that Winton advise everyone present that the meeting was being run without CAMS sanction. For shame!

So Mick had huge signs painted up that adorned the entry gates. "THIS IS A CAMS FREE EVENT!"

And everybody smiled as the tables were turned on the dictators... enjoyment of the day was paramount, Bob Jane came along for support, one of the men running Queensland Raceway was there to see how it went (and to race his FF) and I think there was also someone there from Hidden Valley (Darwin)....

At the end of the day, at the trophy presentation, announcements were made about AAA's operations. One that the drivers liked was that there would be no fines for evildoing... "We will have a points system," said Philip Smiles from AAA, "and when you get up so many points you won't be able to race again until you've spent a day flagging." Different. John Medley might comment about the severity of some CAMS fines.

And speaking of CAMS... there was a CAMS official there, quietly keeping to himself.

With his binoculars he checked out which officials were manning flag points and doing the scrutineering and noting their names in a book...

[Dick Willis]

While Ray has covered the Winton event very well, I think there are a few things I should, as a competitor at that meeting, point out.
I am concerned that allowing unlogbooked cars, and I am talking about cars in the racing and sports racing categories that require a Cof D, not sedans and production sports cars, to compete could allow a dilution of our eligibily criteria for these cars. Cars racing in Australia in the above mentioned categories have to comply with extremely strict eligibility inspection procedures by CAMS, although I do believe that in many cases these are really " over the top ".
But by allowing non Cof D cars to compete on an ongoing basis, can you imagine the results of the floodgates being opened.
Currently in Queensland we have competing in hillclimb and sprint events, where a C of D is not required, a 1959 Milano sports with a 350 Chev engine, Cobra replicas being entered a 1966 Cobras etc. In the racing classes how long would it take before we have Hewland gearboxes in cars which originally had VW boxes and six inch rims on cars which originally had four inch, both these " concessions " are available under FIA specs but I maintain that we must, in Australia, continue to ensure that our cars continue to accurately portray the period they are intended to represent.
However, while supporting the present eligibility system, I do believe that the CAMS people need to become a little more realistic and abstain from many of the nit picking items they now indulge in, such as, in a car that I own, worrying about the colour of the oil filter, or another chap I know had to change the colour of his gear lever knob !
Over the last few years we seem to have, every year, a new item which CAMS insist we must comply with such as, the FIA driving suits, the fire extinguishers, last year the seat belts can't exceed their expiry date and now the roll bar thing we have to contend with. Granted, these are all safety items, but every time a new one is introduced some more competitors fall by the wayside.
We, in historics, have to comply with the same safety criteria as required to race a V8 supercar which is driven every fortnight and then over a great distance as opposed to our cars which may only race 3 or 4 times a year and then only in a few 5 lap races.
To summarise, what I would like to see is a compromise with CAMS becoming more realistic in their attitude to eligibility and safety towards historic cars, and the AASA people only accepting entries from cars which comply with our long established eligibility criteria otherwise our " historic " racing will become a farce.

[Ray Bell]

Actually Dick, I spoke with Philip Smiles about the C of D issue at Winton... he was mortified to think that CAMS would charge so much!

We discussed a solution, and I must say that the intent is that 'Historic' should still mean 'Historic' and that it's up to the organisers to decide which cars can and can't compete.

For instance, in Regularity down there we had a D-type replica. The owner only wants to run it in Regularities, he's happy that everyone knows it's a replica, and under the CAMS' rules he would be allowed to run it as such in Regularities!

But his entry has been denied him at Phillip Islands and at Sandowns because there is a resistance from the clubs involved towards allowing replicas.

Now that's the first D-type I've seen on the circuit in over fifteen years. I don't know how long it is since one set tyre on a circuit, but it must be a while. Why not, if the CAMS allow it, run in Regularities?

Sure, a watering down of the classes shouldn't be countenanced. That Cobra example you cite is ridiculous, it should never be allowed to happen. But, again, the organising club should take care of that. And I think that happens under CAMS, too, doesn't it?

What were the other silly arguments I heard about? Oh, yes, the John Evans TC... after a long battle, the owner convinced the CAMS that it had Webers 'in the period'... which it did. Now they're arguing about the rear mudguards, saying that no TC ran 'in the period' with other than original guards!

I was able to supply him with a photo from the March 1965 Oran Park that proved his point, but how long will it take to get that past the CAMS?

And what about the stress tests demanded of drivers over 60? Are they really necessary? Are the, in fact, as much a danger to the health of the driver as anything else?

On the roll bar/cage issue, Smiles suggested that he'd get an engineer to each race meeting, pay him a fee (say $200 for the day) and then any new cars could be approved on the spot for $20. Or given the appropriate instructions on modifications that might be required.

The idea of AAA is to work with the competitor, not against him. The purpose is to allow more competitors to turn out and use the circuits, thus ensuring continued and consistent income for the circuit owners. By which means the continuity of the circuits is assured...

It's going to be an interesting year!

[Doug Nye]

Coo - reading these responses has raised a birthday smile . Obviously details to be smoothed over but loosening the grip of the blazered bureaucracy like this MUST be good for the future of amateur and enthusiast motor sport. I am impressed. But is there a contrary view?

