The unintended consequences of banning pros from historics

Driving standards and how to police them often come up in motorsport. Incidents will always happen, and every now and again an organising club or championship will decide a clampdown is needed.

Safety is an ever-present issue, and if a series gets a reputation for being too lax on rough driving some competitors can be put off, so an organiser's attempt to improve things is usually welcome. But the recent Masters Historic Racing stance is slightly baffling.

One of the leading organisers of historic series, it has specifically picked out 'pro' drivers as a problem, by which it seems to chiefly mean young drivers, some of them probably better described as aspiring professionals.

Maydon said: "Pro drivers are a problem and it's a problem with have to deal with head-on. It's little known that last year we declined entries from four drivers because I thought their driving was either too aggressive or they had the wrong spirit.

"I didn't want to name and shame but maybe, just maybe, we're going to have to start down that route."

Some pros do step out of line - I can recall one Le Mans 24 Hours winner (albeit not a recent one) being particularly aggressive in a very expensive Ferrari at the Silverstone Classic a few years ago - but do they represent the whole problem?

There have been several incidents in the past, involving both pro and amateur drivers, that have not resulted in any action from stewards or organisers. Often it is difficult to apportion blame, but there have been instances when obvious perpetrators have not been punished. And the cause is just as likely to be a 'non-pro' making a mistake or overdriving as it is a professional being too aggressive.

Most enthusiasts also want to see the cars driven at or near the limit. And that's what you get with the pros, whether they be young newcomers or established aces

Policing this is surely more important than the odd stray pro.

"You clamp down on driving standards, period, regardless of who the person is," says historic ace and preparer Martin Stretton (below), one of the pros singled out for praise by Maydon.

"Driving standards should apply across the board. It's not who you are, it's what you do."

Some clubs do deliberately discourage 'pro' drivers (which in some scenarios really just means drivers who are particularly quick), but that is for competitive reasons. The Fifties Sports Car Racing Club, for example, has an unwritten rule essentially excluding top drivers because it doesn't want to deter amateur club racers, which it regards as its core.

It's not a driving standards issue, it's a philosophical one, and clearly the level and size of Masters events shows that this is not the approach it is taking.

There are a lot of very quick drivers in the various Masters series, some of whom have FIA status, and Maydon has stressed that many of them are welcome. Maydon singled out the Mini Celebration Trophy races at last year's Silverstone Classic for poor driving standards, saying the "amount of contact was totally unacceptable".

So Autosport revisited the two contests, on the Classic's own YouTube videos. There was some contact, most dramatically at the start of the second encounter, but most of it seemed to be the sort that could be put down to the close competition that is to be expected from over 50 competitively driven tin-tops battling it out around Silverstone. It was hard to single out any particular pro who was spoiling it for the rest of the field.

There's another potential negative by-product from singling out the pros. It's probably true to say that some wealthy amateur racers don't like the increasing numbers of 'career' drivers coming into historics because they are quick. It's now all but impossible for true amateurs to win some of the biggest events and they do need to be looked after.

As Aston Martin driver Darren Turner, who has contested a number of historic races in recent years, says, "the grids wouldn't be what they are without them".

But, as well as packed entries, most enthusiasts also want to see the cars driven at or near the limit. And that's what you get with the pros, whether they be young newcomers or established aces.

One of the appeals of historic racing, particularly for pre-slicks-and-wings machines, is that the cars move around. You can see a lot more of the drivers' efforts than in contemporary competition - watching top drivers drift around Goodwood bumper-to- bumper or doorhandle-to-doorhandle, for example, is spectacular.

Many pros, such as Sam Hancock (above), go on to become part of the historic racing scene, bringing fresh blood to the sport. This is surely a plus.

Masters' move is not aimed at discouraging new drivers, but it could be an unfortunate consequence.

"There are some brilliant young drivers coming in and I relish the challenge," adds Stretton.

"The future of the sport is an evolving process - we need to encourage people in. It's not going to help if we ban the drivers who could be future [regular] competitors. We don't want to put people off."

The increasing professionalism at the top of historic motorsport has its pluses and minuses. The quality of the front improves and it can help attract more fans, but it increases costs (some of the pros are paid very handsomely for their historic race outings) and can bring an extra edge to the competition.

Addressing those issues is sensible, even if you can't turn the clock back in some areas. But having a holistic approach, treating everyone the same way irrespective of their background, seems a better and fairer way of doing that than trying to single out a handful of pros who can also be inconveniently rapid.