Task: songer_appbus

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
This appeal arises from a determination by the district court that Hoosier Racing Tire Corporation ( Hoosier ), acting in concert wlBt ^our race tracks and several driving clubs, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. M & H Tire Co. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., 560 F.Supp. 591 (D.Mass.1983). We reverse. The facts are set forth extensively in that opinion, and we rePeat here only the more essential ones.
I.
The plaintiff, M & H Tire Co., Inc. (“M & produces and sells racing tires. M & jj filed suit after the defendant tracks and drivers had selected Hoosier, a rival, from among several producers including M & H, ke so]e tjre supplier under a “single tire ruie” for the “modified” class of auto racing at four tracks in the Northeast during the 1982 season. Initiated by certain promoters, the rule was proposed by the New England Drivers and Owners’ Club (“NEDOC”) and adopted at a meeting between NEDOC and the four tracks. NE-DOC thereafter invited tire companies to submit sample low cost tires for testing and ran tests which resulted in the selection of a particular model of Hoosier as the sanctioned tire.
NEDOC is an unincorporated association composed primarily of drivers and car owners who race at Stafford, Seekonk, Riverside and Thompson speedways, the four tracks which initially adopted the rule. Because NEDOC members raced primarily (although not exclusively) at these four tracks, they sought acceptance of the tire rule there. NEDOC hoped to have the tracks adopt a single consistent rule rather than have its members confront different rules at each track at which they raced. However, while Riverside and Thompson initially agreed to implement the rule, they withdrew their support soon after, on advice of counsel, and are not defendants to this suit.
In addition to these four tracks, the record reveals at least 15 other tracks on the East Coast that conduct “modified” class auto racing on short oval tracks, and as many as 800 short oval tracks nationwide (though the record is not clear as to how many of these tracks conduct modified racing).
In auto racing there is no formal league as is found in sports such as football or baseball. However, there is a national racing organization, the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (“NASCAR”), which had no connection with the challenged tire rule and is not a party to this lawsuit. As the district court found, NASCAR promulgates certain technical standards for modified race cars; it also sanctions and administers races at tracks that follow its rules; and it conducts a point fund for drivers who compile the best records in NASCAR sanctioned events. NASCAR sanctions the races at Stafford, Riverside and Thompson but not at Seekonk (although Seekonk follows NASCAR rules). The district court found that NASCAR “is not a recognized sanctioning organization” and that its rules “do not embody a complete regulatory scheme over the tracks as a whole, or even over all modified races at the tracks.” Significantly, the NASCAR rules leave the tracks “free to promulgate regulations regarding the equipment used by competitors.” There are no NASCAR regulations as to tire brands or compounds.
The function of the regional NEDOC group (not to be confused with the nationwide NASCAR just mentioned) is to negotiate with promoters on behalf of its member drivers and owners. It has also been a source of proposals for rules to be adopted by the tracks where its members race. The court found,
Among the rules proposed were those regulating equipment such as gear and carburetor rules, as well as bans on the use of fuel injection and aluminum block engines. Rules such as these regulating equipment had the avowed purpose of enhancing participant equality.
The single tire rule at issue here was adopted in a meeting between the NEDOC rules committee and the promoters of Stafford, Seekonk, Riverside and Thompson race tracks held at the Howard Johnson’s in Warwick, Rhode Island, on December 17, 1981. The NEDOC officials and the track promoters unanimously agreed that all cars in the modified division should use the Hoosier 13-inch budget tire for the 1982 season. Soon thereafter, as already noted, two of the tracks withdrew on advice of counsel; and their withdrawal was followed by withdrawal of a third track (Stafford) six months later due to problems with the selected Hoosier tire. Only Seekonk continued to enforce the rule through the 1982 season.
Racing tires constitute a distinct market in interstate commerce — they are different from ordinary passenger tires. In 1982, besides M & H and Hoosier, there were only two, or possibly three, regular producers of such tires. Traditionally, racing tires are sold directly to drivers and racers at trackside, from trucks, on the day of races, with one or another brand finding favor on the basis of its success in recent races, and with considerable competition taking place,- to the extent that producers would constantly make improvements and would even introduce new tires during each season to improve sales.
