Jake Zemke

Jake Zemke

How is it possible that rear axle won't go on that Honda?

Re: Jake Zemke

On 2008-03-10 18:31:37 -0400, "Phil Rhodes" <pe.rhodes@comcast . net > said:

> How is it possible that rear axle won't go on that Honda?

A bigass air driver in the middle of a heated 200 mile race, what could
go wrong? On top of that, one pit crew for two riders, at some point
you've got to shine one on, but tough luck for Jake any way you look at
it. Heh, he prolly took some solace knowing had he won he might have
been DQ'd for the same reason his team mate was...

Re: Jake Zemke

In article <47d5ca56$0$24104$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >, T3 <notme@nowhere . net > wrote:

> On 2008-03-10 18:31:37 -0400, "Phil Rhodes" <pe.rhodes@comcast . net > said:
>
> > How is it possible that rear axle won't go on that Honda?
>
> A bigass air driver in the middle of a heated 200 mile race, what could
> go wrong? On top of that, one pit crew for two riders, at some point
> you've got to shine one on, but tough luck for Jake any way you look at
> it. Heh, he prolly took some solace knowing had he won he might have
> been DQ'd for the same reason his team mate was...

I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort of situation as
that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked for having "modified
valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill and scotch brite 'em. (Sorry I
can't give a name...)

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
<YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:

>
> I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort of situation as
>that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked for having "modified
>valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill and scotch brite 'em. (Sorry I
>can't give a name...)

That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.
IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like six
months. Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?

Re: Jake Zemke

In article <4btbt3hbjj6ja364al69bsk1u08a7ck2ld@4ax . com >, Dave <no1@home . com > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
> <YOURhoward@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
>
> >
> > I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort of
> > situation as
> >that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked for having
> >"modified
> >valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill and scotch brite 'em.
> >(Sorry I
> >can't give a name...)
>
> That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.
> IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
> valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like six
> months. Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?

That happened up at Loudon, didn't it? You're probably right that Jake won't get
the same treatment, though.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mar 10, 11:56 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
> In article <4btbt3hbjj6ja364al69bsk1u08a7ck...@4ax . com >, Dave <n...@home.c=
om> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
> > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
>
> > >   I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort o=
f
> > >   situation as
> > >that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked for havin=
g
> > >"modified
> > >valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill and scotch brite '=
em.
> > >(Sorry I
> > >can't give a name...)
>
> > That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.
> > IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
> > valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like six
> > months.  Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?
>
>    That happened up at Loudon, didn't it? You're probably right that J=
ake won't get
> the same treatment, though.
>



* w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11670

Re: Jake Zemke

In article <1c2365ca-9c5c-4b1e-9ddf-3972753d22b2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups . com >,
"bsr3997@my-deja . com " <bsr3997@my-deja . com > wrote:

> On Mar 10, 11:56 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
> > In article <4btbt3hbjj6ja364al69bsk1u08a7ck...@4ax . com >, Dave
> > <n...@home . com > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
> > > <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
> >
> > > >   I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort of
> > > > situation as that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked
> > > > for having "modified valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill
> > > > and scotch brite 'em. (Sorry I can't give a name...)
> >
> > > That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.
> > > IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
> > > valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like six
> > > months.  Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?
> >
> >    That happened up at Loudon, didn't it? You're probably right that Jake
> > won't get the same treatment, though.

> * w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11670

That's the one - thanks. Chouinard got screwed on that one.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Re: Jake Zemke

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <1c2365ca-9c5c-4b1e-9ddf-3972753d22b2@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups . com >,
> "bsr3997@my-deja . com " <bsr3997@my-deja . com > wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 11:56 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
>>> In article <4btbt3hbjj6ja364al69bsk1u08a7ck...@4ax . com >, Dave
>>> <n...@home . com > wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
>>>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
>>>>> I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort of
>>>>> situation as that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was deeked
>>>>> for having "modified valves" when all they'd done was put them in a drill
>>>>> and scotch brite 'em. (Sorry I can't give a name...)
>>>> That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.
>>>> IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
>>>> valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like six
>>>> months. Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?
>>> That happened up at Loudon, didn't it? You're probably right that Jake
>>> won't get the same treatment, though.
>
>> * w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11670
>
> That's the one - thanks. Chouinard got screwed on that one.

Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulrich
chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims to
be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illegal
about his bike?

Unexpected performance is a perfectly good reason to suspect that
someone might be cheating. I remember years ago when Brian Parriott (I
think) very surprisingly finished on the podium in 750SS at Sears, and
it turned out that he was running a GSX-R1100 motor in his 750. Didn't
even try to continue the sham in tech, 'fessed up and took his
punishment. Which included a suspension, I believe, but it didn't matter
because he was just an AFM racer who didn't plan on doing any other AMA
rounds anyway.

But I guess the assumption is that racers and tuners never lie. Well,
privateers anyway. And since the AMA essentially refuses to get caught
up in these pissing matches in the press (as if RRW would ever consider
fairly presenting that), the assumption is that they are always wrong.
Makes me wonder why they even check the bikes after races, no question
that they're all legal. Well, except for those cheatin' factories...

And then we had this at Soup today: "Does anyone in the paddock believe
that Josh Hayes is a cheater or that he knowingly rode what may have
been an illegal motorcycle? Absolutely not. Hayes' integrity and honesty
are known by seemingly all."

Now my impression is that any high-level professional racer employed by
a serious team probably has little idea what's happened inside those
cases. But I guess the rule should be that you can't penalize the rider,
as long as he doesn't know and can pass a lie detector test. Well, you
don't need to do that last part, because everyone knows racers don't lie...

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mar 11, 11:33 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <1c2365ca-9c5c-4b1e-9ddf-3972753d2...@e60g2000hsh.googlegroup=
s . com >,
> >  "bsr3...@my-deja . com " <bsr3...@my-deja . com > wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 10, 11:56 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
> >>> In article <4btbt3hbjj6ja364al69bsk1u08a7ck...@4ax . com >, Dave
> >>> <n...@home . com > wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:24 -0800, Howard Kveck
> >>>> <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb . com > wrote:
> >>>>>   I really hope that the "problem cranks" are not of the same sort=
of
> >>>>> situation as that imbroglio a few years ago where a local rider was =
deeked
> >>>>> for having "modified valves" when all they'd done was put them in a =
drill
> >>>>> and scotch brite 'em. (Sorry I can't give a name...)
> >>>> That case was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the DQ.=

> >>>> IIRC, not only did they DQ the privateer for scotch-briting his
> >>>> valves, but they also suspended him from racing for something like si=
x
> >>>> months.  Wanna bet Josh doesn't get the same treatment?
> >>>    That happened up at Loudon, didn't it? You're probably right th=
at Jake
> >>> won't get the same treatment, though.
>
> >> * w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11670
>
> >    That's the one - thanks. Chouinard got screwed on that one.
>
> Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulrich
> chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims to
> be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illegal
> about his bike?

How about the fact that they weren't able to come up with anything
better than what they did after spending far more time trying to than
they normally do? Do you think any of the other bikes had engine
parts inspected with a microscope to detect metal removal due to
cleaning? And why was he DQd when others have only received a fine
and/or points penalty for far more serious infractions? Chuck got
screwed.

