Winton's response to CAMS Press Release

[RaceTime]

CONCERNING CAMS’ PRESS RELEASE 25 AUGUST

Earlier this week CAMS released a press release which disturbed many of the Australian Auto-sport Alliance’s supporters as to the accuracy of its content. As the Australian Auto-sport Alliance Incorporated has been established to be a service provider to all associated with Australian motor sport, we respond on their behalf. Of particular concern is the following:

1. CAMS is NOT “the authority for motor sport in Australia”. No organisation has exclusive domain and CAMS should remember that 70% of all car clubs are not affiliated with CAMS and a significant number of the major circuits are now members of the Australian Auto-sport Alliance Inc.

2. The Australian Auto-sport Alliance is NOT a “commercial organisation”. It is a non-profit, incorporated association, under the NSW Associations Incorporations Act 1984.

3. The Australian Auto-sport Alliance has NOT “scheduled a race meeting” for any future date. Concerning October 4 and 5 - Winton Motor Raceway Pty Limited is promoting the “Australian Historic Motor Festival”. The Australian Auto-sport Alliance Inc has been formed to assist motor sport entities, not compete with them.

4. The concern of the CAMS’ Chief Executive Officer “that entrants should not assume that the standard of the systems proposed for this race meeting will be the same as those consistently provided by CAMS” is absolutely valid. The Australian Auto-sport Alliance Inc demands higher risk management standards than has previously been applied by CAMS.

5. It is true that “CAMS’ insurances do not apply to this event”. The promoters have made it very clear that the substantial insurance arrangements entered into by the Australian Auto-sport Alliance Inc, are to be those applying to this event.

6. Pit Crews will be covered by Australian Auto-sport Alliance facilitated Personal Accident insurance, which offers substantial further benefits, some 30% extra to those offered by the, current, similar CAMS’ insurance.

7. It is pleasing to note that the CAMS’ Chief Executive Officer is aware that systems “providing fair, safe and socially responsible motor sport in Australia …have evolved with the input of …competitors, officials, affiliated clubs and club members across all states and categories of motor sport”.

Such comment, by implication, recognises that CAMS does not have intellectual property rights to such “systems” and that Dr Nethercote is aware of the substantial contribution to the development of such systems by the Winton Motor Raceway team, over many years and continuing. Such contributions including those of Winton’s CEO, Mick Ronke, in his capacity as a member of the CAMS’ National Track Safety Committee for many years and his past role as a National Councillor of CAMS. For over 14 years, it has been the practice of the Winton CEO to invite circuit owners and managers, from across Australia, to major events and to attend those other circuits’ major events, so that experience and knowledge could be generously shared to improve motor sport for all.

8. It is pleasing to note that Dr Nethercote has “urged all competitors and officials to also question what insurance and risk management practices are in place before committing to the Winton event”. This is very sound advice. Details concerning such are, and will continue to be, available for inspection at the circuit administration office.

It is to be hoped, given Dr Nethercote’s urging, that the same questioning will be undertaken at all future CAMS’ sanctioned events. Unfortunately, unlike the Australian Auto-sport Alliance, it has never been the practice of CAMS to provide an opportunity for competitors and officials to examine its various insurance policies. It is interesting to note and, undoubtedly a reassurance for Dr Nethercote, that Australian Auto-sport Alliance and CAMS have two common London-based insurance providers and one common Australian-based provider.

9. Concerning Dr Nethercote’s claim that “CAMS has developed unparalleled risk management procedures”. We simply ask that evidence be provided to support such a broad claim. Unfortunately, there have been people very close to CAMS who have made comment contrary to this claim in recent weeks and no-one can be encouraged by the spate of major incidents, at CAMS’ sanctioned events, over the last few years.

The reality is that the Australian Auto-sport Alliance presented comprehensive risk management protocols to the insurance industry in Australia, the UK and the USA, early this year, and raised the bar for all associated with motor sport safety in Australia. All insurance providers canvassed commented that such was the most comprehensive they had ever received from an Australian sporting representative body.

Late last year the Australian Auto-sport Alliance met with CAMS at some length, in an attempt to work together in the interests of Australian motor sport. Unfortunately, CAMS decided to ignore our approach.

Nevertheless, we welcome Dr Nethercote’s “concern for the wellbeing of our sport, its competitors, officials and club members” and we join with CAMS in viewing this “as part of our responsibility”. While the Australian Auto-sport Alliance Inc. offers an essential alternative we, nevertheless, encourage anyone associated with motor sport to be dedicated to improving safety for all.

[GTRMagic]

Now why couldnt the expensive people over at CAMS put out a succinct yet detailed release like that?

Should I hold my breath to read CAMS' response or just assume its pistols at dawn ?

[RaceTime]

More like cannons from the hip from CAMS....although they were very skinny ona reply I received from them today - basically 'Have received your letter. Thanks.'

