Gotcha. Thanks tor clarifying..

 

PCA never told Luigi that he can't get his license because he has a medical condition. The medical committee, compromised of doctors, said they wanted more information. They're the doctors, and they represent PCA, and they have responsibilities related to safety, so they get to ask for whatever information they want, and they alone, being doctors, get to make the medical judgment of whether someone is cleared to race. The argument that a layperson understands the medical issues as well as the doctors, or better than the doctors, is absurd and is Dunning Kruger in action. One can object to their suspending Luigi's license until he provided the requested information, but Luigi was also uncooperative in providing that information.

Let's also keep in mind that we're only hearing the plaintiff's side of the case in this thread, and the defendant (PCA, or The PCA) is not represented in this thread.

 

Rehashing this a bit but a qualified practicing medical doctor already signed off on the driver as good to go. PCA medical board without specifically saying so decided that doctor made a bad call by asking for more data. No one needs a medical degree (and it doesn't even factor in because the problem is bureaucratic not medical) to know that's an odd call in the procedures for race licensing. It's such an odd call no other licensing body has a medical board to contradict practicing doctors medical evaluations.

When someone in authority over you is on a fishing expedition looking for reasons to go against you (and it's always against you if they are) it's not really in your best interests to provide them with everything they ask for. PCA medical board was not OP's friend, they signalled him out for special treatment for some reason, so it's good he pushed back, even if it means he gets to race elsewhere now.

 

Yes, the medical committee decided to cherry pick a certain condition, with no logic behind that decision, to require more information, which I found intrusive. That is my opinion on their policy and they had every right to disagree. What I argued was that the rules did not require me to turn over this information.

You are forgetting that one of the doctors formally on the medical committee has now made it public that he resigned because of this matter. You may say that is just one voice but what did that one voice have to say versus the other doctors?

Please also keep in mind that after asking for month and months about the legitimacy of the medical committee PCA finally referred to the medical committee as an "ad hoc" committee. It makes me smack my head because an ad hoc committee is, by definition, a committee formed for a specific purpose and with a limited duration. They are admitting that this all powerful committee was never correctly formed, yet they don't care because it stands in the way of the results they want. These are facts.

Also, I don't know about you, but I think I am smart enough to do enough research to accurately understand my condition and speak about it intelligently. I don't have the hubris to think my research makes me a doctor, or gives me their same level of knowledge, but to claim that I cannot understand this issue well enough to debate these doctors, none of whom are to my knowledge sleep specialists, is ridiculous. I deal with complicated tax matters on a daily basis and I find it refreshing when my clients educate themselves so that they can make informed choices, rather than just relying on what I tell them. Dunning Kruger presupposes that the person at fault has does not understand the limits of their ability or competence. I may not be a doctor, but I am a great researcher, and I can turn those same analytical skills which I use to dissect the tax code in whatever direction I choose.

You are also incorrect about not hearing from PCA. I have published every response they have chosen to provide and I think they have been very clear about their positions.

 

This strategy was employed by James Hunt!

 

I want to publicly thank Matt for being this. I still wouldn't venture too far into his trailer, but I am grateful for his standing on principal for something he saw as wrong.

When the Audit Committee interviewed me about this matter I begged them to reach out to Matt so that they could understand both sides of this debate. They never did. What kind of Audit Committee doesn't investigate the facts?

 

Many pages ago, (the?) PCA sent Luigi communication that they requested he post here. They are free to air their version of events, but since then have chosen not to.
Perhaps they feel the matter is not worthy of their comment, but they are being cast in a very bad light.
The concept that lay persons are incapable of understanding medical concepts is disturbing, and sounds like propaganda the AMA would be pitching.
Question Authority!

 

Why debate the doctors? Just give them the information they asked for. It wasn't a big ask. It's not like they were acting as your personal doctors and giving you medical advice. They just needed to check some boxes and medically clear you to race. There's no evidence that they would have denied your license if you gave them the information they asked for.

And I don't agree that they broke any of their rules. Their forms give them full discretion to request whatever information they want and deny or approve a license for any reason other than blatant discrimination. They don't even need to justify their decisions. And it certainly doesn't make sense that the PCA non-doctors will overrule the decisions of the medical committee when it comes to medical clearance.

I think you're a very smart person, and very articulate, but IMO you didn't think through this situation rationally and strategically, and instead reacted emotionally because you were disrespected. I've probably been disrespected by PCA 'leaders' even more than you have - I could tell some stories - but I didn't let those encounters escalate into wars with PCA, and I didn't let those encounters cause me to discontinue attending PCA events and hanging out with my friends.

 

Snark much? What a rude thing to say…

 

Why would you debate the rules with me? I'm a lawyer so I must know better than you how to read them, right? Your opinion must be irrelevant.

Here is the bottom line - we all have our personal foibles. One of my biggest is standing on principle in the face of something I think is worth fighting about. I also believe in personal responsibility.

I have spoken a lot about disrespect, but the disrespect is merely the symptom of a corrupt system that doesn't care about its members, and that is what upsets me. These people think they are the PCA, when they are merely temporary stewards of the organization.

I am Roman Catholic and consider myself religious. I abhor the way the church hid pedophiles for many years. I think the church has engaged in all forms of horrible hypocrisy over the years. I do not agree with all of the church's positions at all. So why do I still go to church? Because the only way to effectuate change is from the inside by supporting positive reforms. If people like me walk away nothing will ever happen.

I feel the same way about PCA.

 

Standing on principle is a very rare trait in today's society. It's something that needs to be taught to our children.

 

PCA is just a social club comprised of people who happen to own a certain make of car. It's not a church, it's not a government agency, and it's not really even a business, hence the leaders almost all being volunteers. The corruption you speak of is inevitable in this type of social club and is of no great consequence, if one can just move on when a volunteer in a position of leadership disrespects them. If you considered the request for information to be invasive, you could have just decided to not provide it and not pursue renewing your license, and didn't have to turn this into a war.

 

PCA is a business in every sense of the word. It merely has a non monetary compensation package for the elected officials.

And if you read it's purpose, it's a technical club, not social.

 

I mean a business in the sense of trying to make a healthy profit, paid employees selected through a vetting process and held accountable for results, etc. It doesn't operate like a real business.

 

You are looking at this from a negative.

Seventeen years ago I went to a business lunch and one of the bankers I was meeting was a PCA instructor. Having never met before, but bonding like instant friends, he invited me to try doing a DE at LRP a few weeks later. It was, without exaggeration, life altering.

When I look in the mirror I see three things: 1. Husband/Father; 2. Racecar driver; 3. Attorney

Motorsports is not just a hobby - it has become how I think of myself as a person. I love everything about it, from the technical aspect of driving on track, to the machinery, to the competition, and perhaps most of all, the extremely good friends I have made along the way.

PCA was about 98% of that journey so it is important to me. PCA taught me how to drive. PCA taught me how to race and compete.

It is worth fighting over. I view that as a positive.