Is it cheating??

[Mark75H]

If you don't understand the rules?

If everyone in your region is doing it?

If you are not getting caught?

If everyone who places in the top 3 in your class is doing it?

[Andrew 4CE]

I think cheating is to intentionally do it. Whatever they are doing would still illegal, but I wouldn't call it cheating unless they know about it.

[Tim Chance]

Was it Smokey Yunick that said: "It's not cheating if you don't get caught.", or something like that.

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

according to his autobiography (actually three separate books, some of the best reading you will ever do, he was a fascinating person and not only insofar as racing is concerned) his philosophy was basically "if it doesn't say you couldn't, I did. I just read the rule book carefully. If a nut, bolt, or part wasn't specifically mentioned, or a measurement wasn't given, I assumed those items were fair game. Even if they said "stock", what the hell did that mean? They needed to say "stock as of a certain day". Stock can change a lot depending on when and where a part was made. As a result of my reading of the rules, by 1970 half of the technical section of the Nascar rule book, was dedicated to me - quite an honor actually."

One example of his ingenuity was a Nascar rule that stated "nothing can be removed from the cylinder head". Smokey followed that to the letter of the law by not touching the head, but either decking the block or jacking up the pistons, thereby not breaking the existing rule, but still accomplishing the same thing performance wise.

I am sure that type thinking was not unique to car racing. Maybe some day someone will write a book like his about boat racing, and "pushing the envelope".

Thats why I always like the PRO category. A minimum of BS inspection and protest wise.

[Steve Litzell]

If you don't understand the rules?

If everyone in your region is doing it?

If you are not getting caught?

If everyone who places in the top 3 in your class is doing it?

Cheating is when anything is done aginst what the rules say. period! Like Bill Van's coment, If it does not say then it is fair game. That is what gets me about Stock Outboard, The rule say's stock but the front runners have perfect motors that the manufacture never made. Thus you have blueprinted motors for some but not all. This is why I believe that if you have a spec, then you should be allowed to grind, weld ,fill, or what ever to make the motor to manufacture min/max specs. In all types of racing there are rules, and in between the rules is where I like to play. I have made plenty Drag cars and boat engines by what the rules don't say rather than by what they do say. Race On! Steve

[88workcar]

If you don't understand the rules?Still illegal

If everyone in your region is doing it?are they winning

If you are not getting caught?still cheating

If everyone who places in the top 3 in your class is doing it?would have to be brought before the officials and ither made legal of disqualify all particpants

Just my thoughts

[Master Oil Racing Team]

My Dad and Henry Wagner had numerous discussions at the APBA National Conventions. My Dad, like you Bill Van, liked PRO because of the few hassles and simple, quick inspections. My Dad always said "If it's not in the rule book....you can do it." Henry always said "If it's not in the rule book you can't do it." Since PRO was the category with the least restrictions.....it was the only category to experiment in. Look at the advances with exhaust sytems, and loop charging, reeds, valves, heads, etc. According to the rule book prior to around 1975, hydroplanes were illegal because they used lifting devices. The Butt's Aerowing would have never ignited the picklefork advancements had the rule book been strictly adhered to. I am very much against cheating, but I am also opposed to legitimate progress being tied down in an open class. In stock, that's a whole different issue.

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

a whole thread could be devoted to Henry, if there isn't already. I seem to remember some stories about Henry on BRF, but don't know just where to find them right now.

I know Ron Hill would have some tales to tell about Henry, and there is one about Henry and Ed Thrilby clashing at Ackworth, Ga., in the early to mid 80's about the legality of a C Service engine that Eddie won a championship with and then was disqualified in inspection. I posted that myself and the discussion/disagreement about the legality of that engine was a sight to see.

Wayne's comment about how his Dad and Henry looked at the rule book really gives you the two extremes about how it can be looked at by two different people. I did not know Henry Wagner as well as some, but I knew him well enough I knew there was a very small chance in prevailing in a difference of opinion with him. Ed Thrilby was the only person who I can remember that ever did prevail, when I was around where he was inspecting, and there was a difference of opinion.

[Mark75H]

I'm not talking about "fuzzy" rules ... the ones that are bothering me right now are pretty clear.

For you alky guys ... suppose someone found a way to use nitromethane today and not be detected? I think its pretty clear in the rule book, that nitro is not allowed, right?

(This isn't what is happening, but its along the same lines ... not something that's stretching the letter of the rule, its pretty clear, just not detected - one racer told me, if it couldn't be detected ... it was legal.)

[Bill Van Steenwyk]

Sam:

I know little or nothing about stock rules, BUT it seems to me that how the rule book is interpreted would be key:

i.e. do your inspectors, as Wayne brought out in his comments about his Dad and Henry Wagner, have a disagreement in philosophy about "if it is or isn't spelled out, it is either legal or illegal", or has that ever been determined? If by omission (your example about the nitro additive) it is not definitively spelled out it is illegal, or says that pump gas for example is all you can run, then it would seem to be pretty clear.

To give you an example, back in the 70's, nitrous oxide, BY OMISSION, was legal in the PRO category. When it was determined that some were experimenting with it and there were good power gains to be made with it's use, it was specifically, BY NAME, prohibited from use in the PRO Category, but until that time as there was no specific rule prohibiting its use and it was OK to use it. I don't know of any specific instance where there was usage and a protest filed and a decision rendered, but the commission acted on the advise of those who were trying it and the problems/expense that was being incurred with it's use. I think the way the rule finally ended up was whatever fuel used "had to exist as a liquid at atmospheric pressure." I was on the commission at the time and that is the way I remember it. There were other additives being used at that time also such as propylene oxide, so the way the rule was written covered other additives/fuels than just nitrous.

I think to most of us who have been around for any time at all, we think of the "Stock" category as using parts that came on the motor, made by the original mfgr, and not anything else except if specifically authorized by the commission or governing body, as has been the case in some of the classes because OEM parts are no longer available.

Mod rules at first glance or thought would seem to need to be even more clearly written, as the word "MOD" indicates some modifications allowed, but again they would need to be specific as to what IS allowed and what is NOT.

PRO of course is completely different, as you just basically have a bore and stroke dimension and pretty much anything else goes, except with the Antique's and K-PRO. That is why you do not see Flatheads still competing all these years later, as they have been obsoleted by more modern engine designs, just because the only real governing rule is bore and stroke.

All that being said, to some, rule books are there to followed strictly by the letter. If it is not forbidden, then you can do it. To others, unless it is allowed it is forbidden. That is why it would be important to know if that way of looking at the rule book has ever been established as to whether calling it out as allowed or forbidden, or being legal by omission, would be important in this case. Think the lawyer's call it "establishing a precedent". Maybe ask Eddie, he's a lawyer and a stock guy also, I am sure he would have an opinion anyway.

ADD: To your original question:

If there is a rule specifically prohibiting something, such as the Nitro rule you use as an example, and it is prohibited by name and description, it seems to me that whether it can be detected or not is key. CAN YOU PROVE IT?? Just because a Cop stops you and says he THINKS you looked like you were speeding, most Judges would throw that out in a minute without definitive proof of some type such as radar, laser, etc. If someone is using a prohibited part, fuel, etc., and you can't prove it, then how do you prove him outside the rules. Seems there has to be a way to prove something illegal, if there is a rule against it, before you can say he was cheating. If you can't prove it, then you can't very well penalize him just on suspicion. If suspensions, disqualifications were made on suspicion alone, would not be a very good atmosphere to compete in.

Don't know how much help this is, but it is the best I can come up with right now.