Put a fork in Level 5

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that,most "ex-Level 5" crew/drivers/engineers etc" DO have a clear conscience because they know the man personally and are comfortable that the real man is very different from the caricature the courts and the lapdog media has created. Tucker was a "money guy". The business he is in trouble for were only a small part of his portfolio. The idea the Tucker was the evil kingpin of the payday loan industry, racing Ferrari's on the backs of the poor is absurd to anyone who knows him. I know its easy to follow along with the news stories and hate the guy, everyone loves a good gangster story after all. Except that in this case the gangsters are the government and the lengths that it is willing to go to in order to "get" someone they don't like should scare all of us. Read up on "Operation Choke Point" and other government strategies for dealing with perfectly legal but perhaps unsavory business. Folks like gun dealers, porn producers and Payday Loan providers, were harassed, denied access to banks and relentlessly audited or sued. These tactics are good examples of the kind of government America is not supposed to practice. Remember that the payday loan industry pre-dates Scott Tucker by generations! Congress could have outlawed this practice dozens of times but never has. Even today, the government is running Tuckers businesses and writing loans just as he did. Yes, you read that right, your government is in the Payday loan business...does that make all Americans as culpable as "ex Level 5" folks are? I am pretty sure the proceeds are not being returned to the "victims".

Yes, the government got their win here, the first Tucker conviction of any kind in 14 years of trying, but like many back markers, they had to cheat to get there. .

So Rob, while I am disappointed to read such an unfair post coming from you, I don't blame you for feeling that way. I still stand by my friend Mr Tucker, and I am ashamed of our justice system. Scott has more integrity in his little finger then the Obama Justice system had in its entire staff.

I am in no way defending the PayDay Loan industry of course, but don;t expect me to lie down for the kind of Character attack we see here. I was a racing Champion before, during and since my time with Mr Tucker and I deserve better, just as many other Level 5 veterans do.

 

were you a character witness for him during his trial? will you be visiting him in prison?

what other businesses are in his portfolio? I don't know of any that weren't a) directly related to payday loans or b) fronts for hiding money generated from payday loans. but since you might have more complete information than me, enlighten me.

 

Rob, I am not comfortable defending the Payday loan business. I will say that for what's worth most folks with Ferraris in our garages will find it hard to relate to those who need a $500 loan. You must at least concede that there must be a large group of satisfied customers for it to make as much as it does for so long. Drive down any frontage road and see the title loan outfits and Payday loan shops, there is a huge demand for subprime loans. 80% of the customers pay back as agreed. Consider a single Mom who needs a transmission job on her Focus so she can get to work and take her kids to school. $500 today and paying back $700 in 3 weeks seems terrible to you and I, we can whip out the credit card. She may be choosing between that loan and swinging from a pole, Tucker is her hero.
It's not so simple, and none of that is the point. I choose to think that any benefits I may have derived from Level 5 came from the happy customers.

 

I would have testified if asked, and yes I would probably visit him in Prision.

I am not an expert on his other deals but I know he had interests in inexpensive diabetes treatment based in China, an environmental reasearch company that was turning trash into carbon, among other stuff.

 

i for one (like barney frank and others) believe people with bad credit and no assets should be able to borrow at very low rates....

 

Lol

 

I was really trying to let this one go, just ignore it, etc but I guess I just can't.
Tucker's bio was always limited to the notion that he was a "private equity fund guy" which was a nice line but try to track down ANY information on Westfund - the only company he ever named between 2007 and 2011 in his "official" bio. You will not find any mention of clients, officers, assets, or anything else. No bragging, no coverage in the trade rags, nothing. Their mailing address was a MBE mail drop used by literally dozens of other companies, from memory it was in or near Las Vegas. Funny that - I've never invested or even done any business with a company that was headquartered in an accommodation address. Nor have I ever done business with companies who conceal their identity and location behind anonymous proxy services as Tucker's did.
The Wiki page on Scott talks about all sorts of investments but never names a single company and honestly reads like it was written by a PR person for Scott Tucker himself.
Money guy? Where did the money come from? There's never been one single mention of any wealth prior to the payday lending businesses. There really wasn't much time to create or accumulate wealth anywhere else - he graduated college in the early 1980s and only a few years later was in trouble for his bank loan scam. Not a lot of wealth accumulated if he was scamming a $50K loan. The following year he wrote a bad check for $1200 - another indication that there was no wealth accumulating. He set up a phony loan company and scammed some fees but there wasn't any big money there as far as is known. The beginning of the 1990s saw him in court on 3 different matters and then doing a year in Leavenworth so that's more time that no wealth was building. The wealth didn't start coming until at least 1997 when the payday loans started and he borrowed $500K to do that. 10 years later he shows up in the racing world spending oodles of cash.
Look we get it - he was very nice to his employees. Heck he was nice to me the few times I met him - and, no, that wasn't as a fan being given a free hat or a lanyard like someone said in an online comment. I liked the guy. I totally get senior staffers of Level 5 defending him - he treated everyone quite well - but let's not pretend for one minute that payday lending was not the source of his money.

 

ST and AMG, by partnering with indian tribes, knew this was on shaky ground. On the one hand, you have to give him credit for being clever in trying to find an end-run around usury laws. On the other, the lenders are often taken advantage of. Most of these borrowers are unsophisticated and easy prey. That said, they do voluntarily execute these loan agreements, and they really don't have many, if any, other options for short term loans. Had ST & AMG stayed within the boundaries of the permitted lending laws (and not misrepresented the management agreement with the tribe(s)), he would likely still be in operation today despite how "predatory" the business is.