DCN

[David McKinney]

I only know what I've read here
But one obvious hitch seems to present itself in that CAMS is an affiliate of the FIA, and the ASN for Australia. That might not concern any breakaway group unlikely to aspire to international meetings, but I imagine there could be ramifications for any non-Australian who might one day wish to compete in Oz events not sanctioned by CAMS (and thus the FIA)
Having just read my comments through, it sounds as if I'm defending CAMS. That is far from my intention. But Doug did ask for a contrary view ;)

[john medley]

I have little to add to the discussion.
Ray's historical treatise is pretty accurate , Dick's competitor's viewpoint is a view I share , and David's perhaps cautionary note is valid--- although in the short run international involvement is not part of the problem, because at the heart of the problem is the desire of promoters and circuits to survive in a world made more expensive and economically difficult by CAMS in particular and AVESCO ( whichever of these runs Australian Motor Sport.... ).
When AVESCO deliberately decides to create street circuits to run the impressive, popular, and competitive V8 Touring Cars on ( so that existing circuits lose trade) , and when CAMS calendar construction policy is that AVESCO goes first and picks all the best dates and the rest of us squabble over what's left ( Historic Winton 2003 thus found itself bumped from a weekend it had occupied for over a quarter of a century) , it gives you some idea of how the organizations CAMS was originally designed to serve and coordinate feel : not just bemused and frustrated , but risking economic ruin and financial collapse too.
It probably isnt any more expensive to race a car here in Australia than elsewhere , but CAMS has a talent to make it feel that way : Ray's mention of the CAMS Historic Certificate of Description illustrates . I thought that when one of the strongest original founder clubs of the CAMS , the Vintage Sports Car Club of Australia ( NSW) , decided to withdraw from CAMS in recent years , it was a telling move , done deliberately because CAMS was too expensive and no longer served a useful purpose for the VSCCA --- which still runs speed events.
The quite recent formation of the Golden Era Auto Racing Club ( GEAR) was built on great dissatisfaction with CAMS , and GEAR became one of the cornerstones of Triple A ( now AASA). GEAR clubs began in states other than NSW. Ditto Wakefield Park circuit , built to run events outside CAMS ( although the famous "closing radius corners" have been modified so both CAMS and non CAMS events now run there.)
I dont know what the future holds , but I think we need AASA here .

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David McKinney
I only know what I've read here
But one obvious hitch seems to present itself in that CAMS is an affiliate of the FIA, and the ASN for Australia. That might not concern any breakaway group unlikely to aspire to international meetings, but I imagine there could be ramifications for any non-Australian who might one day wish to compete in Oz events not sanctioned by CAMS (and thus the FIA)
Having just read my comments through, it sounds as if I'm defending CAMS. That is far from my intention. But Doug did ask for a contrary view ;)

Yes, David, you're right... the links between Australia and the FIA become tenuous, perhaps disjointed... but when all things have been considered, the FIA simply have to accept it.

If, for instance, a government decided that any of the FIA's many representative ASNs around the world was not to have any further part in running the sport in that country, what would the FIA be able to do about it?

Now we have had the situation where the CAMS have tried to get some quasi-legal status recently. NSW is the only state that actually issues track licences, and the CAMS tried on at least two occasions to lobby the NSW Government to enact legislation that gave total control of motor sport within the state to the CAMS.

This was another factor that strengthened the move towards the formation of the AAA. Circuit owners saw the dangers of this move and banded together and lobbied the Government to ensure that it didn't happen... and not only for the sake of NSW... if this had taken place, the precendent might well have been followed in other states.

When you see that the CAMS paid something like $100 for the track licences and onsold them to the circuits for something in the order of $10,000, you begin to understand what dangers were involved!

David, any International driver coming here would be able to use their International licence to run at an AAA meeting, I'm sure. If not, they could use it to qualify for an AAA licence at worst.

Also, regarding the issue of International licences, I recall hearing about a driver who couldn't get a licence for F3000 or something a couple of years ago... the CAMS were insisting that he go through an involved process working up to that level over a period.

It didn't suit him, he went to Switzerland, paid the money and got what he wanted over the counter!

It seems that this issue is easily overcome.

Another thing I didn't mention is that the member-base of the CAMS has been shrinking alarmingly. In two years, the projected loss of total numbers of licence holders is something in the order of 4000.

Out of 18,000 or 19,000, I don't have the exact figures with me.

Yet the overall costs of running the CAMS escalates... so the cost per member is going up beyond what might be termed reasonable. And this in turn will exacerbate the member-loss problem.

There is one member of this forum who has determined in his own mind that the CAMS will never again get another dollar from him... he is not alone... Graeme Snape is in that category too, isn't he John? Or close to it... and Mal Biddlecombe too?

A friend of mine is a member of a Ford Falcon-based car club... they have dumped CAMS because they found that they could save over 35% every year on the insurances needed for the events they run.

One thing that's going to be interesting is to see what happens regarding AVESCO's presence in Melbourne.

It's looking like Sandown Park may not remain in place, and while I feel sorry for Jon if he loses his venue, I can well understand the circumstances behind the Turf Club's potential decision to wipe motor racing on their property.

They have acquired a new site and apparently intend building a replacement horse racing venue there. Recent events have shown the safety barriers on the motor racing circuit in severe want, and if they are only looking at a year or so before moving out anyway, it's possible they might cut their losses and not bother fixing this problem.

So, unfortunately, Sandown might well be in its death throes right now.

Calder, as we all know, will not be running any events under the CAMS.

Albert Park hosts AVESCO cars, but not a round of their championship.

