PCA medical committee revoked my race license
#1066
Basic Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
I have a little different take on the response from the audit committee.
As I see it, there are two different but related topics at hand here (I'm overly simplifying at this point):
1) the medical committee determining that the use, or lack of use, of CPAP for someone with OSA can be hazardous enough to the racing program to warrant additional information that is not listed anywhere and has no basis in the minimum standards of PCA Racing.
2) Todd invoked the "whistleblower' statue in the PCA bylaws to protect him from retaliation from the board or other officials for bringing to light an error in the processes and procedures of the medical committee, club racing and the EC.
The audit committee found that nobody is retaliating against Todd and/or violating anything in the whistleblower statute. And honestly, that is probably true. Unlike just questioning how accounting or something in PCA is being managed, this situation has a direct 'issue' related to the person being affected (Todd).
Is it being handled improperly? Absolutely. But they can all easily stand on "we're not retaliating at all, Todd just won't provide the information we are asking for. Very simple". In their eyes, Todd "failed" the second level of the medical exam (review by the medical committee). No different (again, in their eyes and can be argued) than failing from your personal doctor.
I'm in no way saying this is right or they aren't overreaching their authority on the CPAP issue, I'm just pointing out that the response is related to whistleblower "retaliation", and is probably accurate, or can at least be argued as accurate.
As I see it, there are two different but related topics at hand here (I'm overly simplifying at this point):
1) the medical committee determining that the use, or lack of use, of CPAP for someone with OSA can be hazardous enough to the racing program to warrant additional information that is not listed anywhere and has no basis in the minimum standards of PCA Racing.
2) Todd invoked the "whistleblower' statue in the PCA bylaws to protect him from retaliation from the board or other officials for bringing to light an error in the processes and procedures of the medical committee, club racing and the EC.
The audit committee found that nobody is retaliating against Todd and/or violating anything in the whistleblower statute. And honestly, that is probably true. Unlike just questioning how accounting or something in PCA is being managed, this situation has a direct 'issue' related to the person being affected (Todd).
Is it being handled improperly? Absolutely. But they can all easily stand on "we're not retaliating at all, Todd just won't provide the information we are asking for. Very simple". In their eyes, Todd "failed" the second level of the medical exam (review by the medical committee). No different (again, in their eyes and can be argued) than failing from your personal doctor.
I'm in no way saying this is right or they aren't overreaching their authority on the CPAP issue, I'm just pointing out that the response is related to whistleblower "retaliation", and is probably accurate, or can at least be argued as accurate.
__________________
Bob Saville
Getting You On Track!
www.naroescapemotorsports.com
704-395-2975
'07 SPC
'71 914/6 Huey
'04 GT3
Bob Saville
Getting You On Track!
www.naroescapemotorsports.com
704-395-2975
- Data Analysis & Coaching
- Drivers Gear
- Crew Gear
- Car Gear
'07 SPC
'71 914/6 Huey
'04 GT3
The following 5 users liked this post by NaroEscape:
dgrobs (06-27-2024),
lgusto (06-27-2024),
Manifold (06-27-2024),
mobius911 (06-27-2024),
Veloce Raptor (06-27-2024)
#1067
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,859
Received 4,149 Likes
on
1,849 Posts
There will be no lawsuits or ADA complaints on my behalf. I thought my time and effort to frame a cogent basis for my position would be enough. PCA simply does not care about its own rules and I won't waste my time further trying to show them that they need to change.
PCA hurt itself with this arrogant display and the people who are in charge made the wrong decisions. They could have helped me but decided they wanted a fight instead. With car counts down year over year, and the need to attract new members, I think this was a huge mistake. It was a black eye for no reason.
Keep in mind that if there was a minimum standard they would have provided it. If there was a real rational to show that PCA followed the rules they would have stated it. Instead, I got nothing, and that should tell everyone everything about how PCA leadership operates.
If they had spent 10% as much effort in fighting me, and used that 10% effort towards figuring out the problem, it never would have gone more than a few weeks.
I'm pretty sure I could get back to racing with PCA before the year is out if that's what I decide to do. No, I'm not going to provide any data, but we'll see where that road goes. Unless they decide just to boot me as an inconvenience. Why not? They don't seem to care about any of the rules anyway.
