Handicapped or not
 

Greetings all fellow FIRST'ers

I need some opinions from past and present refs.
We have a student that wants to be the shooter for our team. The problem is, he is approx. 4 foot tall. When he is at the drivers station he can't see over a the laptop's lid and he can't easily see the first zone.

I posted the question to the GDC and here is their resoponse:
http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=14863

The rule they are referring to is:
<T26> The only equipment that may be brought on to the ARENA is the OPERATOR CONSOLE, reasonable decorative items, and special clothing and/or equipment required due to a disability. Other items, particularly those intended to provide a competitive advantage for the TEAM, are prohibited.

My question is. Would he considered handicapped and would we be out of line if we made a step stool for him?

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I hesitantly agree with the GDC response. In my personal opinion, I don't think height-challenged is a recognized disability. The GDC may be thinking of the safety implications if the student happens to lose his footing or falls off the platform, or if another student trips over it.

I wonder if the student could wear spackler's stilts? Unlike regular stilts, these articulate and make using then trivially easy, and they come as low as six inches. These could be considered an article of personal clothing, "special shoes" in a sense, much like a pair of 'platform shoes' you may remember from the 1970s. Just have him wear longer pants...

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I know you were looking for past/present refs for an answer, I am moved to chime in here. I would have absolutely no issues with a small step stool for your driver (if dwarfism is present). My spouse is quite short (4'6") and I completely understand the difficulties for those who are not of average height. And while she is not considered disabled, she is handicapped in what she can do without assistance devices.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I think the real question is, does he have a recognized, legally defined disability or is he just short? (I am not answering as a ref here, these are my personal opinions) If it is a legal disability, then I think you can go back to the GDC and request reconsideration.

I understand the GDC's mindset on this - they don't want to start a precedent that snowballs (we have enough snow here already) . Say you have an 8th grade driver on your team (there are some) who is less than 5 feet tall. It would be a violation of the rules to use a stepstool. But what if the driver suffers from dwarfism? (I apologize if I am using the wrong word - I don't know the accepted terms for these conditions) I would consider that a disability.

The only instance I know of where accommodations were made for a disability was to allow a deaf team member to have an interpretor next to him.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I agree. If the student has a form of dwarfism, stool use would be appropriate IMHO

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I agree with the question posted by Carol as well. It's one I need to ask to the student and parent in question.

Being that FIRST in my opinion has lifted the age requirement of FRC, used to be 14 years old I remember, to a term they say PRE-COLLEGE, could open up the doors on these new issues of 5th, 6th, 7th or 8th grade drivers on an FRC team that are "short" because of their age and have not "bloomed" yet.

Unlike most high school based FRC teams, with a new injection of 4-H teams like us since 2005, we are open to all high schools surrounding, all home school students, and all MIDDLE SCHOOL students on our FRC team. 4-H does not restrict us to just one single high school.

Therefore a different prespective for FIRST should be considered or put the age limit back, when everyone assumes if you are an FRC team, that you are related or have relationships with a high school. This has been a battle for us from grants to younger kids on the drive team.

With this "assumption" that all FRC team members are high school kids, then when the wall was designed a decade ago height consideration was probably given for a standard high school aged kid, not a middle school student.

Again, I believe FRC used to be like that, then changed the age requirement so I wonder if FIRST needs to consider situations like 4-H teams that are not high school based.

I am ok with the decision, but I hope GDC sees our situation and either considers the wall is not designed for PRE-COLLEGE middle school students, or places the age limit back for safety reasons.

In the case of the student in question, he is very short for his age about a foot difference than the rest of the kids his age. The student is also 14 years old as well...

Re: Handicapped or not
 

How tall would his 'new' height be? 4'6"? 5'0"? 6'6"?

It would be hard to define a line between compensating and enhancing.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Dwarfism is usually defined as an adult height of less than 4' 10".

Some state DMVs grant handicapped plates to those which meet the requirements for dwarfism, since they may need assistive devices in order to drive a car. As such, at only about 4' high, I'd say that your driver would qualify for a reasonably-sized steep stool (between 12" and 18" high). This would put your driver into the height range of most high school students.