So if Sandown dies, and Calder remains on the blacklists of the CAMS and AVESCO, and if nobody wants the Touring Cars to try and upstage the Grand Prix, Melbourne could well be without an ATCC event.

Phillip Island has apparently already lost their round for some reason or other, and that leaves just Winton to host a Victorian round... and they're right now planning their second race meeting under AAA sanction... will that turn the CAMS against them too?

I think this is building up into an interesting struggle... which it should never be! The members of the AAA never intended putting CAMS right into the background, but sought only to ensure their own financial future in the face of CAMS ever-increasing charges. Confrontation from the CAMS has led to an upscaling of the efforts and desires of the AAA members.

And they have the law of the land on their side... in that the Trade Practices Act prohibits anyone working against any form of commercial competition. And remember, the courts have already decided the promoting motor sport is a commercial venture.

While the fear of reprisals from the CAMS (dating back to that '50s experience, remember?) still prevents some from taking the leap of faith, I believe that the numbers retaining that fear will fall dramatically in the coming months. More will cross the line, then all will see it's safe and the CAMS' former absolute power will be gone for all time.

If they don't take steps to nurture the relationships that still exist, I think they will be in trouble...

And John, just a small point, but my memory says that the first few Austin 7 Club Wintons were actually on the June long weekend, not in May?

Originally posted by Doug Nye
.....reading these responses has raised a birthday smile . Obviously details to be smoothed over but loosening the grip of the blazered bureaucracy like this MUST be good for the future of amateur and enthusiast motor sport.

You speak as if you know them personally, Doug...

You're right, absolutely, it must be good for the future of the amateur and enthusiast and their sport. There are hundreds of competitors already who are delighted, this will swell to thousands very quickly...

But there is another possibility. New circuits!

The CAMS bureaucracy stifles everything, and I would think that new circuits are going to come on stream before too long. I'm looking to see Darlington Park start to develop, and that's a great place. There are exciting times ahead...

[David McKinney]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
David, any International driver coming here would be able to use their International licence to run at an AAA meeting, I'm sure. If not, they could use it to qualify for an AAA licence at worst.

That's the easy part of the problem
If CAMS retains influence with the FIA, it could ask the world body to take action against drivers competing in "outlaw" races... Such things have happened before

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Also, regarding the issue of International licences, I recall hearing about a driver who couldn't get a licence for F3000 or something a couple of years ago... the CAMS were insisting that he go through an involved process working up to that level over a period.
It didn't suit him, he went to Switzerland, paid the money and got what he wanted over the counter!

Yes, that sort of thing has always happened, and no doubt will again

[Doug Nye]

The concern Dave raises is precisely the same as mine - sanctions taken against participants in 'outlaw' events by the great and Godly FIA. Under Australian law CAMS came badly unstuck when they tried this during the Bob Jane affair mentioned by Ray and presumably UK/EU law would today similarly protect FIA licence holders should they be threatened in such a manner by the issuing body.

But this is an intriguing matter which will have to be clarified for all concerned - otherwise if AAA should manage to become pre-eminent in Aussie racing it's going to be a very parochial national affair off-limits to furriners....without International entries, or at least none of any FIA-recognised kind.

Don't you just love revolution? Come the glorious day the blazerati will all be left dangling from debris-fence poles and floodlight stanchions...as an awful warning to others...

DCN - (wearing voluminous black cloak, floppy-brimmed black hat and clutching black-painted sphere with fizzing fuse and white lettering which reads 'BOMB'... )

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David McKinney
.....If CAMS retains influence with the FIA, it could ask the world body to take action against drivers competing in "outlaw" races... Such things have happened before.....

If the CAMS did this, they would be in breach of the Trade Practices Act...

The AAA could ask the Federal Government to shut them down, basically, if they did that repeatedly.

Certainly they would find themselves in a lot of hot water... though their present arrogance is probably running at a sufficiently high level to encourage them to try something like this.

But don't forget that some circuits have been running non-CAMS meetings for up to ten years. Queensland Raceway, Hidden Valley, Wakefield Park. CAMS has not done anything to date... if they did now, and they seem to be taking covert steps to undermine the AAA, it might mean that they understand that the heirarchy are in danger of losing their power base.

Bob Jane is in no mood for toying with them, don't worry... he's seething about what they've done to him over the years and I expect he will be ready to pounce with all the legal force he can muster.

I wonder what International ramifications this could have?

[David McKinney]

Like it or not, the FIA is the still the controlling body of motorsport throughout the world
Powers for administering the FIA's rules in specific countries are devolved to the relevant ASNs
If one of those ASNs (eg CAMS) reports that FIA-licensed drivers are in breach of FIA rules, the FIA could be expected to take action against those drivers
Would Peter Giddings continue to race in Australia, in unsanctioned events, if he thought the FIA, through its ASN in the USA, might take his racing licence away? Would New Zealand entrants do likewise?
I can't see the FIA being frightened off by any country's Trade Practices Act
Of course what could happen is that there is sufficient opposition to CAMS within Australia for the AAA to ask the FIA to appoint a new ASN, ie the AAA. No doubt there are those working towards that end right now.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I'm looking to see Darlington Park start to develop, and that's a great place. There are exciting times ahead...

Darlington Park is indeed an exciting proposition. I think this is exactly what SE Qld requires. Morgan Park is a great venue, but it is too far from Brisbane. I still hold hope for Lakeside, but am not holding my breath.

Thank you Ray and others for shedding some light on this subject. As a grass roots competitor with a very limited budget, these are indeed interesting times.

