Ironically, this is the travel machine that I bought and sent to PCA, along with my home unit, as proof that I am in compliance. If there are any CPAP users on this thread (don't admit to it!) this machine is really good.

FAA and DOT both require pilots and drivers, respectively, to provide data because both jobs contain the risk of falling asleep because they can be sedentary for hours and hours at a time.

There is certainly groupthink, groupshift, and a lot of groupBS going on.

 

It's stupid though. No one with any racing experience can possibly think someone will fall asleep while racing nor does past history prove future compliance, so it's moronic to ask for that information.

I doubt there is one person who has fallen asleep while in a race in the history of racing. It's likely not physically possible to do so from adrenalin. They could just as easily ask for proof you pray to Zeus or if you're a virgin; there shouldn't be any reason for them to ask stupid useless questions that don't factor in to the lane they should keep themselves in.

 

I agree 100%. But I’d still give them the data to put an end to this.

 

I'm with Luigi on this. F*ck those guys.
There are limits to the amount of *** I'm willing to kiss.

 

.
I still think this will be the outcome with no acknowledgement of error on their part . .
.

 

Where does it end?

First they came for the CPAP users...........

 

And that will be where it ends…..

Because of you publicly getting in their faces, they’re gonna think long and hard before they make another decision like this followed by some serious heel digging in again. For that, the PCA Club Racing world owes you a debt of gratitude.

While this may be a Pyrrhic victory for them (you still can’t race), I think it’s an overall win for you and Club Racing as a whole in the grand scheme of things.

If you can race again without giving them the data they want, win win. If not, I truly believe it’s a win for Club Racing as a whole, as I think this ends with YOU!!

Highly unlikely that they do this again regardless. Thats a win for all club racers.

My $.02

 

I agree with dgrobs.

Once given the data, PCA will be able to say they won this fight, and will be able to restore Luigi's race license. And even if they do ask for more data after this initial set of data, Luigi can stop providing it at that point, continue this fight publicly, and then PCA will look even more in the wrong.

 

You don't win fights by losing them.

 

Depends on who’s doing the winning.
I think, at this point, Todd wins either way. Whether he wins for himself or he wins for all the PCA Club Racers, he still wins.
The only losers I really see here are the Medical Committee and the higher ups that supported them.
So Todd races elsewhere. He’s still racing. He wins.
The medical committee looks like a bunch of fools over something not worth looking foolish over. Todd wins again…..

 

If you're not going to win a fight, better to retreat or concede a small loss, rather than expend great resources and possibly suffer a great loss. I could be wrong, but I don't think Luigi is going to win this fight. I've already laid out the case for PCA's defense. Non-doctors saying that doctors are wrong, even if true, isn't a strong line of argument. PCA isn't telling Luigi he can't race, they're just asking for some data, and they can argue that they're doing it for everyone's safety. What loss does Luigi suffer by providing that limited data, to justify not providing it?

To be clear, I'm with Luigi in this fight. He's done nothing wrong, and PCA is very much in the wrong. I'm very disappointed with the way PCA has handled this, but frankly I'm not surprised, this isn't the first or last time this sort of thing has happened, it just isn't usually publicized the way it's been in this thread. But I'm looking at how to approach this situation pragmatically and strategically. I don't see an outcome here where any PCA leaders admit fault and resign, the medical form gets changed, or PCA is otherwise substantially reformed.

 

The problem with that logic is that it purports that non-doctors cannot question doctors. Fortunately, I disagree with that idea and have caught plenty of mistakes and oversights on the part of various doctors.

Furthermore, the issue is that the data the doctor has requested is not relevant, but it appears he was not willing to entertain a dialogue on that topic. If I was in the same position as Todd, I would not have provided the data either. In my view it is an overreach with poor oversight and a textbook example of retaliation.

 

I agree with you on all points. The conduct of these PCA reps has been terrible. They're full of themselves, and compounding one bad decision on top of another.

