ELange0322

While I still drive in some PCA events, Ive been inclined to participate in more open track day events. A part of that is my desire to develop skill at a level up from a PCA DE event. The other part was that I felt the groups I was running with (Group 52, Dave Murry, DriveTeq, Trackmasters) were even more serious about safety and the skill and expectation of those driving, and eliminated all the nonsense and BS of a DE. I can also tell you that the very well known gentleman that ran the DE program for my home region and was one of the founders of the PCA DE program years ago and I frequently used to speak on whether it would be better to stop being affiliated with PCA all together and just run unaffiliated track events instead (and this was years ago, pre-pandemic). My point here is that this is a much bigger problem than just the Club Racing program and the singular issue that impacted and has been raised by Todd.

LuigiVampa

For ten year there was no bigger cheerleader of PCA CR than me! No series is perfect, and sometimes things go against you, but at the end of the day I always thought people were doing their best.

I've driven many other series at this point and they all have pluses and minuses. On the whole I think PCA is still pretty good racing, but I really wish they would get the pole out of their a$$e$ and remember that we are a car club and we are here for fun.

powdrhound

PCA is a joke. I won't touch PCA club racing. A while back PCA declined one of our local Spec Boxster guys a medical due to his handicap. Every other organization including NASA and SCCA has cleared him to race which he has done for years without any mishaps. There was a huge pushback from a lot of local racers but to know avail. F**K PCA.

The whole medical requirement is pretty silly in my opinion. People should be trusted to self certify based on consultation with their own doctor. You can have a valid medical but that does not necessarily mean that you are fit to race. Fatigue, illness, stress along with other factors can all make you unfit to race rendering your "valid" medical useless. We are the only ones that know if we are safe to get behind the wheel.

Nowanker

I'm OK with the standard medical form. Just a basic check that you aren't going to drop dead on course.
Leave it up to your personal physician, the one who actually examined you. It's no guaranty, but much beyond that gets past diminishing returns in a hurry.

LuigiVampa

PCA leadership telling me to go f*ck myself didn't sit right with me, so after some deliberation, I have decided I am going to see this through to the end.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mdw10...q2ru1nadr&dl=0

peterp

Hypoxemia that results from Sleep Apnea is NOT the same as sleep deprivation. You only dig the hole deeper by making/supporting arguments that are medically wrong. Regarding racing studies, there are very obvious reasons why there are no studies of real-world car racing comparing OSA persons using and not using CPAP.

No matter what you can convince yourself makes sense, your argument will be shot to hell in court when you try to make the claim that it's okay to race but it isn't ok to drive on the street. See what reaction you get when you complain in court that they don't have any studies about racing against other drivers at extremely high speeds, constantly at the limits of adhesion, without using CPAP.

This, you are absolutely correct about. If PCA had never raised the issue, there wouldn't have been any meaningful liability. Once they made the ruling, then PCA created a liability risk if they ignored their own ruling. If PCA had given Luigi an exception privately (nobody else knew about it), then its liability would have been sharply reduced, if not eliminated. I believe that was offered, and declined on objection to keeping it private (that's my reading of Luigi's letter -- happy to be corrected). In any case, now that this has become extremely public -- far beyond PCA and RL -- precisely because of this thread, there is no way PCA can ignore its own ruling for this specific hugely public case. The horse is very far out of the barn, and has been shoved infinitely farther outside of the barn because of this thread. If something were to happen on track, lawyers would feast on this extremely public instance of PCA ignoring its own rule. This is law 101 -- I don't know how anyone can't get that there is no way PCA can give a pass now that it has become massively public, for the obvious reasons just stated.

The only potentially viable path forward is to lobby for a change to apply next year. The reasonable compromise would simply be to add a checkbox where the driver is effectively signing an affidavit that they will use CPAP. That is potentially winnable, because it provides a way for PCA to eliminate the liability they created (liability is inherently transferred to the person checking the box). Then next year, with the rules changed, everyone (including Luigi) can simply check the box.

Regarding racing this year -- either provide the data for now while lobbying for change to take effect next year, or don't. I honestly don't know what the issue of providing CPAP data is, other than minor inconvenience, but if he wants to fight that battle, I'm not opposed to it. Just approach it in a manner that makes sense, is winnable, and based upon arguments that are accurate (medically, and otherwise). Chiming in with posts that are medically false, and that ignore the most basic legal issues in a country as litigious as the US moves his case backwards. Try to move it forward with constructive comments that actually can result in resolution of the issue.

ProCoach

That sounds like a way forward. This problem is not going to go away.

GC996

Yep. It's about time that the key PCA decision makers and CR drivers that want to discuss the issues sit down in a room and have a good honest conversation.

The slippery slope has put the PCA in a position that it may no longer be protected, drivers are up in arms and the rest of us that are considering getting involved with PCA club racing sometime in the next few years are having a tough time connecting the dots.

Time for a meeting of the minds.

NightBlueTTS

I doubt it’s a question of time. I expect that same people = same results.

LuigiVampa

Here's the thing - I'm not asking for a rule change. I'm saying there is no rule. I'm 100% certain of this.

I made this argument privately to PCA for five weeks. The fact that this is a big public thing going on four months is not my fault. They chose this ridiculous fight, not me. I'd rather be racing.

If there was a rule why wouldn't PCA send it to me, or better yet post it in this thread, and then tell me to go away. That would be the end of this.

We can all argue about whether a rule requiring CPAP disclosure makes sense, but the fact is that there is no such rule, so we don't need to debate it.

This is now about the broken governance of PCA. PCA leadership needs better guidance because whoever is telling them what our Bylaws and MNPP says clearly has no idea what they are talking about, or they just don't care. Take your pick, but either way they are dead wrong.