Cheers,

Cal.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by David McKinney
.....I can't see the FIA being frightened off by any country's Trade Practices Act
Of course what could happen is that there is sufficient opposition to CAMS within Australia for the AAA to ask the FIA to appoint a new ASN, ie the AAA. No doubt there are those working towards that end right now.

Could be there are...

But I think it's important to remember that the Federal Government holds greater power than any sporting body. The Trade Practices Act is the law of the land... by what law, French, International or otherwise do the FIA hold their power?

What I'm saying is that I think, in an International court, the law of the land would take precedence over the rules of any sporting body...

And I wouldn't challenge Janey or Tony Perich or Mick Ronke to not go that far.

The CAMS, when still reeling from the demolition they received at the hand of Bob Jane in the early nineties, went cap in hand to Wakefield Park - at that time running without CAMS - and explained that CAMS would be very happy to see them come under their wing one day.

No threats, no bans, not issues, the CAMS were asking nicely...

[David McKinney]

Continuing the hypothetical Peter Giddings scenario
He races in an AAA event
Back home in the US he gets a call from ACCUS (or whoever the US ASN is these days) who say he has breached FIA rules by competing in a non-sanctioned event and could he please return his racing licence in the next post
I can't see any Australian law having much effect on that

[Ray Bell]

I can...

This action, in your scenario, has been precipitated by the CAMS. This is a breach of the Trade Practices Act, a Federal law in Australia.

That law is being overruled by a sporting body that (it appears to me) has no authority under any international law or treaty.

A challenge to the ACCUS' action in an International court must win...

But more likely, the issue would not arise. The CAMS would have to understand that stepping out and asking the FIA to take this action would land them in hot water.

There have, of course been many instances in the past where drivers from America have gone outside FIA-sanctioned circles to race in Australia. A J Foyt, among many others, have raced on Australia's speedways and the CAMS and FIA and ACCUS have taken no action.

[Stephen Rowe]

Originally posted by David McKinney
Like it or not, the FIA is the still the controlling body of motorsport throughout the world
Powers for administering the FIA's rules in specific countries are devolved to the relevant ASNs
If one of those ASNs (eg CAMS) reports that FIA-licensed drivers are in breach of FIA rules, the FIA could be expected to take action against those drivers
Would Peter Giddings continue to race in Australia, in unsanctioned events, if he thought the FIA, through its ASN in the USA, might take his racing licence away? Would New Zealand entrants do likewise?
I can't see the FIA being frightened off by any country's Trade Practices Act

However, given the number of sanctioning bodies in the US, is this going to be of concern to him or anyone else there?

As Ray pointed out, in Australia, no one body has any legal right to organise motor sport - and it is extremely unlikely that the Federal Government will legislate authorising anyone or giving anyone exclusive control here.

CAMS, however, continue to act as if they have this exclusivity - not only from their paid employees, but many senior/key officials see CAMS as the only motor sport organiser in the country.

CAMS, as Ray pointed out, did not learn from their legal fight with Bob Jane in the early 1990's - this of course starting just as CART put the GOld Coast Indy GP in their schedule - because of Bob's tie with NASCAR and Super Speedway, it fell to AUSCAR Racing Pty Ltd to become the sanctioning body for the Gold Coast support events - leading to the absolutely ridiculous situation where Porsche drivers, who regularly competed in CAMS sanctioned events, had to adopt false names in order to run. This was eventually cleared up but a number of key officials who also worked CAMS meetings received threats of sanctions that would be taken - with more than a few being 'overlooked' for AGP positions they had previously held.

[Stephen Rowe]

There is already another side to this issue of international licences.

Just last month saw at least one International driver refuse to give up his International FIA licence because CAMS and the promoters had not issued an international Permit for the Sandown 500 - this meant that the only way the driver could race (under CAMS and FIA guidelines) was to give up his International licence, take out a CAMS Australian licence, race, and then return home with his local and CAMS licence but NOT his International one - which he wouldn't be able to get back until 2004.

[Ray Bell]

Stephen, it's not so much the authority of the CAMS in Australia that I'm talking about here...

I'm of the belief that the FIA has no standing under any International law or treaty. The authority that the FIA has, AFAIK, is merely on their own say-so.

[Stephen Rowe]

I'm not 100% sure on this but it may have some authority under the UN Charters.

But - regardless - each country would have to ratify any agreement for it to have world wide authority.

Failing this (or even if it does have) the way the majority of democratic countries are heading (including the EU) - most are outlawing the influence or control a single body can have on anything - instead favouring the competitive type market.

[ranbo38]

could i ask ray bell to clarify something for me please.

to quote you ray, "the court ruled that motor racing from a PROMOTERS point of view, was a business."

The trade practices act i am assuming is a type of legislation that covers things like restraint of trade issues, which is basically what we are talking about here. correct?

What david has been bringing up with you is the plight of the drivers and the ramifications of competing in non cams/fia sanctioned events.You have used the trade practices act to suggest that ramifications from cams/fia towards drivers can't happen.

But here is where i am struggling. The courts have said the promoters are involved in a business activity, but have they ruled that AMATEUR drivers are conducting a business activity.

Are AMATEUR DRIVERS protected under this legislation

[Stephen Rowe]

The Australian Trade Practices Act prevents one body from having a monopoly control over a particular area under certain conditions. It also prevents one body from attempting to force people to abide by their instructions IF there are alternatives available - similar to a union closed shop practice where a trade union would attempt to say you had to belong to the union in order to work there. Although this is covered under seperate legislation, it is the practice that is outlawed for motor sport.