But the question now is not who is right or wrong, but rather how to proceed, based on what the likely outcome is if Luigi continues this fight. The doctors need to only argue that "there are no studies showing the effects of treated or untreated OSA on race track driving, and despite that, we will allow someone to race if they at least provide data to show compliance with CPAP usage. It should not be a significant burden to provide that data." I don't see a strong counterargument to that argument, but enlighten me if you can think of one.

 

I’d separate this into two separate but related issues.

1. Per current PCA rules, is sleep apnea a disqualifying condition for racing? If it isn’t an immediate disqualification, then what existing policy governs? Who is qualified to make the determination if either a strict rule doesn’t exist.

According to the medical questionnaire, it appears that OSA is not grounds for immediate disqualification. Is the doctor who revoked his license qualified to speak as an expert on OSA? If not, I’d argue that sign-off by Luigi’s specialist in accordance to the form should suffice. Especially, as you pointed out, there aren’t any conclusive long term studies that can provide a definitive answer in either direction.

2. The issue of how PCA handled the escalation of Luigi’s issue (and the associated retaliation).


——————

I agree that this is unlikely to result in Luigi’s favor. And even if it does, it will be at the expense of having missed the 2024 racing season. That said, if he has the will to keep fighting the good fight, I both encourage and commend him. The easier path is to either give them what they want or to just leave. I made my choice, but I respect that others may be optimizing against a different set of criteria.


Lastly, I appreciate the thoughtful discourse, I only wish that PCA leadership could follow this example.

TLDR: There are logical arguments to be made, but PCA holds all the trump cards. Go Luigi!

 

Your argument makes as much sense as saying that people who have never stepped foot on a racetrack should override pro racers about driving/racing decisions. Obviously, non-racers should not override racing decisions because they don't know enough to make that decision. You are correct that doctors have made mistakes in general circumstances -- that's true. OSA is a very specific circumstance. Without any ambiguity, if somebody has OSA, and does not use their machine all the time, they should not be on track. It is not the "binary" situation you all have tried to make it to out to be of whether they fall asleep or don't -- if somebody doesn't use their machine consistently, they are impaired due to a sustained lack of oxygen, whether they fall asleep or not. To the extent that you don't agree with the prior statement only underscores the reason why non-medical people should not be making medical decisions.

The only "judgment call" is whether or not racers should be required to prove that they use their machines before they can race. The entity that is responsible for the liability (the PCA in this case) gets to make that call. The safest answer for the PCA is to require proof of usage, because not using the machine when it is needed does create risk. There is nothing wrong with PCA requiring that data. It doesn't matter that the SCCA does not require that data. Unless the SCCA is going to volunteer to cover PCA's liability, it's PCA's call.

Whether PCA should have required that in Luigi's specific case -- where he has participated for years and is a top driver -- that's a judgment call most (probably all) of us would not have made. They could have have quietly given him a pass. For new drivers, I don't think asking for the data is a bad policy. CPAP usage data is routinely asked for by insurance, truckers, pilots, etc -- I really don't see how racing is a "crazy leap" from those other things, but the point is that it's not our call -- it's the call of the entity that has the liability risk.

The CPAP usage data could not be more relevant. People who first start CPAP typically don't feel meaningful benefits until they have been using it for many days (to recover from long-term deprivation). CPAP requires daily use to be effective (e.g. not just throwing it on the night before a race). Yes, the data PCA asked for is one-time snapshot, and not "forward looking", but PCA has met its liability obligation by requiring reasonable proof of a sustained pattern of use. If a racer faked the data to the PCA to get their license, and an incident were to occur, the liability is transferred to person who faked the data. Your argument that it is "irrelevant data" kind of falls apart when you consider that the only data you would deem relevant (having ongoing data constantly) would be far more intrusive.

I hope the PCA rules in his favor. I would really like to see that happen. I'm honestly not sure that all these posts of outrage at the PCA have given him the best advice to get this resolved, which is the only reason I'm commenting. He clearly would like to race in the PCA, we'd all like to see him there, so let's give him useful feedback that helps that happen.