In the early days of modified racing, the cars resembled stock passenger cars and used tires similar to street tires. But in recent times the costs of racing have escalated as the result of more complex engines, chassis, frames, and tires. Tires, and the compounds from which they are made, have become exceedingly sophisticated, calling for tire changes from race to race. Tire sizes among the faster tires have increased to a 15-ineh tread, and they are softer, faster, less durable, and costlier. The cost of a single 15-inch modified tire in 1981 was $140 and by 1982 had risen to $170. To control these escalating costs, proposals were made by some of the tracks and promoters connected with this suit as well as others, from the early 1970’s on, to require all competitors at a particular track to race for an entire season with a particular brand of tire. In 1978 Stafford promoter Yarrington tried to induce 20 Northeastern tracks to adopt such a rule, but was unsuccessful in persuading, among others, NEDOC’s membership. There is evidence, however, that in the period 1979-1982 a number of Northeastern tracks other than defendants had single tire rules in effect.
The tracks and drivers here assert that they adopted a single tire rule for two purposes. First, to control the steadily increasing cost of auto racing, which threatened to reduce the field of (mostly amateur) participants, and second to promote greater parity among the competing cars. The cost savings goal was to be achieved by specifying a low cost 13-inch “budget” tire in the $90-$100 range, and the parity goal was to be achieved by designating a single permissible tire brand to insure, to the maximum extent possible, that all drivers were racing on a single rubber compound. One driver explained his reasons for wanting to race on a single compound as follows:
Well, it took a lot of weight off your shoulders, you might say, wondering during the week, making phone calls as to which compound is going to be the best, or was it a hot setup, and trying to track down the tires. You could concentrate on racing, having fun, which is what the sport is all about, I think.
So the competition, you could go there with a track tire, you knew everybody was on the same tire, which we were very competitive, and we were having a good time and enjoying racing. When you get tire compound to worry about it is just an added thing, added expense. Who needs it?
The district court did not dispute these assertions. It made no finding that the rule was adopted for other, perhaps ulteri- or, reasons. It found that there was no evidence of collusion between the drivers and tracks and the selected tire producer, Hoosier.
Nonetheless, the district court ruled that the defendants, by adopting and implementing a single tire rule, had conducted a group boycott of M & H, which was unlawful per se. The court additionally found that the purpose of the tire rule was “unmistakably” to fix maximum prices for racing tires. And even assuming the single tire rule was not illegal per se, the district court held that the rule was invalid under a rule of reason analysis. The court permanently enjoined the tracks and drivers from passing or enforcing a “single brand tire rule which designates one compound, one manufacturer, and one tire price.” See Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26 (1982). The court also found that “M & H would have obtained approximately 45 percent of those Hoosier sales [made under the single tire rule], at a gross profit of $30 per tire equalling $24,597.” After trebling the damages, the court awarded M & H $73,791.
On appeal, Hoosier and the tracks and drivers contend that the district court erred in finding a per se violation of the Sherman Act. And looking at the single tire rule under the rule of reason, they contend that no anticompetitive effect in a defined relevant market was established. Rather, the rule is justified in their view as a reasonable form of sports self-regulation designed to ensure participant parity and competitive equivalency.
II. ILLEGALITY PER SE
We shall first consider the district court’s determination that the single tire rule constituted a group boycott of M & H, and, as such, was illegal per se. The distriet court reached this result even while acknowledging that the facts “do not fit the traditional parameters of horizontal group boycott activity.” 560 F.Supp. at 601. We agree, that the facts do not present a classic group boycott, see Allied International, Inc. v. International Longshoremen’s Association, AFL-CIO, 640 F.2d 1368, 1380 (1st Cir.1981), but, unlike the lower court, believe this to be a major stumbling block to per se analysis. See Sullivan, Antitrust §§ 88-91 (1977).
A. Being Vertical, not Horizontal, the Alleged Boycott Invites Rule of Reason Analysis
The term “per se illegal” identifies categories of conduct for which no exculpatory justification will be entertained by a court. The courts establish such categories after they have had enough exposure to a type of conduct to conclude that most of its manifestations are so pernicious that case-by-case inquiry into possible justifications is not worth the candle. See Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5, 78 S.Ct. 514, 518, 2 L.Ed.2d 545 (1958). Thereafter, the finding that particular conduct falls within a proscribed category serves as a heuristic, obviating any need to determine whether the conduct is in fact harmful. It follows that care must be taken that the challenged conduct fits into a proscribed category without distortion, for it is the similarity to past conduct whose harmfulness has been settled that allows the inference, without further inquiry, that this manifestation is harmful.