Given, also, that motor sport is not covered under any law or regulation in Australia, CAMS (or any other body for that matter) cannot claim to have any legal right to control motor sport.

One of the provisions of the TPA is that dealing with market power - the act makes it illegal, in Australia, to refuse to supply goods and services for anti-competitive purposes ie trying to put a competitor out of business.

Third line forcing is another important concept under this act - and this is partially what CAMS have tried to do by forcing tracks to take out the insurance CAMS has negotiated instead of permitting the tracks to negotiate their own insurance.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Stephen Rowe
.....One of the provisions of the TPA is that dealing with market power - the act makes it illegal, in Australia, to refuse to supply goods and services for anti-competitive purposes ie trying to put a competitor out of business.....

This is the power under which any action by the FIA would face problems. We are talking here, in the case of David's hypothetical situation, of an attempt to restrict 'trade' in Australia. Having an international driver come to compete in a meeting would be considered as a marketing exercise... the promoter is buying in a name from overseas to attract customers to his event.

If they took action against such a driver before, during or after such an event they would be seen to hampering the 'trade' that promoter was conducting. I really don't think they would be totally unassailable.

I would really like to know if the FIA do have some legal authority to hold the position they have...

[Stephen Rowe]

Although I haven't had this confirmed, I believe that there was talk of Magnussen at Sandown legally challenging the requirement by CAMS to hand in his International licence - but, from my understanding and information, because this only came to light for them about 2-3 weeks before the event, they decided not to run with it and, at this stage, let it go.

[Doug Nye]

That International licence arrangement under which a holder would have to relinquish the document - take out a national licence relevant to the foreign event in which he wishes (or needs) to compete - and then would not be allowed to renew the international licence until the start of a new calendar year is outrageous.

Yet national authorities have tried to enforce it.

The effect is not so bad right at the end of a year - now for instance - when the event in question might be the last on this year's calendar, but earlier in the year it is indeed a monstrous imposition.

The intention was to prevent drivers with International credit opting in and out of national Championships along the way and cleaning them up...clubbing baby seals as Bobby Rahal put it.

Application of common sense works wonders, however, something in which CAMS (by reputation) has hardly been a world leader during its long history....

As for Ray's line "I would really like to know if the FIA do have some legal authority to hold the position they have..." - this is being asked increasingly. They have some pat answer, but maybe the day is not far off when this is going to be tested through the courts...

DCN

[Falcadore]

Originally posted by Cal


Darlington Park is indeed an exciting proposition. I think this is exactly what SE Qld requires. Morgan Park is a great venue, but it is too far from Brisbane. I still hold hope for Lakeside, but am not holding my breath.

Thank you Ray and others for shedding some light on this subject. As a grass roots competitor with a very limited budget, these are indeed interesting times.

Cheers,

Cal.

Speaking personally the new circuit about to begin construction at Kilcoy will probably bu SEQ's long term future. Darlington Park still needs a LOT of development, CAMS or no CAMS. There isn't even a pits or timing equipment, both high ticket items, and requiring a long term commitment to the venue which is already beginning to come under Amaroo style encroachment. Rumours of the sites demolition continue, although Ray's recent words on that subject are encouraging.

The Pine Shire Council is trapped between a rock and a hard place now over Lakeside, but forces within are still poised to snap like a cornered snake if they are to be pushed. They are still contemplating an appeal against the heritage listing, despite the fact they have been informed that there are no grounds and it would just become a lawyers christmas party fund raising exrcise, paid for by Pine Shire residents, like me.

Additionally Pine Shire supposedly fears a threat of legal action of the sale of Lakeside if it could be deemed the circuit sales process was conducted unfairly with the PRSC's partial ownership of the circuit being used to deter other buyers, who were willing to pay higher, indeed much higher prices than what the circuit was sold for.

However Lakeside has had no maintenance done on it and is decaying rapidly to the point where it might not be usable by the time all the 'legalling' is done. Already its becoming apparent major armco replacement will be neccessary.

At local level here in SEQ, some AASA events have already been held, at QR I believe, although I've not attended any.

The story of the F3000 driver in Switzerland was amusing. QR recent played host to a young Swiss racing driver who moved to Australia for a year to qualify for his international licence. He drove the FF you probably saw running at Winton I think Ray.

[Falcadore]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Stephen, it's not so much the authority of the CAMS in Australia that I'm talking about here...

I'm of the belief that the FIA has no standing under any International law or treaty. The authority that the FIA has, AFAIK, is merely on their own say-so.

I had thought the FIA's authority steemed from the IOC, which everyone recognises. Can someone clear that up for me?

[Stephen Rowe]

I have to say I wold not have thought the IOC would have any input whatsoever with motor racing as this is not a sport in any way connected with the Olympics. Even so - people 'recognise' many bodies around the world - but it still doesn't mean that they are THE only body (boxing, wrestling, even tennis spring to mind where there a multiple organisational bodies recognised.

But - even if it were - then again the question becomes - from authority does the IOC does the IOC stem?

The only place any of these bodies can have worldwide legal backing is by way of the UN - there is no other body recognised world wide in this regard.

[Ray Bell]

This has become a mighty interesting thread, Doug... thanks to you and David and John and Dick etc...

