Reed: Cheater? AMA Says Yes.

[nephron]

I agree with you Grinch. I don't like this at all. A conspiracy? No. The whole thing is disgusting. Like you said, he should have 50 more points by now.

Odd that Kevin would wake up and start riding last weekend. That'll piss some people off, but consider his inconsistency of effort and tell me he's got the 'heart of a champion'. I don't dislike him, but if Reed loses this thing on a mechanical DNF, it will be really unfortunate.

 

[Jon K.]

Pssst!! The penalty for putting a Frenchman into the cheap seats is only 10 points, not 25. Still; you gotta make it stick.

 

[dirt bike dave]

Also, it would be interesting to see what the actual measurement was against the allowable limit. It has been stated on this thread that the breach of fuel is not subjective (compared to say, aggressive riding) but what about the penalty?? If the reading was a few parts per million over on lead, what real advantage is gained? Don't get me wrong, the team should be penalised somehow, but it should be in proportion to the crime.

During the TV broadcast of Salt Lake City, Steve Whitlock from the AMA indicated that they did rely on the magnitude of the violation when determining the penalty.

My GUESS is there was a pronounced non-compliance, but the AMA does not want to embarass Yamaha further. Afterall, Yamaha is on all the big AMA committess and a major participant in all things AMA. If Corporate Yamaha makes an official stink about being framed after their appeal is rejected, my GUESS is the independent test results and subsequent re-tests will then be released by the AMA. Otherwise, mums the word and the penalty will stick.

 

[fender92883]

Okie, your comment about Hadsell's 25 point penalty:

The first guy to go negative, lol.

He's got -21 points! Click here for proof!

 

[CJG]

According to the article on Transworld Motocross' website, Reed's fuel had .017-.018g/liter of lead. The maximum allowable amount per AMA rules is .005g/liter(EPA as of 1996 is ~.0125g/liter, 2.5 times the AMA legal amount). So technically you may not even be able to run pump gas in an AMA pro racing event.

I don't know how much lead is in a leaded race gas like C12 for example, but I do know that the legal amount contained in PUMP gas in 1973 was ~.6g/liter(over 35 times the amount of lead found in the Yamaha bikes).

I'm no petrochemist but I don't think that they were blatantly cheating. Maybe there should be a penalty, but I don't think it should be this severe. But I'm one of the people who think the rule should never have been changed in the first place.

 

[Ando400]

I think today's article on Motorcycle Daily sums it up completely. There was negligence on the part of Team Yamaha, not Chad Reed. Secondly it is clear from the evidence available to us at least that there was no intent.

Regardless, the penalty doesn't make sense. In all likelihood Reed is still going to win, just one round later than expected. There was intense discussion earlier in the year about the point penalty for Windham. Why? Because it hit where it hurt the most. But more importantly, aggressive riding is clearly the fault of the rider, fuel specifications aren't. In this case I think the AMA got it wrong - a point penalty in this situation is an easy way out.

Ando

 

[Okiewan]

From the AMA:

Appeals Denied

PICKERINGTON, Ohio (April 30, 2004) - AMA Pro Racing has announced that it will not accept appeals submitted by riders Tyson Hadsell, Chad Reed and David Vuillemin. All three riders were penalized for using illegal fuel at round 14 of the THQ AMA Supercross Series at Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas on April 17.

In announcing the decision, Merrill Vanderslice, AMA Pro Racing Director of Competition stated that there was nothing in the appeals that would warrant convening an appeal board. "The appeals submitted by the riders never refute AMA Pro Racing’s finding that fuel tested after the Texas Supercross was found to be in non-compliance. Instead, the appeals attempt to cast doubt on the testing methodology, the validity of the AMA Supercross fuel requirements, whether or not their fuel impacted performance and the appropriateness of the penalty. Based on the language in the AMA Supercross Rulebook, none of this is appealable. According to the AMA Supercross Rulebook, appeals can be lodged under two circumstances: 1) a party which loses a protest can appeal for further review of the issue, and 2) an appeal may be lodged to challenge fines, suspensions and technical disqualifications levied by Race Managers and/or AMA Pro Racing. Obviously this is an unfortunate situation. However, after carefully reviewing all the facts surrounding this incident I’m confident that our initial findings are correct. The fuel in the bikes of Hadsell, Reed and Vuillemin from the Texas Supercross was not in compliance and the penalties applied are appropriate."

 

[CJG]

Apparently this still isn't finished. Yamaha seems intent on battling this despite the fact that the SX season is over, and they won. According to Yamaha, they have still not been given a sample of the fuel the AMA tested despite repeated requests(theme from X-Files in background). Yamaha also claims to have had their fuel(same as Dallas) independently tested after SLC and it passed. It sounded like the guy from Yamaha suspects foul play(or at least faulty testing)on the AMA's part.

I smell some good conspiracy theories brewing!

 

[Vic]

AMA incompetency wouldn't surprise me. :ohmy:

 

[CJG]

Yeah. It seems like incompetency on the AMA's part is pretty much the rule, not the exception.

 

[hug747]

Reed wins 250 supercross championship. Take away 25 points and still comes out on top. :yeehaw: Nothing against Windham.