Nowanker

Allow me to respond:
1.) We're discussing concepts. If the entirety of medical school consisted of a lecture on the concepts of OSA, it would indeed be short.
Assuming the presenter and student were both of average intelligence...
Discussing the concept of heart valve replacement is very, very different than actually training to perform the operation.

2.) You might also consider the possibility that my 'armchair doctoring' might be better informed than you think. Don't even pretend that you can evaluate my capacity to understand new concepts.

3.) While I don't specifically recall calling the doctor an idiot, it does seem quite plausible!
If so, it would have been within the context of his absurd proclamation. Hyperbole; poetic license. I don't actually believe his IQ is lower than 25.
But to quote Momma: "Stupid is as stupid does..."

4.) I'm not discounting the value of CPAP use as a treatment for OSA at all.
I'm encouraging Luigi to continue the fight against bureaucratic overreach. He's an intelligent man, and more than capable of choosing his approach on his own.
The situation is at an impasse. With or without proper authority, the current regime made their proclamation, and won't back down. Nothing said here will change that without change at the top first.

I stand by my comment that there are very few concepts that can't be explained in plain English.

dgrobs

Only a matter of time before the Forrest Gump reference made an appearance. Well played *****.

Manifold

I agree with that, but to delve into a concept beyond a simple level usually requires some expertise.

Here's a review paper on OSA. It's complicated.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8340897/

LuigiVampa

Again, this is debating policy, which is fine, but even from a policy standpoint it isn't important to understand the nuances of OSA or be an expert.

Untreated OSA may lead to long term health issues, but historical data for someone that uses a CPAP machine means NOTHING if they don't use the machine on a race weekend. Many people do not have travel machines, like I do, and do not want to carry a bulky home use machine, so they go without it.

What good is all that past data if people don't us the machine on a race weekend? There is so much wrong with PCA's position that I really can't think about one logical reason for it.

PCA's general counsel and medical committee have combined to give PCA even more liability by blessing each driver's health. We are the only amateur racing organization which does this.

What is going to happen when a diabetic passes out at the wheel of a race car, which is an actual risk, and the lawyer asks why PCA needs verification for CPAP use but doesn't require verification of taking insulin?

Just let the driver's doctor certify that a driver is fit.

But again, these are all policy arguments, and there is no rule requiring CPAP data disclosure. If there was, PCA would have provided it.

Manifold

I agree that PCA has taken on increased liability with their overzealous and inconsistent approach to medical screening, and they may not be moving the needle much, or at all, with respect to safety by doing so. If DE doesn't need all that medical screening, neither does club racing.

For both DE and club racing, I think they should just list examples of health issues which could impact ability to drive on track, and have drivers attest that they're healthy enough to be on track (and advise drivers to consult with their personal doctor if they're not sure).

As far as rules, I think they're spelled out in the forms, and one of the rules is that the applicant must provide PCA with whatever information PCA requests. That information could include CPAP usage, if PCA wants to request it. There's no requirement for PCA to explain or justify a request for information, it's at PCA's sole discretion.

LuigiVampa

I don't read it that way and if what you wrote above is PCA's interpretation than the medical committee can just throw the form out the window and do whatever they want. Since they have never changed their position that a driver with OSA can fall asleep while driving a race car, I have zero faith in their ability to be good medial arbiters of who is fit to race.

Also, is this what we want as PCA drivers? A group of people, who are not elected, who are part of a committee which seemingly does not exist according to PCA Bylaws or the MNPP, which has unlimited powers over who drives and doesn't, and is accountable to no one?

PCA's answer to all this is we know better than you and your doctor and GFY if you question us.

Manifold

Try to look at it from (the) PCA's point of view. I don't think they're going to relinquish their authority to request whatever information they think need for the medical clearance, and they shouldn't be expected to.

And in your particular case, all they've asked you to provide is the CPAP data, and it doesn't seem like an onerous burden to provide that data. Whether it makes sense for them to want that data is not an argument you can win, because they're the doctors and you're not a doctor. They're not asking you take their medical advice, they're just asking you to provide some data for their evaluation, so that they can clear you to race.

And no, they're not overriding your personal doctor, because they won't clear you to race if your personal doctor doesn't clear you; PCA clearance is additional to your personal doctor's clearance.

You're a smart guy and you understand legal reasoning, but because you're the aggrieved 'plaintiff' in this case, I don't think you're looking at this situation with objectivity.

Nowanker

Lengthy, and with an abundance of medical terms to look up, but pretty straightforward.
Thanks for the link!

Manifold

Another one, more technical and detailed:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01496-3

LuigiVampa

I could click a button and make this all go away in the time it takes me to make this post. That isn't the point.

Just like you don't understand why I don't give in, I will never understand people that don't stand up for what they believe in.

One of the reasons why I became a lawyer is because I honestly love the english language and the nuances of our legal system. I read the tax code all day long looking for interpretations for my clients. How the words are arranged in the statutes, regulations, rulings and case law, are how I decide how to advise my clients. These skills are what paid for a Cup car, my air-cooled, and my menagerie of toys. I come from no money - understanding rules, and arguing on behalf of my clients, is my only skill.

I used these same skills to analyze the PCA bylaws, MNPP and other rules. I'm probably the first person who has read it all from top to bottom at once as it appears to be put together piecemeal.

I'm 100% confident in my position, and PCA knows I am right as well, which is why they refuse to provide an answer.

Manifold

I'm a pragmatist. I recognize that I have limited resources, and I allocate my resources towards the things I give most priority to. If I was in your shoes (wanting to race with PCA), I wouldn't be battling with PCA on this because:

- I give more importance to enjoying my time attending PCA events than trying to reform PCA
- PCA will remain pretty much what it is regardless of who gets replaced or how the "rules" are changed
- There are 'causes' which are a lot more important to me than reforming PCA
- It's not a big deal to provide CPAP data

quickboxster

Good God man...

LuigiVampa

Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

Winston Churchill

winders

It's "If I were in your shoes...." and the last three PCAs should be preceded by the article "the".

dgrobs

The last three PCAs?

Now there’s more than one of them?

Does Luigi know this?