It would take a 30" high step stool for a 4' person to get to 6'6". That's not a step stool, that's a table.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Wayne,
I lean towards letting every student participate if they want to. An item used in stage and TV and public presentations is called an "apple box". This sturdy platform comes in various sizes but is generally 12" x 24" x 6". Something similar is the wooden Pepsi cases of old but closed on top and bottom. We use them all the time to equalize height challenged people who must speak from a podium. Even Wheel of Fortune uses them on a regular basis so that height challenged contestants can spin the wheel. I understand the possibility of liability but an apple box should do the trick nicely. I bet a box made from 2 x 6 lumber is strong enough and high enough for you purposes. It would be 7" high if the bottom was left open.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Just throwing my two cents in here... While there may not be official rules limiting age like there used to be, FRC is designed for high school aged children. In fact, FIRST's website defines FLL as K-3, FTC as 4-8, and FRC as 9-12. If it comes down to a question of students younger than high school aged, I would say FIRST does not have to make any accommodations for them - teams can use older students to drive, and those younger students can drive in a few years.

Now, for your case specifically... 14 years old certainly could be a freshman - but being 4 feet tall at that age, while short, is not necessarily a disability or medical condition. The way kids grow, he could be 5 feet tall by the start of school next year.

You also need to realize that the wall was designed with safety in mind. The aluminum portion extends 3 feet high (well, 35 inches according to the drawings). This means that a majority of the high speed impacts it takes (and it takes quite a few every year) occurs on this aluminum section. If they happened on the polycarbonate section, you can bet it would be broken and smashed before a single regional was over. By changing the wall design to provide a lower field of view, you would fundamentally be changing the safety characteristics of the field.

Now, lets talk about shelf height. The shelf sits about 3 feet off the ground, which makes it a comfortable surface for a vast majority of the drivers in first. Lowering it to accommodate someone like your driver would be detrimental to everyone else.

Finally, the idea of permitting a stool to stand on. Doing so provides several hazards, as others have point out - your student could fall off it, other students may trip over it, etc. Plus, it opens the door to unfair (and unsafe) advantages - if stools are allowed, why wouldn't a team try to get their driver up 7 feet high so they can see the field that much better?

And on a personal rant... We all want every kid to be successful in everything they do. But the truth of the matter is they aren't. Sometimes things don't work out, sometimes (like this example) the situation is simply set up against them. All too much these days our society sets up scenarios where kids will be successful or win regardless of what they actually do. We want them to be successful, so we lower the bar until everyone can be successful. Sure, it makes everyone feel good, but is it really helping the kids prepare for adulthood? If a kid is legitimately too short to be able to drive a robot, could this not help serve as a life lesson on managing expectations and understanding how to be successful (say, as part of the pit crew) despite these challenges?

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I acknowleged your opinion in my post and agree on the safety concerns :

"I am ok with the decision, but I hope GDC sees our situation and either considers the wall is not designed for PRE-COLLEGE middle school students, or places the age limit back for safety reasons."

My opinon is if the kids are mature and responsible, I will always pull for them like cheering for the underdog. I've had 6th grade home school kids that do amazing things. I hate to limit them just because soceity classifies them in the "6th" grade. Home school people don't do "grades". But I can understand your opinon.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Talk to the people at the regional, but not about a step stool. Ask about using the wheelchair ramp that comes with the field.

(For that matter, follow up with the GDC asking about using that ramp.)

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Wayne,

While I hate to take this mentality (Taking rules into your own hands), I think that you shouldn't worry about what the GDC has to say and talk to the head referee at the regional. After discussing the topic here and seeing that what you're asking is in the spirit of the rules, I think that speaking with someone on a more personal level should get you the okay. I think it's been made clear here that you're not trying to gain any sort of competitive advantage as much as just giving this kid a shot at driving.

(I know this sounds weird coming from the guy who had to slouch to see through the driver's station glass sometimes...)