Thus even when confronted with examples of conduct ordinarily considered “illegal per se,” such as price fixing, the Supreme Court has eschewed per se analysis when the context was novel, and therefore outside the established categories of business behavior which experience had confirmed were anticompetitive and without redeeming virtue. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 99 S.Ct. 1551, 60 L.Ed.2d 1 (1979). A claim of boycott, such as we have here, invites particular caution: “boycotts are not a unitary phenomenon,” St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Barry, 438 U.S. 531, 543, 98 S.Ct. 2923, 2931, 57 L.Ed.2d 932 (1978) (quoting P. Areeda, Antitrust Analysis 381 (2d ed. 1974)). There has been much debate over the extent to which per se treatment of them is appropriate outside the traditional horizontal group boycott situation. See, e.g., Bauer, Per Se Illegality of Concerted Refusals to Deal: A Rule Ripe for Reexamination, 79 Colum.L.Rev. 685 (1979).
Because Hoosier did not join with other tire manufacturers against M & H, the single tire rule clearly fell outside the classic horizontal group boycott paradigm. See Fashion Originators’ Guild of America v. FTC, 312 U.S. 457, 61 S.Ct. 703, 85 L.Ed. 949 (1941) (horizontal collaboration among clothing suppliers determined illegal per se); Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ Association v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490 (1914) (horizontal collaboration among lumber retailers considered per se illegal). In both Fashion and Eastern States, competitors formed groups to protect themselves from competition from non-group members, and to limit competition among themselves, at the same level of competition. In Fashion clothing suppliers got together with other clothing suppliers and put pressure on retailers, and in Eastern States lumber retailers got together with lumber retailers and put pressure on wholesalers. Here, there is no suggestion of complicity between Hoosier and other tire manufacturers: Hoosier did not join with other tire manufacturers and put pressure on any group in order to limit competition among tire manufacturers or to protect a group of tire manufacturers from “non-group” tire makers.
M & H would find horizontal activity from the fact that the drivers agreed among themselves and the tracks agreed among themselves. But this would take us well beyond the Fashion or Eastern States paradigm. The drivers are not in economic competition with one another and while they are specifying the parameters within which they will compete on the race track, what is missing is any effect upon economic competition among the drivers as was present in Fashion and Eastern States. While the tracks may be economic competitors in some sense, the rule does not limit economic competition among them either.
To be sure, horizontal activity among competitors is not an invariable prerequisite to per se treatment of a boycott, see Sullivan, Antitrust at p. 223 n. 1. There are exceptions, see, e.g., Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959) which we discuss infra. As a general rule, however, courts subject horizontal boycotts to per se analysis and vertical arrangements to a rule of reason, and we are confronted here with a vertical arrangement only. The Second Circuit has explained the distinction as follows:
It is important to distinguish between “horizontal” restraints, i.e., agreements between competitors at the same level of market structure, and “vertical” restraints, i.e., combinations of persons at different levels of the market structure such ■ as manufacturers and distributors ____ Horizontal restraints alone have been characterized as “naked restraints of trade with no purpose except stifling competition,”... and, therefore, per se violations of the Sherman Act. On the other hand, while vertical restrictions may reduce intrabrand competition by limiting the number of sellers of a particular product, competing for a given group of buyers, they also promote inter-brand competition by allowing a manufacturer to achieve certain efficiencies in the distribution of its products____ They are, therefore, to be examined under the rule of reason standard.
Oreck Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation, 579 F.2d 126, 131 (2d Cir.1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 946, 99 S.Ct. 340, 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1979) (citations omitted). The tire rule fits this characterization of a vertical restraint as a combination of persons at different levels of the market structure. M & H is complaining essentially that the drivers (the purchasers of tires) agreed with Hoosier (a seller of tires) and that the tracks enforced the arrangement. Such an agreement is best characterized as vertical.