You're taking him to task for light reading so that means you must have studied all of this. Show me the minimum standard Jason. You must have read through all of this so show me where the medical committee gets its authority.
If you want to rely on the fact that that the PCA race license says it can be denied for "no reason at all" than what you are admitting is that they just threw pages and pages of "rules" out the window because they don't care about the rules when it is inconvenient to them.
You sold out Jason.
PCA hurt itself with this arrogant display and the people who are in charge made the wrong decisions. They could have helped me but decided they wanted a fight instead. With car counts down year over year, and the need to attract new members, I think this was a huge mistake. It was a black eye for no reason.
Keep in mind that if there was a minimum standard they would have provided it. If there was a real rational to show that PCA followed the rules they would have stated it. Instead, I got nothing, and that should tell everyone everything about how PCA leadership operates.
If they had spent 10% as much effort in fighting me, and used that 10% effort towards figuring out the problem, it never would have gone more than a few weeks.
I'm pretty sure I could get back to racing with PCA before the year is out if that's what I decide to do. No, I'm not going to provide any data, but we'll see where that road goes. Unless they decide just to boot me as an inconvenience. Why not? They don't seem to care about any of the rules anyway.
Hold on - you really didn't read the form before? I thought you were being facetious.
You've commented on this thread 120+ times - yes, I actually wasted a few minutes of my life confirming in your posts history - but you couldn't bother to actually look into what you were commenting on?!?!?!?! Interesting.
You've commented on this thread 120+ times - yes, I actually wasted a few minutes of my life confirming in your posts history - but you couldn't bother to actually look into what you were commenting on?!?!?!?! Interesting.
If you want to rely on the fact that that the PCA race license says it can be denied for "no reason at all" than what you are admitting is that they just threw pages and pages of "rules" out the window because they don't care about the rules when it is inconvenient to them.
You sold out Jason.
#1068
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,079
Received 4,390 Likes
on
2,497 Posts
Luigi, why not just provide the data? It seems that everyone who discloses OSA and CPAP use is being asking to provide the data.
The following users liked this post:
peterp (06-27-2024)
#1069
WRONGLY ACCUSED!
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Connecticut Valley Region
Posts: 14,859
Received 4,149 Likes
on
1,849 Posts
I have a little different take on the response from the audit committee.
As I see it, there are two different but related topics at hand here (I'm overly simplifying at this point):
1) the medical committee determining that the use, or lack of use, of CPAP for someone with OSA can be hazardous enough to the racing program to warrant additional information that is not listed anywhere and has no basis in the minimum standards of PCA Racing.
2) Todd invoked the "whistleblower' statue in the PCA bylaws to protect him from retaliation from the board or other officials for bringing to light an error in the processes and procedures of the medical committee, club racing and the EC.
The audit committee found that nobody is retaliating against Todd and/or violating anything in the whistleblower statute. And honestly, that is probably true. Unlike just questioning how accounting or something in PCA is being managed, this situation has a direct 'issue' related to the person being affected (Todd).
Is it being handled improperly? Absolutely. But they can all easily stand on "we're not retaliating at all, Todd just won't provide the information we are asking for. Very simple". In their eyes, Todd "failed" the second level of the medical exam (review by the medical committee). No different (again, in their eyes and can be argued) than failing from your personal doctor.
I'm in no way saying this is right or they aren't overreaching their authority on the CPAP issue, I'm just pointing out that the response is related to whistleblower "retaliation", and is probably accurate, or can at least be argued as accurate.
As I see it, there are two different but related topics at hand here (I'm overly simplifying at this point):
1) the medical committee determining that the use, or lack of use, of CPAP for someone with OSA can be hazardous enough to the racing program to warrant additional information that is not listed anywhere and has no basis in the minimum standards of PCA Racing.
2) Todd invoked the "whistleblower' statue in the PCA bylaws to protect him from retaliation from the board or other officials for bringing to light an error in the processes and procedures of the medical committee, club racing and the EC.
The audit committee found that nobody is retaliating against Todd and/or violating anything in the whistleblower statute. And honestly, that is probably true. Unlike just questioning how accounting or something in PCA is being managed, this situation has a direct 'issue' related to the person being affected (Todd).