Re: Handicapped or not
 

If he's 14, I wouldn't make too big of a deal out of it. The definition posted above about the requirements of dwarfism aren't met because he isn't at his "adult height" yet. My personal opinion would be to have him wait a year or two and see what happens. If he's still 4' when he is a senior, I fully agree that that is a disability. Until then, he just hasn't gone through a growth spurt.

I know its not what you want to hear, but it might be the most fair/safe answer to the situation.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Just my 2cents...

I agree with EricVanWyck and eagle 33199. It may be a tough pill to swallow, but some times you just have to play with the cards you're dealt. Do you think (for example) it would be fair for your 4'0" driver to get a 1' boost while our 4'8" driver doesn't get any boost? It is probably not appropriate to draw a line in the sand and say "you can have booster that makes you ____ tall, but no taller."

Not to rant too much, but consider that if disadvantages are always compensated for, then what is there left to compete with?

Clearly you're not overtly trying to get an edge, which is good, but if you have a choice between a less talented driver who can see and a more talented driver who can't see as well... then you might be giving your team an unfair advantage.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

OK, my turn.

It has been mentioned that the stool could be a trip hazard for other students. That may be, but what are other students doing in our drivers station? The stool will be somewhat under the shelf.
Also, we are playing with soccer balls. What prevents a student stepping on a ball and falling? Or tripping on the Trident?

Unfair advantage? So our 4' student becomes a 5' student. Where is the unfair advantage? It's not like we are asking all the students to drive while kneeling.

Than why is there a wheel chair ramp if not to compensate?

We will bring a step stool, to BMR, and confer with the head ref. If he says no, than we won't use it.

If I have offended anyone, I apologize.

*gets off regualtion soapbox :D

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Wayne,

It bothers me that you went to the Official ruling body (GDC) to get a ruling and now that you dislike that ruling you are going to ignore it and try and get a local ruling counter to the official ruling.

I hope that you will bring the GDCs answer to that discussion with the head ref and not leave him/her in the dark as to the official ruling.

While I understand your situation, it is not unique in FIRST. We all have to do whats best for the team, and sometimes that means not putting someone is a position that they cannot physically handle.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

At 2006 IRI we had a new shooter operator (miche as she is known) for some matches, she is rather short and we had asked the IRI organizers if a step stool or box would be allowed and were denied.

Just a past scenario, she was a junior at the time I don not recall her exact height

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Wayne was only kidding. The GDC ruling is FINAL. The student will have 4 more years to try out for driving practice, I hope he grows a bit more or we'll decide to train him to look at the camera on the laptop since he can't see over the laptop lid. :-)

Thanks for the input guys. We apprecaite the past experiences etc.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I'm sorry I got a little passionate about this subject.
The student, in question, was a very good worker and he was always there to try to help. He took allot of good natured ribbing about his size and always shrugged it off. I just hate to disappoint this student and tell him he can't play the game.

We will definitely have the GDC ruling in hand when we ask the refs.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

This is an interesting question that resounds well outside the rather narrow parameters of an FRC competition. As a reasonably large person (6'4", 225lbs) I enjoy the benefits of being tall, but also really appreciate it when people make compensation for my size, for example when airlines have moved me to an exit row or bulkhead seat for a long flight without making me pay for it.

We also have rules in several sports requiring "ballasting" to bring competitors up to a certain minimum weight limit. When we ran electrathon races here in BC we used to require ballasting to bring the average weight of a team's drivers up to 135lbs. Heavier drivers were still at a disadvantage, but there was at least some form of compensation to recognize that grade 8's had an inherent mass advantage over grade 12's.

In this case, I doubt anyone would have a problem with the principle of setting a "minimum eye height" for drivers, so that unusually short drivers -- regardless of a diagnosis of a medical condition -- could raise their line of sight to allow them to compete, but I get the sense there may be some challenge in the practice of doing so, particularly around tripping and falling hazards presented by the platforms used to elevate the drivers. This is where the concept of "reasonable accomodation" comes in to play... if it can be done within the contraints of organizing a safe and successful competition, then it should be done. But I suspect that FIRST has already considered this and would have good reasons for not allowing such accomodation.... but would also bet that they would love to have a proposal put forward as to how they could adapt their rules to include shorter drivers in next year's game.