> Unexpected performance is a perfectly good reason to suspect that
> someone might be cheating. I remember years ago when Brian Parriott (I
> think) very surprisingly finished on the podium in 750SS at Sears, and
> it turned out that he was running a GSX-R1100 motor in his 750. Didn't
> even try to continue the sham in tech, 'fessed up and took his
> punishment. Which included a suspension, I believe, but it didn't matter
> because he was just an AFM racer who didn't plan on doing any other AMA
> rounds anyway.
>
> But I guess the assumption is that racers and tuners never lie. Well,
> privateers anyway. And since the AMA essentially refuses to get caught
> up in these pissing matches in the press (as if RRW would ever consider
> fairly presenting that), the assumption is that they are always wrong.
> Makes me wonder why they even check the bikes after races, no question
> that they're all legal. Well, except for those cheatin' factories...
>
> And then we had this at Soup today: "Does anyone in the paddock believe
> that Josh Hayes is a cheater or that he knowingly rode what may have
> been an illegal motorcycle? Absolutely not. Hayes' integrity and honesty
> are known by seemingly all."
>
> Now my impression is that any high-level professional racer employed by
> a serious team probably has little idea what's happened inside those
> cases. But I guess the rule should be that you can't penalize the rider,
> as long as he doesn't know and can pass a lie detector test. Well, you
> don't need to do that last part, because everyone knows racers don't lie..=
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Jake Zemke

bsr3997@my-deja . com wrote:
> Mark N wrote:

>>> That's the one - thanks. Chouinard got screwed on that one.
>> Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulrich
>> chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims to
>> be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illegal
>> about his bike?
>
> How about the fact that they weren't able to come up with anything
> better than what they did after spending far more time trying to than
> they normally do? Do you think any of the other bikes had engine
> parts inspected with a microscope to detect metal removal due to
> cleaning? And why was he DQd when others have only received a fine
> and/or points penalty for far more serious infractions? Chuck got
> screwed.

And absolutely all of that according to the rider and his team - how do
we know all of that is true? Did Ulrich talk to the AMA about this? Did
he have the parts shipped to him so his man Keith Perry could inspect
them and compare them to stock parts? Did the rider or team show
evidence that he was just as fast at other Loudon events? There are
holes in this that a truck could drive through, RRW is just providing
these guys with a venue for full-scale venting.

These guys may well be telling the absolute truth. But there's no way to
know for sure, as far as I can see. Just as there isn't every single
time we see this same thing at RRW or Soup or any of the other
on-the-record anti-AMA sites. And I DO believe people break the rules in
the AMA, perhaps in particular one-off guys who normally race under
other rules.

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mar 12, 12:48 am, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> bsr3...@my-deja . com wrote:
> > Mark N wrote:
> >>>    That's the one - thanks. Chouinard got screwed on that one.
> >> Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulrich
> >> chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims to
> >> be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illegal=

> >> about his bike?
>
> > How about the fact that they weren't able to come up with anything
> > better than what they did after spending far more time trying to than
> > they normally do?  Do you think any of the other bikes had engine
> > parts inspected with a microscope to detect metal removal due to
> > cleaning?  And why was he DQd when others have only received a fine
> > and/or points penalty for far more serious infractions?  Chuck got
> > screwed.
>
> And absolutely all of that according to the rider and his team - how do
> we know all of that is true?

I know because I was there. Were you?

> Did Ulrich talk to the AMA about this? Did
> he have the parts shipped to him so his man Keith Perry could inspect
> them and compare them to stock parts?

Yes

> Did the rider or team show
> evidence that he was just as fast at other Loudon events?

The claims were made and the evidence was there to back the claims if
they cared to look. You can look for yourself if you like. He won
four class championships the previous year including Unlimited
Supersport, Unlimited Superbike and Unlimited GP.

* w w w .lrrsracing . com /images/pdf/Ex.%20Championships2.PDF

The year before that he won three championships and took second in a
forth.

* w w w .lrrsracing . com /1999/Champ1999.PDF

If you want to look up lap times they can still be found on line.

* w w w .lrrsracing . com /race.htm

Funny, his turning those times makes the point that you were trying to
make. He was able to beat a lot of riders that weighed a whole lot
less than he did because he knew the track and could out ride them, at
least at his home track.