LuigiVampa

Pete - if someone like you were in charge it never would have gotten to this point. This is all about the doctors and lawyers involved with PCA. The doctors dug in their heels and the lawyer said no to all the compromises.

One of the items I offered was for PCA to just promise me that the requirement to provide CPAP data would be put to a vote for next year and I would provide my data now. I would abide by the vote. They said no. It's in my letter.

I think the number one problem is that the general counsel and the risk manager/insurance chair are the same person. Tell me why every other racing organization has insurance, where their doctors certify that a driver is fit to race, but PCA is the only one with a medical committee meddling with our licenses?

If PCA provides me with the minimum standard I will provide the CPAP data immediately. I've said that for months now. There is no rule and PCA leadership just makes itself look more ridiculous every day which goes by. Its shameful.

peterp

There isn't a specific rule for CPAP, but there is nothing that says they can't ask for more data for any condition if they choose to. Page 3 lists 11 conditions that must trigger an additional review, but that doesn't mean other issues can't require additional review. The form says exactly that on page 1 -- review of the 11 conditions is the minimum.

Making it an affidavit checkbox is different than what was proposed to not provide data -- and it does transfer responsibility to the applicant to address PCA's liability concerns, so maybe they will accept that. I think people who need it will have the common sense to use it when they are involved in racing, and even more so when they are assuming liability by checking the box.

LuigiVampa

The form you linked, which is ten years old, does not ask about sleep apnea. It appears this became a question in 2016. Before that we were all in extreme danger from people with sleep apnea!

I understand how the above argument seems reasonable, and I know that is what was presented to the Board, but it is a flawed argument. To read it the way you are presenting it would mean that there are no rules at all and the medical committee can do whatever it wants. Is that really what the drivers want? We are a club of rules so who gave the medical committee these powers?

Under the interpretation you are setting forth above PCA could withhold a race license if someone doesn't take their vitamins. Is that really the rule? If not, than tell me the difference between a requirement to take vitamins and a requirement to use a CPAP machine. Where is the line?

You will note that the form says "PCA Club Race Committee" has final authority. It doesn't say medical committee. I was told that the Club Race chair wouldn't overrule the medical committee. Who is in charge?

PCA's argument is that the medical committee can publish some rules, like the concussion policy, and it can also highlight eleven conditions that it must review, but if they are in the mood the medical committee can just pluck out any condition and make up a new requirement and somehow that equals a minimum standard?

If this is PCA's interpretation of the medical rules than everyone needs to start taking their vitamins right away!

peterp

The only meaningful perspective for any of PCA's decisions in this matter is how they would play out in court in the event there was an accident on track. That is the only meaningful perspective because it is the duty of the organization to protect itself, and the dollars contributed by all of us PCA members, from liability. You'd have to be a fool to go on record as a non-doctor, overriding a doctor, on a medical decision. No individual will do that because nobody wants to be on the receiving end of this question in court: "So the doctor unambiguously said he should NOT race, but you, as a non-doctor, decided he should race anyway????!!!". The liability risk to the PCA, and to the individual who chose to ignore the expert, would be immense.

If they can get the doctor to change his opinion, that's fine (because the expert is making the decision), but a non-expert can't override the expert for the reason just stated. I doubt they even considered asking the doctor to change his opinion because the doctor is not wrong. Nobody who needs CPAP should race without CPAP (credibility is hurt with every suggestion that this is not the case). The only viable questions have ever been: 1) Can they not ask about CPAP? (since other race organizations don't ask); or, 2) Is there another simpler way to address this requirement? (e.g. adding the CPAP usage checkbox affidavit).

If the doctor chose to restrict a racer based upon not taking vitamins, there would be no question the doctor was making bad decisions. They would ask him to consider amending his ruling, and replace him if he wouldn't, because the doctor's decision-making is unambiguously faulty and counterproductive. There is no correlation whatsoever between a doctor requiring vitamins and the doctor requiring CPAP use for those who need it. There is no slippery slope -- if the doctor makes stupid decisions, he'll be gone. That isn't the case here. The doctor is not wrong -- the only possible question is whether he should be asking about it at all (PCA seems to have decided for now that they should), or if there is a better way to handle it than requiring data (something to lobby for in next year's application process).

Mahler9th

"Regarding racing studies, there are very obvious reasons why there are no studies of real-world car racing comparing OSA persons using and not using CPAP."

I am not sure this make sense... there could be retrospective studies...

Here is what I think I understand:

PCA asked for more CPAP data than what OP had on hand to renew a license. OP's data was limited due to a recent device failure.

OP could have supplied the required amount of data at a later time, from new machine(s).

What is NOT clear is whether PCA would allow him to race whilst more data was accumulated. After all, he had been racing and his license had not expired.

OP asked "why do you need such data?"

OP spoke to PCA medical comm. volunteer who said that data was required to show compliance with CPAP therapy due to risk of falling asleep while racing.

Of course that makes no sense at all with even a basic understanding of OSA.

None.

PCA did not request ONGOING data. They asked for "point in time" data.

I am not an expert on risk management, but it seems that there have been, and still are requirements for "point in time" clinical information with some organizations. In fact when you think about it, all aspects of medical licensure procedures are "point in time."

For PCA, I think there is a two year period, so theoretically any data supplied by a racer on day one might not be a valid representation of Rx compliance after that point. So for some reason likely related to risk management, this is okay.

Compromises to human performance and well-being resulting from untreated OSA have been well studied and characterized for a long time. If in the last 10 years or so PCA CR started asking for "point in time" CPAP data, it might be nice to know why. If they stick with an answer like "risk of falling asleep while racing," folks will not likely find them credible.

If the answer is "specific risk management issues we'd like to keep confidential," then ...