Keep in mind that there was a jury that found ST to be guilty. The prosecution presented its' case. The defense then offered theirs. This is a criminal case, so the burden is high (beyond reasonable doubt). It often takes decades for these cases to end up in court as a result. There's an appeal pending. This is the way the judicial system is designed to work. Without the transcript (or the appellate briefs), I can't determine what possible basis there is for reversible error, but this will be reviewed, and, if there's an issue, it may be reversed and remanded. We'll see. It may also stand, and the bar for a reversal is high, too.

I don't know how I should feel about the people who fed at the ST trough. They're not directly involved with the crimes. Level5 employed a lot of folks. At some point, they all knew what business ST was in (primarily). It takes a very principled individual to walk away, and I can see how one could justify staying. How many traders left Enron, after all? So, I'm not sure I can fault them for wanting to stick to their knitting and ride the ST gravy train. And, really, Level5 did laudable things on the track, which is something these people wanted to be a part of. Understandably. To entirely ignore, however, the source of the funding is also a bit of sticking one's head in the sand. Nothing illegal in that, though. And, whether ST was a nice guy (or not) isn't relevant to his illegal conduct. I'm sure Greg Loles was also a nice guy. He got 25 years.

CW

 

I have grown to intensely dislike "clever people."

 

Integrity?! Leaving aside the discussion of ST's business dealings for the moment, let's look at the ethics he brought to his racing involvement. He paid off the ALMS to change the driver rules in the LMPC class to allow him to score points in either of the two Level 5 cars entered at each race – and Level 5 were the only two-car team in the class. In other words, if the car he started the race in had a problem, he could switch to the other Level 5 car and still score points. He gained advantage from this more than once (three times, to be exact) during the 2010 season on his way to the LMPC drivers title, leaving him alone at the top of the final points. Once L5 moved up to P1, the LMPC class rules reverted to drivers only being allowed to score points in the car in which they started the race. So, please, no more protestations that he was a good guy at the track regardless of what he did away from it...

 

sounds like that is more of a knock on ALMS than ST

 

Sorry, who suborned whom? Plenty of opprobrium to go round, in any case...

 

IIRC he was also the only Ferrari Challenge driver who was "allowed" to run his own car, and not go through a Ferrari dealer's racing team. needless to say, his cars were more equal than others.

and then there's that whole D sports racer debacle...

 

true but only ALMS is entrusted with a fiduciary duty and on the other side we have a racer trying to garner an unfair advantage (like that never happens)

 

I'm not into moral relativism... the whole thing made ALMS look bad without making ST look any better.

 

The “Scott Tucker” rule in LMPC was in fact due to Scott’s request to drive a stint in two cars and choose which car he could earn points in. It was because he wanted more seat time, not for any unfair advantage. It lasted one year and any two car team could have taken advantage of it. In fact if they had put the pro in both cars they would have probably beat us. I’ll point out that that Championship was the first of 4 Level 5 ALMS Championships in a row.. and the only one with “the Scott Tucker rule”



Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

There were no other two-car teams in LMPC in 2010 and Level 5 always had pros in both cars. LMPC that season will always stand out as an egregious example of buying a championship. Ask anyone who was there and not being paid by ST.

 

There was some great racing that season, I remember wartching qualifying at Sebring and the times were being set and answered between Level 5 and Gunner each lap..it was awesome. The races were also quite good for most of the season. I can't really see how your position can be valid..when the rule book is written it is there to be obeyed or exploited equally by all teams. No money changed hands with ALMS and Level5 other than twice the enty fees for running two cars. You have to race the rule book to win, thats what Level 5 did for Mr Tucker. Gunner or any one of a dozen drivers could have arranged a similar strategy yet did not. Whining about it years later will not change the results any more than track limits at COTA can be ignored to gain a position in last weekends F1 race.

 

Always wondered why Scott felt the need for armed security guards in the paddock when even Patrick Dempsey did not.

 

I don't know that I can be mad at a team for lobbying and advocating its' interests. That's pretty normal and to be expected, I think. The other teams needed to object, if they had any objections, and the ALMS, as the sanctioning body, needed to decide what's in the best interests of the series. They did. All teams were able to benefit. And, as long as it was evenly enforced by ALMS, I suppose I can't be too upset about it.

Creative interpretation of the rules has always been a part of racing. That aspect won't go away, just because of a rule book. If anything, the second a rule is written, someone's thinking about how to get around or exploit it. Nature of the beast. That they may have done a better job of exploiting the rule is to Level5's credit.

Although, I didn't like the fact that Level5 had taken the Challenge car program in-house. It was supposed to be a gentlemen's spec series. What's to gain from "cheating" there? ALMS/Pro Racing's another ball of wax altogether, though.

CW

 

Wasn't is LVEric who was in the payday lending business, too? He claimed to sleep with a loaded firearm under his pillow.

CW

 

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/threads/lv-eric-any-update.234602/

Post #4. Links to another thread.

 

The Ryan Eversley / Sean Heckman podcast series "Dinner With Racers" posted their season 3 episodes today including 2 episodes with Scott Tucker. One covers the racing, the other the business. I've not listened yet - I usually reserve these for solo car journeys but I'm curious what he has to say and how much he reveals.
You can find the podcasts on iTunes and the Dinner With Racers website.