> There are
> holes in this that a truck could drive through, RRW is just providing
> these guys with a venue for full-scale venting.

Yeah, we know tha AMA can do no wrong.

> These guys may well be telling the absolute truth. But there's no way to
> know for sure, as far as I can see. Just as there isn't every single
> time we see this same thing at RRW or Soup or any of the other
> on-the-record anti-AMA sites. And I DO believe people break the rules in
> the AMA, perhaps in particular one-off guys who normally race under
> other rules.

I don't doubt that there is cheating going on, but it was a gross
manipulation of the rules that got Chuck DQd. Others have gotten
caught doing far worse without getting DQd.

Bruce

Re: Jake Zemke

bsr3997@my-deja . com wrote:
> Mark N wrote:
>> bsr3...@my-deja . com wrote:
>>> Mark N wrote:
>>>> Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulrich
>>>> chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims to
>>>> be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illegal
>>>> about his bike?

>>> How about the fact that they weren't able to come up with anything
>>> better than what they did after spending far more time trying to than
>>> they normally do? Do you think any of the other bikes had engine
>>> parts inspected with a microscope to detect metal removal due to
>>> cleaning? And why was he DQd when others have only received a fine
>>> and/or points penalty for far more serious infractions? Chuck got
>>> screwed.

>> And absolutely all of that according to the rider and his team - how do
>> we know all of that is true?
>
> I know because I was there. Were you?

Is my being there material in any way? So were you right in tech the
whole time, watching the whole thing? Or were you just at the track that
weekend?

>> Did Ulrich talk to the AMA about this? Did
>> he have the parts shipped to him so his man Keith Perry could inspect
>> them and compare them to stock parts?
>
> Yes

Really? So why didn't he mention it in the article? Didn't mention it in
the print mag either.

>> Did the rider or team show
>> evidence that he was just as fast at other Loudon events?
>
> The claims were made and the evidence was there to back the claims if
> they cared to look. You can look for yourself if you like. He won
> four class championships the previous year including Unlimited
> Supersport, Unlimited Superbike and Unlimited GP.

> Funny, his turning those times makes the point that you were trying to
> make. He was able to beat a lot of riders that weighed a whole lot
> less than he did because he knew the track and could out ride them, at
> least at his home track.

What's kind of funny about all this is that in the article Cox of White
Tip claims the AMA said, "You're seven tenths (of a second) off of
Miguel Duhamel's times and there's no way a guy your size can be that
competitive", yet of course Duhamel didn't even race in 750SS, his SB
qualifying time was 1.6 second faster than Chouinard's Q time, and
Miguel's 600SS Q time was actually 0.3 slower than Chouinard. And the
guys he shared the podium with were Mike Ciccotto and Richie Alexander,
so hardly factory team powerhouses.

>> There are
>> holes in this that a truck could drive through, RRW is just providing
>> these guys with a venue for full-scale venting.
>
> Yeah, we know tha AMA can do no wrong.

Oh, I forgot, the mandatory position is that the AMA can do no right...

>> These guys may well be telling the absolute truth. But there's no way to
>> know for sure, as far as I can see. Just as there isn't every single
>> time we see this same thing at RRW or Soup or any of the other
>> on-the-record anti-AMA sites. And I DO believe people break the rules in
>> the AMA, perhaps in particular one-off guys who normally race under
>> other rules.
>
> I don't doubt that there is cheating going on, but it was a gross
> manipulation of the rules that got Chuck DQd. Others have gotten
> caught doing far worse without getting DQd.

And why do you think that was? The way this article reads, the guys in
tech really had it in for him, and I can't really see why. I can see
that they might have thought he was doing better than one would expect,
and the AMA has no idea if his bike was even legal for LRRS. I really
doubt that Attack, which wasn't a factory team at all back then, had the
leverage to do anything, and the guy he was chasing, Jimmy Moore, would
have moved up as well (although not as much in points). I can see why
the AMA guys might have been on edge some at Loudon, which by that point
must have been a miserable place for them to be, given the friction
between the pros and the track.