The Second Circuit has stuck with the horizontal-vertical distinction, see Borger v. Yamaha International Corporation, 625 F.2d 390 (2d Cir.1980), and this distinction has been employed in other circuits. See, e.g., Gough v. Rossmoor Corporation, 585 F.2d 381 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 1280, 59 L.Ed.2d 494 (1979). And, the Supreme Court has.seemingly gone along with the distinction at least up to the point of a case such as Klor’s, infra. Compare Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 97 S.Ct. 2549, 53 L.Ed.2d 568 (1977) (rule of reason applied to vertical territorial restriction placed on retailers by manufacturers) and Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 81 S.Ct. 623, 5 L.Ed.2d 580 (1961) (vertical exclusive dealing contracts analyzed under rule of reason) with Fashion (per se treatment given to horizontal arrangement) and Eastern States (same), supra. In United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596, 608, 92 S.Ct. 1126, 1133, 31 L.Ed.2d 515 (1972), the Court said:
One of the classic examples of a per se violation of § 1 is an agreement between competitors at the same level of the market structure to allocate territories in order to minimize competition. Such concerted action is usually termed a “horizontal” restraint in contradistinction to combinations of persons at different levels of the market structure, e.g., manufacturers and distributors, which are termed vertical restraints.
We recognize that some courts have found that certain restraints which are vertical in form may be horizontal in nature or effect, see, e.g., Cernuto, Incorporated v. United States Cabinet Corporation, 595 F.2d 164, 167 & n. 15 (3d Cir.1979), and thus deserve per se treatment (United States v. Topeo could be viewed as such a case). The restraint here is not, however, of that sort. We also recognize that the majority of cases which employ a rule of reason analysis when confronted with a vertical restraint involve a manufacturer-distributor relationship. But the very novelty of the present situation is one of the main arguments against a per se approach. The fact that this case does not fit this familiar pattern is not a reason to turn to per se analysis, but is rather a factor favoring the rule of reason.
B. The Klor’s Case is Not Grounds for Per Se Analysis
M & H argues that the single tire rule should receive per se treatment on the basis of Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207, 79 S.Ct. 705, 3 L.Ed.2d 741 (1959), which involved a vertical arrangement. In that case, Broadway-Hale, a department store, conspired with the manufacturers and distributors of well-known brands, such as General Electric, RCA and Zenith, either to refuse to sell merchandise to its competitor, Klor’s, or only to sell to Klor’s at discriminatorily high prices and unfavorable terms. Although there was no horizontal agreement between Broadway-Hale and other retail merchants, the Court found the vertical agreement between Broadway-Hale and its suppliers sufficient, and ruled the boycott illegal per se.
The district court and M & H would cast Hoosier in the place of Broadway-Hale, and would cast the tracks and drivers in the place of Broadway-Hale’s suppliers. Hoosier’s position cannot, however, be equated with Broadway-Hale’s. The tracks and drivers invited tire companies to submit bids and to supply tires for testing. M & H, McCreary, Goodyear, and Hoosier (virtually all the extant suppliers of racing tires) responded. After competitive testing, the tracks and drivers selected Hoosier. Although the district court criticized various aspects of the tests, see infra, it also found that there was no collusion and it is clear the testing was not merely a sham, with Hoosier the predetermined winner. Hoosier did not instigate the rule nor did it conspire with the tracks and drivers to be selected. This is not a situation, comparable to that in Klor’s, where Hoosier was found to have orchestrated the single tire rule in an effort to drive M & H out of business. Rather the object of the single tire rule was related to defendants’ bona fide sports objectives. And M & H had a chance that year, and would presumably have chances in later years, to be selected as the winning tire for use under the rule. Unlike Broadway-Hale, Hoosier’s conduct consisted of successfully competing for the right to supply tires for the 1982 season, and not of baldly seeking to drive a competitor out of business.
It is important, in this connection, to distinguish between a disappointed competitor and the object of an illegal boycott. See, e.g., Joseph E. Seagrams & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., 416 F.2d 71 (9th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1062, 90 S.Ct. 752, 24 L.Ed.2d 755 (1970); Instant Delivery Corp. v. City Stores Company, 284 F.Supp. 941 (E.D.Pa.1968). In Instant Delivery the court observed,
... In each of those cases [e.g., Klor’s, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., supra] the aim and purpose of the group boycott or refusal to deal was either to compel the object of the boycott to adopt a certain standard of trade practice, or to exclude him from competition.
In the case at bar, the only “refusal to deal” with Instant was that inherent in the selection of some other carrier to perform the consolidated delivery service. The “exclusion” was a by-product of the decision to reinstate consolidated delivery which necessarily involves the use of one carrier____ I find nothing in this record to evidence an intent to discriminate against or to exclude Instant____ Instant is a disappointed competitor, not the object of an illegal boycott.
