Copyright 2003, Roadracing World Publishing, Inc.

FIRST PERSON/OPINION:

By Steve Atlas

Article II of the American Motorcyclist Association’s Code of Regulations states, “The purpose of the Corporation is to pursue, promote, and protect the interests of motorcyclists, while serving the needs of its members.”

If this is the case, then explain to me why AMA Pro Racing, a division of the AMA, is considering eliminating Thursday promoter practice for all racers who finished in the top-10 in class points the previous year. Not only are they trying to get rid of promoter practice, but they are also talking about cutting events to only two days.

If the AMA is truly trying to look out for “the needs of its members,” and all AMA professional racers are required to have an AMA membership to compete, then why would they even think about excluding the top-10 from promoter practice?

This is not information I found out from the AMA, they haven’t told the members or the public about any of this. The only people they told are members of the non-representative Road Racing Advisory Board, which is mostly made up of factory team and manufacturer employees.

Personally I think this is totally wrong. OK, I understand excluding riders with a factory contract, as the factories have the money and time to rent tracks for testing, but excluding the top-10 in class from the previous year, and possibly shortening race weekends to only two days, is absurd.

As it is now, 26 non-factory riders would be eliminated from promoter practice next season. And to make matters worse, the majority of these riders will likely be in different classes and on different bikes next year, due to the AMA’s proposed rule changes.

All this amidst rumors that many of the factory teams will be running in the new Superstock and Formula Xtreme classes. Now guys like Vincent Haskovec, Opie Caylor and John Haner will have to learn a new bike, without promoter practice, and are expected to compete against the likes of the factory riders, who will have numerous hours of private testing.

Just to put it into prospective, Yoshimura Suzuki, said to be planning on fielding a rider in Superstock next year, spent 22 days in private testing since January 1st 2003, including four days in Malaysia in January, sorting out 2003 GSX-R1000 Suzukis that nobody else in the U.S. got their hands on until late March. The only testing Caylor or Haskovec got to do involved club races or track days, where they could get four or five 20 or 30-minute sessions, often stopped numerous times for red flags, all while sharing the track with up to 40 or 50 other riders.

This reminds me of a couple years back when the AMA decided to ban all riders in the top-10 in Superbike and Supersport points at the time, from riding on Thursdays. We all know what happened then. Everyone complained, the AMA officials said they were unable to change rules mid-season, and it took a petition signed by nearly every non-factory rider to get the AMA to realize that the rule boxed out guys like Brian Livengood and John Hopkins (who was a support rider at the time).

After that, the AMA changed the rule and everyone was happy, or should I say less pissed off, for awhile. But now rumors of this new rule pop up, and it’s exactly what the AMA previously realized was wrong, but on an even wider scale.

So, why does the AMA keep trying to make events smaller? Well, just like everything else they do, they want to keep the factory teams happy. And the factory teams want promoter practice gone altogether.

Why do the factory teams want shorter events? They complain that they have to be at the track on Wednesday to park and set-up before the pit fills up for Thursday practice, and that it costs them too much money to do so.

Well, look at it this way. The privateers, who need the practice, are taking time off from their jobs, spending their hard-earned money, and driving across the country to be there, yet the factory teams, who get paid to be there, complain about going a day early.

To that, I say let the factory teams complain. They are the minority. For example, there are over 150 licensed Superbike riders, but only 15 factory riders, and only six of whom compete in the class on a regular basis. That’s less than 10 percent.

So what if the factory teams need to spend a little bit more money to get there a day early? The money they would save by being able to show up a day later, compared to the amount of money they spend on testing alone, is tiny. But to the privateer, who makes up over 90 percent of AMA Pro racers, an extra day of practice is invaluable, and the nine available Thursday practice days in 2003 were important.

If Thursday practice puts too much strain on factory teams, they should save money by testing less during the off season.

When the AMA first eliminated factory riders from Thursday practice they said it was to help even the playing field. If they wanted to do that they should eliminate factory testing altogether. We all know that’s never going to happen, at least as long as the factories control AMA Pro Racing. And all they are going to do by eliminating the top-10 from the previous year and shortening race weekends is to hurt the privateers who actually have a shot at being competitive with the factory guys. How does that help even the playing field?

So here is what I think needs to happen. The AMA should start by paying attention to its own stated purpose, and serve the needs of its members. Then once they do that, and realize that privateers make up the majority of AMA professional racers, they need to abandon the idea of shortening events or eliminating anyone but factory riders from promoter practice. On top of that I think they should also restrict the amount of testing the factory teams can do. After all, this is AMA Pro Racing, not AMA Factory Pro Racing.



Note: Steve Atlas holds an AMA Pro Expert license and has competed in the Superstock class as a privateer.