In any case, all I'm saying is just because some privateer racer says in
RRW he got screwed by the AMA doesn't make it so. RRW has always looked
for anything like that, exercising Ulrich's vendetta, and guys know they
aren't likely to really pay for what they say, even if it is massive
stretching of the truth.

What I'm going to find amusing is how this stuff gets dealt with in
Nasbike - riders are probably going to get much harsher punishment for
public statements like that (look at Parriott at Iowa in MotoST last
year), and I can even see RRW getting their press credentials pulled. If
Nascar is any guide, they aren't going to be nearly as tolerant of this
sort of thing than the AMA has been.

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mar 12, 11:23 pm, Mark N <menusb...@NYETSPAMearthlink . net > wrote:
> bsr3...@my-deja . com wrote:
> >  Mark N wrote:
> >> bsr3...@my-deja . com wrote:
> >>> Mark N wrote:
> >>>> Did he? How do you know? Because he claims he was innocent? And Ulric=
h
> >>>> chose to publish that? Like he always does every time anyone claims t=
o
> >>>> be wronged by the AMA? Where's the proof that there was nothing illeg=
al
> >>>> about his bike?
> >>> How about the fact that they weren't able to come up with anything
> >>> better than what they did after spending far more time trying to than
> >>> they normally do?  Do you think any of the other bikes had engine
> >>> parts inspected with a microscope to detect metal removal due to
> >>> cleaning?  And why was he DQd when others have only received a fine
> >>> and/or points penalty for far more serious infractions?  Chuck got
> >>> screwed.
> >> And absolutely all of that according to the rider and his team - how do=

> >> we know all of that is true?
>
> > I know because I was there.  Were you?
>
> Is my being there material in any way?

If you were there you would know what happen. Having not been there
you sit back and question the validity of statements made by those
that were.

> So were you right in tech the
> whole time, watching the whole thing? Or were you just at the track that
> weekend?

I was not in tech but I was close enough to overhear some of the
conversations prior to the race. Chuck knew his engine was going to
get a thorough going over if he made the podium. It wouldn't make
sense for him to finish as well as he did if he thought there was any
possibility of them finding anything out of line. And no, I was not
on Chuck's team.

>
> >> Did Ulrich talk to the AMA about this? Did
> >> he have the parts shipped to him so his man Keith Perry could inspect
> >> them and compare them to stock parts?
>
> > Yes
>
> Really? So why didn't he mention it in the article? Didn't mention it in
> the print mag either.

He hadn't seen them when the article I linked to was written, that
came later.

* w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11976

> >> Did the rider or team show
> >> evidence that he was just as fast at other Loudon events?
>
> > The claims were made and the evidence was there to back the claims if
> > they cared to look.  You can look for yourself if you like.  He won
> > four class championships the previous year including Unlimited
> > Supersport, Unlimited Superbike and Unlimited GP.
> > Funny, his turning those times makes the point that you were trying to
> > make.  He was able to beat a lot of riders that weighed a whole lot
> > less than he did because he knew the track and could out ride them, at
> > least at his home track.
>
> What's kind of funny about all this is that in the article Cox of White
> Tip claims the AMA said, "You're seven tenths (of a second) off of
> Miguel Duhamel's times and there's no way a guy your size can be that
> competitive", yet of course Duhamel didn't even race in 750SS, his SB
> qualifying time was 1.6 second faster than Chouinard's Q time, and
> Miguel's 600SS Q time was actually 0.3 slower than Chouinard. And the
> guys he shared the podium with were Mike Ciccotto and Richie Alexander,
> so hardly factory team powerhouses.

The statement was about Duhamel's SB time before qualifying. Duhamel
was not up to speed yet while of course Chuck was, being at his home
track.

