Croft Endurance Results

[Trevor Williams]

So, why did Ainslie and Steve Panas get excluded???

[Matthew Hollis]

I don't know the full story, but it was because they refuelled the car during the race.  The clerk had said this was not permitted, but then several teams were told it was (although it would appear it wasn't after all ???).

[Trevor Williams]

Oops!!
Thanks Matt

[Simon Crook]

Trevor you know what these officials are like  ;D

I thought we all signed something saying 'Please Reinstate Them' did that not work then?

[Ainslie Bousfield]

No doubt this will be taken down, but here goes.....

Dear Classic 2CV Racing Club

A most sincere thank you to all of you who signed the letter presented to BARC regarding the exclusion of car 80 from the Croft Endurance Race Results.

A particular thank you to Philip for approaching the subject with BARC on several occassions and assisting with a letter and presenting it on behalf of the club.

I realise that you may have the opinion this attempt was a little pointless and acaedemic but I remain very disappointed in the decision that the BARC took as I still believe it was fundementaly unfair. The fact that Trevor has picked up that we were disqualified also irritates me as I feel we have been accused of trying to, either gain an unfair advantage or, flaunt fire safety rules. Therefore I am either a cheat or someone who is prepared to put my fellow competitors and friends at risk. It remains my opinion we did neither and followed a precise instruction which was not superceded by a less precise one.

At our drivers briefing we were told in no uncertain terms that our driving standards were below the required standard for our championship and it was our responsibilities as racing drivers to correct this before it was taken out of our hands. Unfortunately it seems we can not question the administration standards at the event despite a complete intransigence and point blank refusal to admit any responsibility by BARC for being the root cause of the misunderstanding.

On Sunday afternoon I asked BARC staff for a list of drivers names for a petition (as they had supplied only an hour previously). I was asked what is was for and explained it was for a petition regarding the exclusion of car 80 fromm the 2 hour endurance race. I was then told I would not be issued with the list - hence why the list that was circulated was handwritten unlike that for new car 7. I am afraid it is hard to understand how this refusal can not be viewed as a deliberate atempt to obstruct the process of the petition. Perhaps it was in the hope that the issue would then disappear and the opinion of the paddock could be ignored?

At a time when numbers on the grid are low this type of attitude does nothing to encourage me to get the car out again after 7 years. Except for the kind support from all the other drivers taking part and who all signed the petition, without exception. Perhaps we have a broader perception of what is fair than those who organise our Championship?


Thank you

Ainslie

(These are my own opinions [Ainslie Bousfield] and do not claim to reflect the opinions of any other individuals or members of the Classic 2CV Racing Club, their sponsors or associate members.)

Should the BARC wish to contact the club regarding this post on a legal basis can I ask that the members of the club do not response but forward the correspondence directly to myself. I will then reply having consulted with one of the signatures of the Petition, Mervyn Rundle at Solicitors Title.

http://www.solicitorstitle.co.uk/services/niche/motorsport