Talking to Ray Price this morning, explaining the situation to him in detail, he merely said that it's about time the people at the top in CAMS were replaced.

He also pointed out that there was once a situation (he didn't remember when, but it sounded like maybe in the fifties...) when the ARDC, the BLCC and a few other clubs pulled out of CAMS. But it only lasted three days because it would have meant that Jack Brabham and a few others racing overseas would have been unable to race... or something like that.

As he says, these things run in cycles... I think the pedals are working hard at the moment...

[Bruce Moxon]

Ray, re Ray Price's comment - the top people at CAMS are not the problem. It's the long-established middle-upper level voluntary administrators who have their own agendas and little kingdoms to maintain.

Like so many other sporting administrators they've lost sight of the competitor being the main focus of the sport - not the competitor being there to service the volunteers. Although I met this volunteer flag marshal at Bathurst... (Female, of course).


Bruce Moxon

[Stephen Rowe]

It is interesting you say that - one of the conversations I have had with one fo the highest ranked volunteer CAMS officials over recent times has always ended up along the same lines.

CAMS can do no wrong - his view of AAA is that they are only there to destabilise CAMS and that anything they do, or anything the parties to AAA do are either lies or simply out to cause trouble.

They cannot see any other viewpoint other than their own.

There is no reasoning with some of these people - they have worked themselves into such a tight corner that they only way out is to acknowledge that there are people and organisations besides CAMS that can (and able) to do anything CAMS can do.

[Richard Neale]

As far as possible sanctions go ~ I guess the ultimate one is that the FIA would drop the Grand Prix.

[Stephen Rowe]

That has already been threatened - 1996/97 this threat was made.

[D-Type]

The sad thing about this whole unhappy state of affairs is that all those involved, whether CAMS, AAA, or other, probably believe that they have the best interests of The Sport at heart.

When the cardinals couldn't agree a pope, the king (of France?) locked them all in a hall and wouldn't let them out until they'd lit a fire withj white smoke to show they had reached agreement. It's a shame we can't do something like that here.

[Stephen Rowe]

How true - like you said, the real problem is the few that have total control over the sport refuse to believe that there is an other way of doing things than theirs.

It has helped me make a few decisions recently - but I'm not sure how many others will be able to decide for themselves which way they want to jump or work.

[nick stone]

I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that neither CAMS nor the FIA - nor the IOC for that matter - has any legislated authority. The powers they have are those conferred on them by their constituent members and are therefore only valid while they have the support of those members.

It follows that if they try to impose sanctions that interferes with anyone trying to earn a living from motorsport they run up against government-sponsored trade restriction laws and consequently are bound to lose if the matter is taken to court. I imagine that is why Bob Jane successfully sued them, and why the Australian V8 racing owners' group, TEGA, was able to form its own sanctioning body with very little fuss. (I've always found it passing strange that the word 'sanction' can indicate almost opposite meanings.)

Because of their connections and financial means the FIA and those associated with them can make life tough for those who try to oppose them, but ultimately I would think they really can only wave the big stick over people who do not rely on the sport for a living - like amateur competitors, officials and the like. Typical bully-boy stuff.

If members lose confidence in their organising body and push comes to shove.....let's just say it would be nasty to watch. But fascinating.

[Doug Nye]

The most unbearable problems emerge when it is NOT professional sportsmen and teams trying to pursue their profession who suffer from authoritarian ineptitude but AMATEUR sportsmen and teams pursuing their hobby/enthusiasm/interest who suffer from having professional sporting standards and regulation imposed upon them.

The daftest and most iniquitous thing I have seen is a busy company Chairman who jets into London Heathrow at 6am, clears Customs by 6.30, hurtles up to Silverstone for an amateur race meeting in which he has entered four cars (in various events), arrives there after traffic delays at 9am and is then summoned to the Clerk of the Course's office at 9:10am and fined £50 for having missed the mandatory drivers' briefing. He not only refused to pay, he remarkably politely told the officials where to insert their fine and told his lads to load up the cars, take them home and take the rest of the day off.

Officialdom promptly collapsed and waived all sanction and smarmed him into staying on and running the cars. A few days later a letter arrived re-imposing the fine because there was no mechanism for reversing its imposition. It - and similar fines imposed that day on other late-arriving amateur racers - was finally paid by the circuit promoter.

It's meant to be fun and good sport ... not ego massage for those who just have a need to wear a flashy leather armband...and aspire to 'authority'.

DCN

[john medley]

Ronald Maclean Reid was an icon of Australian Historic Motor Sport . His racing career extended from 1950 ( although he had been a genuine pit pest prior to that ) nearly into this century. He died not long after he ( and his family of sons and " other sons" , of whom I'm proud to be one ) had been declared Club Champion of the Historic Sports and Racing Car Association of Australia. We , his sons and " sons" , still call ourselves Team R , the badge for which carries Racing Ron's number , the whole thing named after and commemorating Ron.

