|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I couldn't agree more with your article, "Federal Government Bans Motocross." ...I try with difficulty to respond without sounding completely negative, and not just reiterate what you have already written. I am a Physician Assistant who works in Emergency and Family Medicine. I am also a Vet motocross racer. What you have written is almost verbatim of the discussions that I have had with many of my fellow racers and friends, although we have mostly been grumbling in the stands as we are unwilling to ride on the tracks that you describe. I probably find myself justifying the risk of our sport even more so than most, giving the same tired justifications. What it really comes down to is I like the fun and excitement, not to mention the friendships I have built at the track.
It is obviously no secret that tracks are becoming more dangerous while at the same time bikes become faster and are better suspended. As it stands right now, I would argue that the determining factor in winning on most tracks is the willingness to jump the farthest. Skill in braking, turning, and other bike handling skill have less importance. As well, on most jumps, there is not only little to no margin for error, but no way to practice the jump and work up to doing it. You are left with taking a deep breath and going for it, and either sink or swim. A tabletop would negate so much of the risk of jumping it is difficult to imagine why tracks would do anything else. I had just as much fun watching the pros jump the finish line tabletop in Minneapolis as any of the triples, and the air looked just as impressive. Watching somebody come up short on a double and get hurt is in no way entertaining to me. Accidents are be definition preventable. In a sport with it's own obvious inherent risk, why not minimize and prevent it as much as possible. there is one point I disagree with. I think that a rougher track (i.e., whoops, braking bumps, ruts is actually a slower one with a lower degree of injury. I would much rather live with a broken wrist than a broken back.
Do promoters realize the number of potential competitors who are sitting watching a race, when they would be competing if they felt the track was safer? I would always rather compete than watch, but there comes a point when one is no longer able to justify the risk versus the benefit. I am willing to accept a certain amount of risk. I think anyone who participates in our sport understands this. I take a risk each time I give a patient a medication. When the risk is substantiated, I will make that decision with the patient. However, I don't give them the option of making that decision when the risk becomes too great. Track builders need to follow a similar decision path. Don't make an obstacle any more difficult or dangerous than it needs to be. There is a difference between challenging and dangerous. It is challenging to finally clear a tabletop. It is also faster and ultimately will give an advantage to that rider who is skilled enough to do it. Up to now, I have chosen to speak with my pocketbook. When I can count 10 riders at a race who would otherwise be riding, and have chosen not to spend $40-$50 each, can that promoter go on losing $400-$500 a race? And that's only the people I know, being fairly new to the area. On the other hand, I have returned to race at a local track that I feel has made adequate improvements. Many of my vet rider friends also express agreement in not caring if their children ever compete in motocross, and state that they will never encourage them to. Hopefully, that's an even louder message. My father started me riding dirt bikes, and it was honestly one of the best things he could have done for me in terms of self-confidence and development as a person. Will I choose to do the same for my children?
I also agree with Mr. Daly that outside forces will reshape our sport if we don't, except that I believe the most prominent players will be the insurance companies. They may simply choose to stop paying for injuries incurred when people elect to engage in such high risk activities. Trust me, they can and will do whatever they want. I think all high risk, extreme sports will be affected, not just ours.
I question whether the AMA as it stands right now is willing or able to do anything about this issue. I already feel strongly that I would not belong to the AMA if I didn't race. I think that their stance on helmet laws is deplorable. The AMA rules committee should step up and evaluate where we are as far as safety is concerned right now and then act quickly and decisively to make the necessary changes. The AMA should be further shamed if they have reacted to Mr. Daly's article in anger. After all, we are not talking a major revamp here, only changing the design of one obstacle! As our governing body in competition, the AMA needs to take the lead in making these changes. Look at the FIM in Europe, they don't allow doubles and their success seems to continue, and their riders are competitive with ours.
Most race fans come to see just that, good close racing. Everyone wants our sport to be the next NASCAR. The excitement of NASCAR is watching a big pack racing together, not knowing what the outcome will be. As NASCAR has continued to make safety improvements, they have only become more popular. The excitement of watching our national series comes not just from the big jumps, but more so from watching our favorite riders compete on our local tracks a couple of times a year. Yet, the bigger picture is following the entire series, especially with the advent of the Internet and our expanding TV coverage. To become another NASCAR type success, we need our series to remain close and exciting right to the very end. That means keeping our riders healthy and competing, not sitting at home recovering for the next series. Who cares about a series that is over halfway through? There are two keys to success in Pro motocross; skill of course, and the luck of not being injured during the year, the odds of which are harder to beat each year.
While I thank those who make tracks and promote races for the opportunities that they give us, I hope that they do not lose sight of who they should be ultimately developed for. Without the racers there will be no fans. As such a typically close knit community, I would hope that we would look out for our own. If the track owners look out for the riders, the riders will support them. What comes around tends to go around. The safety for our friends and children should be the paramount issue. I applaud Mr. Daly as an "industry insider" who has much to lose for stepping forward and starting this debate. With relatively minor changes we can positively affect our sport for all those involved, and not have to watch our friends be injured, disabled, or even worse, killed.
David Bordewyk