Although it won't help with the line of sight issue, however, I do want to make the suggestion that using handheld (Xbox) controllers rather than joysticks removes the constraint of working from the shelf height, and also allows drivers to move around a bit during the match, resulting in an enhanced ability to view the field. We stopped using joysticks a few years ago.

Jason

P.S. I do have to take some issue with the suggestion that we should not compensate for disadvantages, particularly when the disadvantages are beyond the control of the individual or team in question and unrelated to the goals of the game. In hockey or basketball, well... if you're small you'd better be quick. They are physical games. But in FIRST, I want our team to win by being smart and working hard... not by being taller than our opponents.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

There's a wheel chair ramp simply for simple access to the field both for hand-capped people and for carts with robots. They are also there for numerous safety reasons, not the least of which is fire/evacuation safety.

I sure hope no one has taken offense to anything in this thread! It has been remarkably civil given what could have been said.

Best of luck to you and your team.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

James, he means the FRC field-side ramp.

Every FRC field has a ramp included, folded up. That ramp is specifically for wheelchair-bound folks, but there is precedent for it being used for someone who is "vertically challenged", IIRC. I seem to recall that it's about a foot tall when unfolded. At a number of events, it goes unused.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

When I was a queuer a few years ago at the old Detroit Regional (WSU) we used the wheelchair ramp for someone in a wheelchair, and for a short student who obviously had a medical/handicap issue. When both teams were playing in the same match we allowed the short student to stand on a toolbox (which was tested for stability).

As I recall the ramp increases the height by about 8 or 9 inches. And the thing was a beast to move - it weighs at least as much as a robot, probably more. I've seen it noted on the truck loading diagram for this year, so it's still available. Ask if it can be used.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I stand corrected. I have never seen one of the wheel-chair ramps in action before.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I would say bring the stool, and if anyone seriously has an issue with it, you can ask them to kindly go re-examine why they're volunteering for FIRST. There's a difference between enforcing the letter of the law on an authority trip and letting the little things slide.

Give the kid the experience of being on the competition field. It's a one of a kind experience, and not one that should be easily discarded for some rule about bringing a stool in.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

So it's OK for someone 4'?
How about 4'1"? 4'2"? 5'?

Where do you draw the line. FIRST has decided that noone should have a step stool. It's their competition.

Plus there may be far more issues here than 1 person looking over the wall.

The question was asked. The GDC gave their ruling. If you don't like it then maybe you can run your own tournament and let people ignore your rulings.

**Gets off soapbox**

P.S. I do sympathize, but the question was asked to the proper ruling body and an answer was given. 'nuff said.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I am hoping that there is a miss understanding with every thing going on here. If this story is true, and first does not allow a student a stool to stand on because there to short to see the field. Then this is a really sad day. Ask yourself these questions.

Is this team gaining an advantage by letting the kid stand on a stool to let him see the field as everyone else can?

Do you really want to win a game, not being able to play a team with there best people?

This to me is not why the rule was written.

shaun

Re: Handicapped or not
 

With all these $0.02, we could almost hold another regional:rolleyes:

I agree. The rule states not to give anyone an advantage, where a stool would simply enable this team member to participate. We have been reminded to follow the spirit of the rules, not lawyer them to death.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Agreed.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

EVERY field comes equiped with a ramp designed to raise the eyelevel of a person who for whatever reason cannot see over the player station front wall. While it is called the "wheel chair ramp" I do not believe that is the official designation. I was not able to find plans for it with the field drawings, (which would include the official name) though it is considered field equipment.

Since it is field equipment it is available to anyone who needs it. I would not specify that it has to be used by a wheel chair-bound person. I will courageously omit the customary deferal to the GDC for final ruling. This one is a no-brainer to me and we shouldn't waste their time, unless somebody should think it is somehow "unfair" to use it as intended.

