Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by NightBlueTTS

Is it just me…your logic sounds awfully alike someone on the PCA medical committee…


I, for one, am saddened by how this all played out (despite the fact that this outcome was the most likely). If Luigi had received a thoughtful response that left open a scenario where reasonable people could disagree, I may have changed my mind. But this, along with a number of unrelated interactions, has soured any desire I have to spend any of my time/energy/dollars racing with PCA.

TLDR: I’m ready to move on…it’s just disappointing despite being predictable.

Originally Posted by Manifold

OTOH, this could have ended quickly, without drama, if Luigi had simply provided the requested data, and it's not a huge burden to do so.

I've been dealing with government clients for my entire career of more than 30 years. When dealing with paper-pushing bureaucrats who require information in order to sign off on something, I've learned that it's usually best to give them what they want and not make a fuss about it. It's not my place to tell them they don't need what they're asking for.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by jakermc

That is utter nonsense and completely wrong. A bad opinion based on zero data.

I previously asked you why I was a danger, having raced 10+ years with undiagnosed sleep apnea. You failed to answer. Piecing together your other comments, it appears my impairment was "reduced reaction time", I then pointed out that it would be a whole lot smarter to test reaction time instead of collecting sleep apnea data, as that gets to the root of the issue and would be a measurement for all driver's, not a subset with a single medical condition. You failed to comment on that logic,

I then pointed out that there is no standard for reaction time. That younger driver's have better reaction times than older drivers. That natural ability and practice impact reaction times. Others pointed out that non-compliant CPAP users could very well still have better reaction times than those without the condition, even if their reaction time was reduced from their personal best. Dead silence from you.

How about polling the following questions: Who do you feel safer racing against:

1) Someone who went out drinking the night before or a non-compliant CPAP patient?
2) A 75 year old with diabetes or a championship winning non-compliant CPAP patient?
3) Someone who was up all night on a red-eye flight and arrived at the track without sleep or a non-compliant CPAP user?
4) Someone with a 13 or two in their driving history or a non-compliant CPAP user with a history of success and no record of any contact

Of all the concerns going on in a racer's head with regards to safety, CPAP compliance doesn't make the list of the first 100 things. We don't care.

Originally Posted by NightBlueTTS

I think that is where we differ. After I worked in the Pentagon (a couple of decades ago), I made a decision to avoid working in that sector as I abhor bureaucracy and prefer a more meritocratic approach. They each have their place, but only I get to pick where I spend my time.

Originally Posted by peterp

I can't think of anything more selfish than to not use CPAP when you are putting OTHER people at risk by not using it.

Originally Posted by winders

What if my driving is better when I don't use my CPAP machine than your driving is at your peak? Should you not be allowed to race? It would be selfish to do so, right?

Originally Posted by winders

This is all stupid. If your doctor says you are good to race, you should be good to race....

Originally Posted by jakermc

That is utter nonsense and completely wrong. A bad opinion based on zero data.

I previously asked you why I was a danger, having raced 10+ years with undiagnosed sleep apnea. You failed to answer. Piecing together your other comments, it appears my impairment was "reduced reaction time", I then pointed out that it would be a whole lot smarter to test reaction time instead of collecting sleep apnea data, as that gets to the root of the issue and would be a measurement for all driver's, not a subset with a single medical condition. You failed to comment on that logic,

I then pointed out that there is no standard for reaction time. That younger driver's have better reaction times than older drivers. That natural ability and practice impact reaction times. Others pointed out that non-compliant CPAP users could very well still have better reaction times than those without the condition, even if their reaction time was reduced from their personal best. Dead silence from you.

How about polling the following questions: Who do you feel safer racing against:

1) Someone who went out drinking the night before or a non-compliant CPAP patient?
2) A 75 year old with diabetes or a championship winning non-compliant CPAP patient?
3) Someone who was up all night on a red-eye flight and arrived at the track without sleep or a non-compliant CPAP user?
4) Someone with a 13 or two in their driving history or a non-compliant CPAP user with a history of success and no record of any contact

Of all the concerns going on in a racer's head with regards to safety, CPAP compliance doesn't make the list of the first 100 things. We don't care.

Originally Posted by winders

This is all stupid. If your doctor says you are good to race, you should be good to race....

Originally Posted by peterp

It's a fairly basic concept that you should prevent the preventable, especially when liability is involved. Nobody can prevent the unpreventable (most of the things you list above) or the undetectable (undiagnosed OSA). When you have a condition that impairs you, and the issues can easily be prevented, that's what you do. Yes, there are tons of people with undiagnosed OSA - nothing PCA can do about that (no liability potential either because it isn't detectable). Also most udiagnosed OSA is likely to be on the milder side. Most people who have a CPAP had pretty severe issues -- that's how they figured out they needed it. Adreneline does not overcome long-term oxygen deprivation. If you asked racers if people should be allowed to race when they've just had 2 beers, the answer would be a resounding no. If you ask them if people who need CPAP should drive without using CPAP, the answer would be the same, for obvious reasons. There is no meaningful distinction between the two.

How impaired are you after you have two beers? Is that worse than not getting sleep from a red-eye? Why would the red-eye question be even a little bit relevant????? Drinking is a choice and the red-eye can't be avoided. Why would it be relevant to ask how impaired you are after two beers when it is a choice. Some will be impaired a little, some much more so. It's not relevant for the group of racers at risk how much impairment you personally think is "ok". Just don't voluntarily drink. It's very basic, choose to not drink while you race, and choose to use CPAP if you are going to race. I can't think of anything more selfish than to not use CPAP when you are putting OTHER people at risk by not using it.

Originally Posted by jakermc

it has now occurred to me you don’t even understand your own argument. Not using CPAP does not create a danger, it’s the effects of non use that create the danger. Your own words said that the effect is “reduced reaction time”. Do you not understand that all things I mentioned also reduce reaction time ?

You are focused on rules to control behavior as opposed to rules that control outcomes. Everyone sees this but you.