He had his moments with officialdom, and many are the stories . Two relevant to this discussion :
# In the difficult late 1950s , Ron , racing at a non CAMS event on a dirt circuit not far from where he lived at Harden Murrumburrah in Southern NSW, found himself confronted by his old friend George Reed from Bathurst , sent by CAMS as an amateur official to check up on any naughty persons competing illegally . Ron , a CAMS licence holder, was running under the nom de course of " Jock McLean " . George said " Jock , I've been sent here by CAMS to prosecute and persecute a bloke called Ron Reid. Havent seen him around have you ?" " Jock " replied " Sorry , George . I cant help you "

#Coming from that time when racing drivers wore scarves of varying sizes and colours , Ron maintained the faith and ALWAYS raced in a cravat fluttering in the breeze . At Winton one year he was called before the stewards for wearing non flame proof clothing ( ie the silk cravat ) and for ignoring the black flag pointed at him for this heinous crime . The case became a cause celebre and very funny things happened afterwards , but it wasnt funny at the time ; indeed various friends suggest I go down to the stewards' room because " Ron is getting very close to punching them " . The stewards were a bit put off when Ron pointed out that the scarf was silk and therefore non flammable , but as good CAMS bureaucrats do they won in the end ; When Ron played his trump card and said " where does it say in the CAMS Manual that I cant wear a silk scarf ( that I've been wearing for nearly 50 years ) ?" their answer was stunning : "Where does it say in the CAMS Manual that you CAN wear a silk scarf ?"

These are nearly perfect CAMS stories in my opinion : blazerati indeed , DCN !

[Paul Newby]

This is a very interesting thread!

I happen to be in a CAMS affiliated car club, where one of the former presidents is a current director on the CAMS board.

We have clashed in the past and don't get on, indeed a number of us formed a breakaway racing association, and guess what? - we aren't CAMS affiliated! The association's committee (of which I am the secretary) looked at the pros and cons of CAMS affiliation, and decided against it on a number of grounds:
1) we had no intention of organising our own speed events (after invitations only)
2) most members were members of other CAMS clubs like HSRCA (plus the said marque club)
3) not being under CAMS radar, ment we could do our own thing, without intervention. This was
important as said CAMS Director would be gunning for us
4) there was no guarantee that they would affiliate us (in competition with the marque club)
as a certain CAMS Director would put us through the hoops.

With the assistance of Wakefield Park our association managed to get its own race at one of their multiclub race meetings. As luck would have it this was the same weekend as a State c'ship round at Eastern Creek, where our former marque club managed to get its race on the bill (of course it was no longer a State category, but said CAMS Director is an ARDC Director and races in the category as well ) so strings were pulled.

Anyway, to cut a longer story short Wakefield Park eventually got its CAMS permit with our renegade race included as well, only hitch was that, at the behest of the marque club's president (on the recommendation of the CAMS Director), the list of invited CAMS affiliated clubs for the meeting now excluded the marque club of which all our competitors were still members of. Most of our fellow competitors belonged to other CAMS clubs and showed these membership cards, one person had to specifically join another club for the meeting and a racing newbie (not me ) unwittingly showed his marque club card and sailed through none the wiser.

This is a long winded way of saying that CAMS have done us no favours this year. Indeed I heard that said CAMS Director has just returned from a "fact finding" mission that took in the Italian and US Grand Prix! Our membership fees hard at work.

It is little wonder that our assoication's president has had a long chat with Philip Smiles of the AAA and has been asked to be kept abreast of developments.

[Stephen Rowe]

Paul - Yes - remember that meeting very ell - including all the garbage we had to go through because of that said ARDC/CAMS member.

But the meeting also showed one other thing CAMS conveniently overlooks - it IS possible to run a meeting without CAMS involvement - and run it successfully...

Next time you are at Wakefield - drop into timing and say Hi...

[Paul Newby]

Thanks Stephen

It might be a little while before I have my chariot back on the race track, following a meeting with one of Eastern Creek's famous concrete walls, see thread: http://forums.atlasf...ight=Paul Newby

Yes, we owe a lot of gratitude to race secretary Judy Ellacott and the management of Wakefield Park for standing up to CAMS and letting sanity prevail, on this occasion.

[Doug Nye]

One subject which kept bubbling to the surface during my many lengthy discussions with Jack Brabham over the past couple of years while we have been putting together his biography has been the 'Conspiracy Against Motor Sport', and your stories about this body all build upon the very firm foundation which his own experiences provide.

In effect 'the sporting class can kiss my a---, I've got the CAMS armband at last'...

Perhaps for them - with the emergence of the AAA - it really is come-uppance time - but I'd love to hear a case for the defence from a serving member of the CAMS hierarchy????? Have we all got it - and this body - quite wrong.....??????

Do any other nation's governing bodies operate in such aqpparently cavalier, unpopular and inflammatory manner - Kiwis, USA, Argentina, Brazil, France, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Holland??????????

DCN

[Catalina Park]

I gave up my CAMS licence a couple of years back (2000) after holding it since 1982 and during that time I got sick and tired of the bull that came from them.
I was entered for the Bathurst 12 hour in the early 90s and had paid the money for the required international licence for the meeting and 3 weeks before the race CAMS sent out a form saying that all drivers had to get a "Super Licence" to run at that meeting and the Super Licence was an extra $500 on top of the $300 or so that I had already paid them for the International Licence! They never got the $500 and I didn't race.

There was a driver in NSW that was racing in production cars and he was a paraplegic and CAMS (NSW) had given him a licence then a Victorian paraplegic applied for a licence and CAMS said that he could not race because of his disability so he bought up the fact that the bloke in NSW was racing with the same disability so the result was ....... Take the licence from the bloke in NSW!

CAMS has a rule that no novice drivers can race at Bathurst so in the class that I was racing all the drivers had to have a full national licence but in the Formula Fords there were a lot of drivers on P plates! One rule for some and another rule for others.

I could go on forever with stupid CAMS stories.