[GTRMagic]

At least you got a reply.... that is kinda polite, even though it totally ignores your issues...

[elephino]

I have a question about their first point. What does having 70% of car clubs not affiliated with CAMS have to do with anything? Car clubs aren't all motorsport related, many are motoring related only and so have no reason to even consider joining CAMS.

Oh and being an authority doesn't mean they are the only source.

[Wayne Kerr]

They didn't say "an authority"
They said "The authority"

[elephino]

Even being "the" authority doesn't mean they are the only source.

Tony Cochrane is the authority on Tony Cochrane, but he's not the only person who knows anything about Tony Cochrane.

[RaceTime]

CAMS are attempting to claim they have the right to speak for all car clubs undertaking motor sport - whereas, as has been pointed out, not all car clubs are affiliated with CAMS.

I am aware of a number of motorsport oriented car clubs who are not affiliated with CAMS simply because of the extra charges this affiliation brings. This doesn't, however, stop them from either running or participating in track based sprints etc...

[GTRMagic]

What benefit would a car club get from being affiliated with CAMS? I cant think of any off the top of my head...

For the most part, if a`club member wants things like motor vehicle insurance, some of the more progressive clubs (e.g. AROCA) already offer such things....

[RaceTime]

The only supposed benefit is coverage during an on track or mtoorkhana style event.

[GTRMagic]

Insurance coverage you mean?

Does CAMS work as a licenced insurance broker, or do they introduce you to their insurers... that bit seems hazy for me....

In any case, if you want insurance, there are brokers all round the place that can get you policies for almost anything... dont need CAMS for that!

[RaceTime]

Getting into an area here I am not sure of - but I didn't think they acted as either - merely as a body who have insurance for their members.

Don't believe they act as brokers - have you ever been offered any insurance from CAMS? And they certainly don't introduce you to their broker - hell do they even let you see the policy detailing the coverage and exemptions?

[GTRMagic]

Not from CAMS... but it would be interesting to see how that relationship actually worked as opposed to CAMS saying all will be sweet.... If CAMS done show their policies, do they indemnify the meeting on a CAMS letterhead stating they are fully covered?

You know the only way to test it is to sue them for something?

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by GTRMagic
You know the only way to test it is to sue them for something?

Maybe closer than you think

[GTRMagic]

Can we tell the Morris' the cause of them not getting an L1 franchise is CAMS' fault??

[Hybrid]

The following is a list taken from CAMS site.

CAMS’ responsibilities include:
+ The coordination of the annual motor sport calendar
+ The licensing and inspection of circuits
+ The licensing of all competitors
+ The permitting of events in accordance with National Competition Rules
+ The training and licensing of officials
+ The provision of a judicial system
+ Ongoing development of the rules of competition and upholding driver and public safety standards
+ Category Management
+ Liaising with the FIA
+ Developing and maintaining standards of safety and fairness
+ Planning and developing motor sport in Australia
+ Provision of protection through detailed and comprehensive insurance cover for participants, event organisers and claims by members of the public for injuries.

As you can see insurance is only a small part of what they are supposed to be trying to achieve. Maybe if they dropped this and let all the tracks handle their own insurance then they could get on with the other 11 objectives and possibly get those right.

[RaceTime]

How can you arrive at the conclusion that insurance is only a small part? Surely not simply because it is lower down on the list??????

[GTRMagic]

My question is how does CAMS achieve these things without legislative power? Their right to exist as a governing body has not been written into statute anywhere I can remember.... :confused:

[Dirk]

What category management do CAMS do, NONE! They can't be developing the sport because the license numbers are steadily declining.

[GTRMagic]

AAA has a full page ad in MN this edition too, talking about the savings against the cost of dealing with CAMS.

I am curious though, they say that competitor licences will be cheaper too... does this mean the AAA has their own version of licence accreditation recognised by the FIA??

[Hybrid]

Originally posted by RaceTime
How can you arrive at the conclusion that insurance is only a small part? Surely not simply because it is lower down on the list??????

I say the above becuase it is only 1 part in there objectives and if another body is willing to take it on why not? Talking about category management for instance I have had an application in for a category for 12 months. Three families are about to go to the wall and we have not even had our car inspected as yet. If you read the CAMS constitution under preamble nowhere in CAMS objectives does it mention insurance.

[GTRMagic]

So why are CAMS jumping up and down because AAA is offering alternative insurance?

[RaceTime]

Simple - because they came up with something cheaper and better than CAMS managed to (although that isn't hard really).

I mean - CAMS even appear to emply people to make statements for them behind false names....

[GTRMagic]

Thats nice, there are more than a few racing teams and alternate forum suppliers doing exactly the same thing.

[Hybrid]

I don't know but I know that if I was in there shoes I would be only to glad to have another organisation take over. Or maybe I'm stupid and there making money out of this and don't wish to loose control.