As an FTA who has had to keep track of these heavy beasts (and make sure it doesn't miss the truck), I'd sure like to see one used for once. I will admit to querying teams as to whether they thought they might need it and then quietly making it disappear into a hard to miss but out of the way place, when they answer in the negative. Every FTA's second-worst nightmare is leaving that beast behind during load-out. It would REALLY be a pain to ship to the next stop. So while it has most probably been at all your events, you might not have been aware of it. It is big and awkward and gets in the way, so we hide it.

My advice is to get with the FTA at your event(s) and see if the provided ramp will work. This can be done while the field is not in use, and is the sort of thing he is there for. If it works then everybody is happy, if not you'll need to work something else out anyway.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I feel that the GDC should require drivers to be in high school. Limiting drivers to high schoolers would benefit the team in whole because it gives more members (in the long run) the opportunity to participate. If a team gets a great driver, they are often kept as the driver through their robotics career (their talent + their experience make it hard to top). I don't think anyone should be a driver for more than four years. This would make more variety as years pass and hopefully every middle school member would continue into high school and have the opportunity at that point.

I also feel that if a driver cannot see because he/she is young I believe no accommodations should be made but to simply wait for them to grow. Having said this, if another team had a driver on a stand to see I wouldn't have a problem with it.


This I disagree with. Although you want to ready students for the real world, I think the message we want to send isn't that they are out of luck because they're short, but with inventions and innovation (ramps and platforms included) we can do anything.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I think it would be wise to re-query the GDC and ask about the "wheelchair" ramp specifically. They may be worried about a custom item being brought in (safety) and would be more than happy to allow your team member to use their alternative.

That being said if the GDC decides not to allow the wheelchair ramp]I feel that you are morally obligated to share this information as well as information relating to you other Q&A post with the head ref when you ask him about using a stool.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

If you plan to go through with building your own elevation device, you should research the minimum height required to see the field reasonably. I say reasonably because no matter how tall, you won't see it all. Could he see at 4'1? 4'2? 4'3? I ask, because he might need to be 4'5" to see enough, and there are few drivers shorter then that that might claim he gained an advantage from it. However if you go to 5', the claim could be made by a driver that is 4'8. I think the claim would be semi-petty, but it would be a fair claim and if I were the ref would have to unfortunately side with the complaint.

I still think you should just wait a few years to have him drive, but if you insist on your path...the above would definitely help your argument. If you were able to show the math/testing that shows the minimum height needed for him to see crucial elements when requesting the use of your device, it will be much harder to go against.


Rizner: If a student drove for 4 years, there would be other students in their class that would never have the opportunity to drive. If they were to make a rule to that regard, 2 years would accomplish the goal. I personally would be against such a rule because I've been on a team where there really weren't many people that actually wanted to drive, and the only one that did was amazing.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

While I agree with Daniel that a ruling has been given, and would agree 100% with the ruling were it simply a rule of the game, in this case we are dealing with a question of how we choose to treat people who are different.

I would advocate that, where possible, we should attempt to eliminate barriers to participation.

Sometimes is takes several tries to break down a barrier to participation, but usually when we do it makes life better for everyone.

While I don't think it would be right to ignore the GDC's ruling, I do think it is appropriate to encourage them to reconsider whether there is a fair and safe way in which short people can be acommodated on the drive team and express our desire for the game to be as inclusive as possible. Discussing the matter with regional event organizers and head referees is one way to lobby for a reconsideration.

Jason

P.S. Perhaps an adjustable drafting or bar stool that could be used to raise the eye height of a seated driver to a certain minimum level that would allow them to operate their robot effectively?

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Here I go writing another long post. If you don't want to read the whole thing, that's fine, but please give everyone the courtesy of reading all of it carefully, especially the ADA excerpts, if you choose to reply. Thank you.

The main question that needs to be addressed is whether this person's stature would actually be considered a "disability." If there is a disability, FIRST needs to make reasonable accommodation. Pertinent excerpts from the Americans with Disabilities Act:

"Sec. 12102. Definition of disability...

(1) Disability

The term "disability" means, with respect to an individual

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; ...

(2) Major Life Activities

(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, ...performing manual tasks, seeing, ...standing, ... and working. ...

(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disability

The definition of “disability” in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:

(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter. ...