CAMS is never ever going to get any more money from me!

Michael.

[David McKinney]

Certainly there have been similar anti-MSA feelings here in the UK, which always struck me as being remarkably similar to the ones held by New Zealand competitors against MANZ (as was). Part of the problem is that the people who want to compete tend to do so, and those who can't try and run the sport - with many exceptions, of course. But competitors make little effort to understand the reasoning behind some ASN actions - perhaps because the ASNs in question don't communicate very well
As far as historic racing is concerned, to MSA should be added the FIA Historic Commission

[Bruce Moxon]

Doug, I think the "them and us" attitude is endemic and not just in motor sports.

First of all, I refer the reader to Burt Levy's "The Last Open Road" series and its description of overbearing officialdom in the USA's amateur sports car racing in the 1950s.

Then you see it in football codes, athletics, kids' sports days - everywhere. Some officials just seem to need to be involved, not prepared to just let the sport play itself out where there is no disadvantage to doing so.

The point that "those who can, do; those who can't, officiate" is right. I've done both but have stopped officiating because even that is getting too hard. The officials who administer and officiate over the officials are just too officious. I just read that again and it makes sense to me - please be patient! Now you have to jump through as many hoops to hold an official's licence as for a driver's licence. Actually, more, now that I think of it.

To hold my competition licence I have to fill in a medical form and sign a cheque once a year. To hold an official's licence I have to do a test (in order to get it in the first place) and perform a minimum number of duties per year to maintain it. Crazy.

The Australian attitude at the moment seems to be giving more precedence to officials than competitors. And this attitude seems to be affecting the behaviour of many officials, particularly towards competitors and the media.


Bruce Moxon

[Stephen Rowe]

Funny you mention about what you have to do to obtain licences.

I was talking on Thursday to a fellow timekeeper - she informed me that one of the components involved in timing - that of Judge of Fact as to Start and Finish - has now been seperated out by CAMS in Australia - the timekeepers are issued with T licences and, in order to be listed as an official Judge of Fact now they also require a J (Judge) licence.

This seemed bad enough until I also recalled a conversation a few weeks ago that suggested CAMS were lookig at carging for officials licences - now I can see what they are doing - splitting them into components and then charging for individual components.

The fact that compulsory licences (in Australia) cannot be enforced is a different issue...

[Catalina Park]

Now about the fines for not attending drivers briefings...

Remember the old days when the briefing was on Sunday morning about half an hour before the racing started and then someone came up with the idea of making the drivers pay for not attending the briefing.

Since then I have noticed that the briefing has gotten earlier and earlier, is this to earn more money in fines?

The last race meeting that I did was Bathurst in 1999 and the briefing was on Wednesday and I didn't have a practice session till Friday and then a race on Saturday.
So I had to take a day off work just to attend the drivers briefing on Wednesday, then back to work on Thursday and then take Friday off to practice.

Michael.

[Graham Howard]

Dick Willis raised an important point, namely that the AAA Winton meeting made up its own rules about eligibility, and in the process included some questionable cars. I'd like to hear an assurance from AAA that its historic eligibility rules, when they duly appear, will be at least as tight as the present CAMS rules, ideally even tighter (note this does not mean "even more expensive"). I can understand this would have been difficult to do in the limited time available before the recent Winton meeting, but it would be a disaster if any future AAA "Historic" meetings were to become free-for-alls. Gresham's Law - that bad money drives out good - applies equally well to Historic racing cars.

I am disappointed to hear Dick report that recognised Historic cars raced in the same races as other sorts of cars. It is valid ammunition for the holier-than-thou CAMS purists, and in the leadup to the meeting Mick Ronke assured me it emphatically was not going to happen.

As for the FIA/IOC/United Nations concerns, I gotta say: if AAA historic meetings simply meant we couldn't invite overseas megabucks cars I wouldn't greatly mind. I hate the way genuinely historic Australian cars get shunted into the background by fffwwoar imports which have zero relevance to the history of Australian motor racing. It is motorsport cultural cringe.

It's interesting to hear the shrill anti-AAA comments of CAMS heavies at meetings I have been at recently. CAMS continues to behave as if AAA is somehow illegal, and that we thick-headed rank-and-file have failed to recognise this dreadful menace. The concept of competing to provide member services is something CAMS has never previously had to consider. If AAA does no more than change that part of CAMS culture, it will have been worthwhile. So far there has been no constructive CAMS response - they are a leadership-free zone. Amazing what 50 years of monopoly can do.

[Stephen Rowe]

CAMS have even managed to release a 'confidential' document which does them no good whatsoever - throughout the document they refer to AAA as The Smilies - very professional coming from the Victorian State Manager....

Re historics - my understanding was that Winton was attempting to give runs to cars that normally would not have been able to run because of the 'purist' attitudes of CAMS. I would have thought there had to be some give and take on all sides over this.

And, keep in mind, AAA is not simply about running historic meetings - as I understand it they will be sanctioning meetings in a similar vein to the Wakefield Park prmitted events...

[Ray Bell]

Though there was by no means anything official about it, my conversation with Philip Smiles on the subject of eligibility centred on cars being given a chance to be proved or disproved legitimate.

Naturally, a car that was obviously ineligible would be wiped straight away, but an owner would put the car up with his resume (as he provides for the CofD) and then it's up to others to point out any need for corrections. No objections would mean that the car continued to compete unchanged.

Any potential problems with that?