NaroEscape

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.

LuigiVampa

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.

Manifold

Luigi, why not just provide the data? It seems that everyone who discloses OSA and CPAP use is being asking to provide the data.

LuigiVampa

If they gave me any answers at all I would agree with you. However, we are a club governed by rules and PCA is not following its owns rules. If there was a minimum standard the easiest path for PCA to have shut me down would have been to say "here it is."

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.

Matt Romanowski

Not everyone has and there are some crazy stories you'll get if you talk to people 1:1.

dgrobs

For some reason, these words just put a really big smile on my face. Ear to ear type chit. Totally involuntary. Not sure why.....

What's the saying, "It's not how hard you get hit, it's how many times you get hit and get back up"?

Manifold

If the medical committee has been inconsistent regarding requesting CPAP data, that would support an argument that PCA is giving Luigi an unusually hard time about this, without good reason. I don't think there are any "minimum standards" or "rules" which apply to this issue, but they do need to be consistent in how they handle this with everyone.

Nowanker

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.

Jas0nn

Ease up with the name calling.

Both you and I know the lengths I went to in real life to try and help through this ...

dgrobs

Jeez Louiz, Both of you cut the chit. You're friends.

dgrobs

Agree. Crazy by me too but what do I know...

JohnnyOTS

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.

peterp

Why would a one-off situation, in a race series, influence your decision to join PCA in any way? This thread is filled with praise for PCA events and friendships established in the PCA. This one-off issue has nothing to do with what you would do with the club. I guess it depends a bit on your local region, but everything we have done with the PCA has been great, and professionally run, and reasonably priced, and full of great people.

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.

JohnnyOTS

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.

peterp

If you polled the actual drivers in the race series whether people who need CPAP should be allowed to race on track around them without having used CPAP, the answer would be a resounding no. Therefore, the movement to dismiss CPAP from consideration was never in the best interest of the people who actually run the series. The single argument that was potentially winnable, was whether was there was a less invasive way to ensure CPAP compliance -- but even then the CPAP data doesn't reveal almost anything anyone would care about, so it isn't that meaningful of an issue to start with. The arguments about the request for data being vague or difficult to provide have no merit given that many people in the series have provided that data, and CPAP data is routinely submitted in many other areas (trucking, pilots, insurance, etc).

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.