> >> There are
> >> holes in this that a truck could drive through, RRW is just providing
> >> these guys with a venue for full-scale venting.
>
> > Yeah, we know tha AMA can do no wrong.
>
> Oh, I forgot, the mandatory position is that the AMA can do no right...
>
> >> These guys may well be telling the absolute truth. But there's no way t=
o
> >> know for sure, as far as I can see. Just as there isn't every single
> >> time we see this same thing at RRW or Soup or any of the other
> >> on-the-record anti-AMA sites. And I DO believe people break the rules i=
n
> >> the AMA, perhaps in particular one-off guys who normally race under
> >> other rules.
>
> > I don't doubt that there is cheating going on, but it was a gross
> > manipulation of the rules that got Chuck DQd.  Others have gotten
> > caught doing far worse without getting DQd.
>
> And why do you think that was? The way this article reads, the guys in
> tech really had it in for him, and I can't really see why. I can see
> that they might have thought he was doing better than one would expect,
> and the AMA has no idea if his bike was even legal for LRRS. I really
> doubt that Attack, which wasn't a factory team at all back then, had the
> leverage to do anything, and the guy he was chasing, Jimmy Moore, would
> have moved up as well (although not as much in points). I can see why
> the AMA guys might have been on edge some at Loudon, which by that point
> must have been a miserable place for them to be, given the friction
> between the pros and the track.

Chuck was good and he knew it. He may have pissed someone off with
his attitude. Whatever the reason, if Barrick or one of the other top
AMA officials told tech to keep looking till they found something you
can bet your ass that they would find something. In this case that
something was something they would have probably been able to find on
better than 3/4 of the bikes there. They may have even found it on
the winner's bike if they had taken the time to look.

> In any case, all I'm saying is just because some privateer racer says in
> RRW he got screwed by the AMA doesn't make it so. RRW has always looked
> for anything like that, exercising Ulrich's vendetta, and guys know they
> aren't likely to really pay for what they say, even if it is massive
> stretching of the truth.
>
> What I'm going to find amusing is how this stuff gets dealt with in
> Nasbike - riders are probably going to get much harsher punishment for
> public statements like that (look at Parriott at Iowa in MotoST last
> year), and I can even see RRW getting their press credentials pulled. If
> Nascar is any guide, they aren't going to be nearly as tolerant of this
> sort of thing than the AMA has been.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Re: Jake Zemke

bsr3...@my-deja . com points to:

> * w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11976

Umm, did you notice that article says that the valves had metal
removed?
That's illegal and the rulebook says he gets DQ'ed.

Rulebook doesn't give you a break for removing metal by accident.

Dems da rules - don't like em lobby to get them changed or
race elsewhere.


Go fast. Take chances.
Mike S.

Re: Jake Zemke

On Mar 13, 7:37 am, sturd <mikesturdevant...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> bsr3...@my-deja . com points to:
>
> > * w w w .roadracingworld . com /news/article/?article=11976
>
> Umm, did you notice that article says that the valves had metal
> removed?

And did you notice where it said a high powered microscope was needed
to see the tiny amount of metal removed by cleaning with Scotch-
Brite? And did you read the other link that says the rules ok the use
of steel wool or Scoth-Brite to clean gasket surfaces? The original
texture of the valve heads was still visible. It wasn't like they had
swirl polished them with sandpaper. Granted, valves are not gasket
surfaces, but the use of Scotch-Brite to clean them was a common
practice that made no measureable difference when compared to a new
valve. There use of the rule in this case was selctive enforcement.

> That's illegal and the rulebook says he gets DQ'ed.
>
> Rulebook doesn't give you a break for removing metal by accident.

Right, and it doesn't say all racers will be treated equally either.

> Dems da rules - don't like em lobby to get them changed or
> race elsewhere.

I still race at Loudon. The AMA hasn't been back since that weekend
in 2001.

> Go fast. Take chances.
> Mike S.