(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability...."

Bold type is my emphasis. Note that there is no mention of wheelchairs.

In the context of our discussion, a person's physical limitations prevent them from effectively doing their job on the team. I don't know if the person in question will some day grow to a "normal" height, but this question needs to be considered in view of present circumstances. After all, the possibility that a crippled person may one day walk, due to a divine or technological intervention, does not mean he or she can throw away the wheelchair that is needed today.

How short is too short? I don't think the ADA gives any specifics as to height, but it is worded quite broadly. According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), this person is below the 5th percentile for "stature"—off the chart, in other words. In fact, a 4-foot (48-inch) tall 9-year-old would also be off the chart. (The link is for boys, but the chart for girls has similar data for 9-year-olds.) So age and maturity are really not issues in this case.

At 48 inches, the top of this person’s head would only come to eye level on an average adult who is sitting down—including many people who need a wheelchair! Can we agree that this person really is too short to use the driver station without difficulty? Consider not only sight, but how high the shoulders and elbows would be above the controls. When standing normally, a driver's elbows should be at least the height of the shelf, at a bare minimum. Is this a reasonable supposition?

Now, FIRST has supplied a wheelchair ramp for people in wheelchairs. People in wheelchairs have mobility issues, but the ramp would actually impede the ability of such a person to approach the driver station, which is on a level floor. Therefore, the only purpose for the ramp must be to compensate for height limitations.

I understand the GDC banning a team-supplied device for safety reasons, but I don't think they can prohibit use of the wheelchair ramp which is, after all, provided for people with height limitations. I don’t believe they should argue that being wheelchair-bound is a height limitation, but being too short is not. To do so would be like a white employer who hires black people but not Laotians, arguing that this is not discrimination, because nationality is not race, therefore it is OK to make hiring decisions on the basis of nationality! Under U.S. laws, this argument would never fly.

One other thing about the ADA—it apparently does not allow for an employer--or other entity that is required to comply with the ADA--to make the judgment whether a person has a disability. In other words, FIRST cannot decide whether a person does or does not have a disability. If a person has a disability, FIRST must make reasonable accommodation as regards the facility FIRST provides--in this case, the field.

Practically speaking, I don't think FIRST will be inundated with requests from short people who want assistance, because most short people will try to make do with their limitations. I believe most people, especially high school students, would almost rather die than ask for help they don't really need.

In conclusion, height appears to be a disability in this case, and Rule <T26> allows for accommodation of disability. The ramp that is provided with the field should be the best solution.

Just a couple more items--

Someone previously mentioned using a certain type of stilts. My understanding is that such devices are banned in many states for safety reasons (think OSHA), so don't expect FIRST to allow them.

A person who is too tall for the driver station would also need accommodation. If the head of such a person, when standing straight, is taller than the driver station, there is clearly a safety issue. To ban such a person would be discrimination. Perhaps FIRST should provide such a person with a safe chair or stool that he or she must sit on to make a suitable height adjustment. Of course, there would have to be a requirement that the person must remain SEATED during the entire match, like certain team members had to do last year. ;)

Re: Handicapped or not
 

Emphasis mine. This word is the one that kind of keeps this definition from applying. According to dictionary.com, there are many definitions for impairment, but the only one that really applies is:

impairment im·pair·ment (ĭm-pâr'mənt)
n.
Weakening, damage, or deterioration, especially as a result of injury or disease.

Given that height isn't really a form of weakening or damage or deterioration, it really isn't an impairment.

Perhaps a different definition of disability would allow for a short person to have a claim and I certainly agree that there is plenty of argument for the allowance of the ramp. I personally would let him use it, however I also think that calling a person that hasn't hit a growth spurt disabled is a bit of an insult to those that truly are.

Re: Handicapped or not
 

I think this point sums up my opinion as well. This is the part I am struggling with. I have talked with his mother since Wayne started this thread. There are some issues which I can't discuss here, just know our student is seeing a doctor about this. Again, my heart is big and I wanted to give him the same chance as everyone else. We may just train him as is, no assistant required. Hope he makes the drive team cut.........