Minimum age rule?

[StockersRock]

Minimum age rule for national event competitors in 2008

So what's the issue?

 

[john]

I think they just want to eliminate any issues with minors by this approach, a minor can not legally sign a waiver for starters. The states all have differing laws on how old you must be to race a car in competition, some are 16, some 17 and some are at 18. This just gives the sanctioning body a level field across the board.

 

[StockersRock]

Hey Ian, it was nice to meet you in E-town, hope your friends enjoyed it!
To the topic at hand though, what's to do with the tobacco end of it? The Skoal Showdown is the only conflict I can think of.

 

[john]

He is an ex Nascar fan, he loved it and wants to go to Reading now. He's hooked and his stepdaughter hasn't stopped about Ashley Force.

There may be something in the settlement about age, they did note it only effects the NHRA stuff, not local track stuff.

 

[Ponyhntr]

Isn't Daniel Wilkerson 16? I assume he won't be able to run his A/FC at national events, but can at divisionals?

 

[Harry Mannback]

I'm no expert on this, but I believe it has more to do with the fact that any person under the age of 18 is non contractible. Meaning they can not sign any kind of waver, entry forms ECT. I know that in the USAC Ford focus Midget series if you are under 18 you have to go to court and become partially emancipated from your parents and become reasonable for your self order to race.

Dan

 

[Keith Burgan]

Actually the rule is related to a California court decision re the tobacco deal. If you look around there is info out there somewhere if not terribly explicit.

Roo

 

[Sully]

I believe the California ruling basically said that the agreement meant that tobacco products could not sponsor a series or a competitor in a series where any competitor was under the age of 18. More "Big Brother" stuff.

 

[Jim]

I believe the California ruling basically said that the agreement meant that tobacco products could not sponsor a series or a competitor in a series where any competitor was under the age of 18. More "Big Brother" stuff.

Larry is correct. The tobacco agreement of a few years ago and subsequent court decisions said that tobacco companies could not do any advertising or pormotion aimed at children (under 18). That includes sponsorships. It is not just racing, it covers every form of advertising or promotion. If someone under 18 is involved.the tobacco companies cannot sponsor the event or team.

Jim

 

[Buddy]

Good thing I turn 18 in a 16 days! It's a shame to hear this though... Youth is a nice element at its being wasted by two years... Thats two years of belated training for future racers!

CJ Curtsinger

 

[Sully]

The difference in the California ruling is that the land of fruits and nuts decided that not only could tobacco companies not sponsor a driver under 18, they could not sponsor any team in a series where competitors were under 18 (or whatever the equivalent legalese might be). California has been making some interesting interpretations of federal laws lately, maybe the current state Attorney General (former governor Jerry Brown) has his hand in the middle of this one too?

 

[Mr. Jean]

It's not just California folks. Here's what Len Imbrogno had to say on it.

"Stupid rule...yes....But not an NHRA rule.
The ban on anyone under the age of 18 is the result of an agreement by the tobacco companies (which includes smokeless tobacco) and 46 states.The ban restricts anyone under the age of 18 years of age from competing in events where any tobacco sponsorship is present. Because this includes smokeless tobacco, it affects NHRA national events as a result of the presence of smokeless tobacco sponsorship on race cars. This is why it applies to national events only.

As stated, if NHRA could stand up to it, we most definitely would."

He also went on to say :

"This ruling not only includes all other forms of motorsports, it includes all sporting activities of any kind. It did not exist 10 years ago. Anyone wanting to read the details of the agreement can find it on line. It can be found by doing a search under "master settlement agreement".


Hope that clears it up a bit.

 

[Jim]

The difference in the California ruling is that the land of fruits and nuts decided that not only could tobacco companies not sponsor a driver under 18, they could not sponsor any team in a series where competitors were under 18 (or whatever the equivalent legalese might be).

The really stupid part about the ruling is that it does nothing to stop the tobacco companies from using sponsorships to promote their products to an audience of under-18 people. So this ruling keeps under 18 drivers off the track, but still allows the tobacco companies to promote themselves to under-18 year old members of the audience.

So in short, the California ruling does nothing to address the original intent of the agreement, which was to stop tobacco companies from promoting to minors.

Jim

 

[Buddy]

The really stupid part about the ruling is that it does nothing to stop the tobacco companies from using sponsorships to promote their products to an audience of under-18 people. So this ruling keeps under 18 drivers off the track, but still allows the tobacco companies to promote themselves to under-18 year old members of the audience.

So in short, the California ruling does nothing to address the original intent of the agreement, which was to stop tobacco companies from promoting to minors.

Jim

Good point, especially since you are more prone to staring at a sponsor from the stands than you are from a drivers seat. More useless rules. Should we worry about not being 21 as long as a Bernstein is still driving? lol...

CJ Curtsinger