Is it being handled improperly? Absolutely. But they can all easily stand on "we're not retaliating at all, Todd just won't provide the information we are asking for. Very simple". In their eyes, Todd "failed" the second level of the medical exam (review by the medical committee). No different (again, in their eyes and can be argued) than failing from your personal doctor.
I'm in no way saying this is right or they aren't overreaching their authority on the CPAP issue, I'm just pointing out that the response is related to whistleblower "retaliation", and is probably accurate, or can at least be argued as accurate.
The fact that they have not provided a single answer means that they are not following the rules. If they are preventing me from racing, and that action is contrary to the rules, than that is retaliation.
The audit committee did nothing. Just show me the rule.
#1071
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,522
Received 1,695 Likes
on
1,147 Posts
What's the saying, "It's not how hard you get hit, it's how many times you get hit and get back up"?
#1072
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Mid-Atlantic (on land, not in the middle of the ocean)
Posts: 13,079
Received 4,390 Likes
on
2,497 Posts
#1073
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Formerly the DPRK, now seeking political asylum in Oregon
Posts: 1,120
Received 552 Likes
on
333 Posts
So.... The moral of the story:
If you want to avoid a bunch of unneeded bullsh*t, don't admit to any conditions unless you're forced to.
Doubt that's the message PCA wanted to send.
If you want to avoid a bunch of unneeded bullsh*t, don't admit to any conditions unless you're forced to.
Doubt that's the message PCA wanted to send.
The following 4 users liked this post by Nowanker:
#1074
Burning Brakes
Originally Posted by LuigiVampa
You sold out Jason.
Both you and I know the lengths I went to in real life to try and help through this ...
#1075
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,522
Received 1,695 Likes
on
1,147 Posts
#1076
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: The Swamps of Jersey/WGI/VIR...
Posts: 6,522
Received 1,695 Likes
on
1,147 Posts
#1077
Rennlist Member
Consequences, consequences. I'm just some schlub - no one important; no one who could afford to do cup racing anyway. I had planned to re-up with PCA after several years off so I could get seat time with folks who knew these cars. I know all organizations have their fair share of drama, but after seeing how this was handled I'm thinking I'll take my toys and go play in someone else's yard.
The following users liked this post:
NightBlueTTS (06-27-2024)
#1078
Drifting
Consequences, consequences. I'm just some schlub - no one important; no one who could afford to do cup racing anyway. I had planned to re-up with PCA after several years off so I could get seat time with folks who knew these cars. I know all organizations have their fair share of drama, but after seeing how this was handled I'm thinking I'll take my toys and go play in someone else's yard.
Even if I were club racing, I’d be far more concerned if PCA didn’t care about people who need CPAP not using when racing against me and other PCA members. The idea that adrenaline beats long term oxygen deprivation is not supported by reality.
Last edited by peterp; 06-27-2024 at 02:10 PM.
#1079
Rennlist Member
Seeing how groups handle nails that stick out tells you a lot about the group. That being said, I'm sure there are plenty of good folks in PCA. A shared passion can really bring people together too. Best wishes to you all.
The following users liked this post:
LuigiVampa (06-28-2024)
#1080
Drifting
Had he stuck to a simple suggestion to avoid the data requirement, it would have been a short yes or no answer, and this wouldn't have consumed so much of everybody's time, including ours. Instead it turned into a protracted discussion about corporate structure of the medical committee, as if the race committee doesn't know who their reference is for medical decisions -- and attacking the doctor with points that are medically wrong (instead of simply questioning whether the doctor was overreaching by requiring the data).
The entity that has the liability (legally, reputationally, and morally (for the respect of members who are also good friends in many instances)) gets to set the rules. The rules are clear on the health form that they require data. The complainant continues to refuse to follow that rule and provide the data, even after being advised his request for exemption has been denied. Any assertion that the reason he can't race now is because the PCA is retaliating is baseless, because he is the one continuing to refuse to provide the data. This needlessly consumed a lot of the PCA's time because the argument was so broad and poorly framed, instead of a simple mission to see if there was a workaround to requiring data. Nobody could blame the PCA for not being happy -- it consumed a lot of their time and they have better things to spend their time, and they were also (and continue to be) thoroughly trashed throughout the process. Given all of this, nobody could blame them for retaliating, but they probably won't if the data is just submitted per the well-documented rules.