Id. at 947.
The single tire rule at issue hére was not adopted to discipline M & H or to drive M & H out of business or indeed for any anti-competitive motive whatever. The “exclusion” of M & H from the four tracks was a by-product of a sports-oriented decision to have all drivers at those tracks race on a single compound, in order to insure greater equality between race participants as well as a less expensive sport. And the evidence indicates, as M & H properly conceded in argument, that specifying a single brand was the only feasible method to insure that a single rubber compound was being raced on.
C. Promulgation of the Single Tire Rule in a Sports Regulation Context Further Militates Against Per Se Treatment
A further reason for denying per se treatment here is that the single tire rule was promulgated in a sports self-regulation context — an area in which courts have been reluctant to employ a per se analysis when confronted with boycott-like conduct, and instead consider the challenged arrangement under a rule of reason. See, e.g., Brenner v. World Boxing Council, 675 F.2d 445, 454-55 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 835, 103 S.Ct. 79, 74 L.Ed.2d 76 (1982) (group boycott claim not subjected to per se analysis). The Supreme Court has stated that per se treatment is not appropriate where a “justification derived from the policy of another statute or otherwise” requires the use of a rule of reason. Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 348-49, 83 S.Ct. 1246, 1252-53, 10 L.Ed.2d 389 (1963) (emphasis added). Picking up on the Court’s use of “or otherwise,” many courts have reasoned that in the sports area various agreed-upon procedures may be essential to survival, see, e.g., Hatley v. American Quarter Horse Association, 552 F.2d 646, 652 (5th Cir.1977), and have not subjected concerted activity by sports-related organizations to the group boycott per se rule. Most courts have limited per se treatment of group boycott-like activity in a sporting context to those situations in which a group of competitors at one level seek to protect themselves from competition by non-group members at the same level — the classic horizontal group boycott case, Smith v. Pro Football, Inc., 593 F.2d 1173, 1177-79 (D.C.Cir. 1978), and deny per se treatment if the facts do not fit this paradigm, using a rule of reason analysis instead. See Brenner, 675 F.2d at 454 (collecting cases). Here, the facts do not fit this paradigm as Hoosier is not a member of a group whose members’ objective is to insulate themselves from competition, nor is there any evidence that Hoosier participated in the tire testing with the purpose of excluding M & H from the market. Hoosier participated to win the bid, and M & H’s exclusion was incidental.
Some courts have refused to employ a rule of reason analysis in a sports context unless first convinced that the sports regulation “passes" a three-part test articulated in Denver Rockets v. All-Pro Management, Inc., 325 F.Supp. 1049, 1064-65 (C.D.Cal.1971). The district court adopted this approach here. It screened the single tire rule under Denver Rockets criteria, finding it deficient and hence unworthy of rule of reason analysis.
We need not determine whether, as a general matter, pre-screening under Denver Rockets criteria is desirable as a prerequisite to rule of reason analysis, or whether, instead, use of that criteria should await introduction as a part of the rule of reason analysis. Even viewing the Denver Rockets factors as necessary prerequisites to rule of reason analysis, we believe the district court was mistaken in thinking the single tire rule failed the test.
The Denver Rockets test requires that there be 1) a legislative mandate “or otherwise” for self-regulation; 2) that the collective action be intended to (a) accomplish an end consistent with the policy justifying self-regulation, (b) is reasonably related to that goal, and (c) is no more extensive than necessary; and 3) that there are procedural safeguards which assure that the restraint is not arbitrary and which furnishes a basis for judicial review.
m. j..., A.. The district court stated that the single tire rule failed this test for several reasons. First, the court determined that the objective of the rule was to fix prices, and that price fixing cannot be a proper objective of sports regulation even if designed to achieve the admittedly legitimate goal of achieving competitive equality. Second, the court said that elimination of inter-brand competition is not a legitimate form of sports self-regulation. Third, the court found the single tire rule deficient because it was not adopted by an independent sanetioning organization interested in the sport as a whole. Lastly, the court found that the procedures followed by the tracks and drivers in choosing Hoosier lacked procedural fairness.
Turning first to the court’s finding of price fixing, we agree that if the tracks and drivers were engaged in actual price fixing, this would be inconsistent with 2(a) and perhaps other aspects of the Denver Rockets test. (Indeed, price fixing would be a reason quite apart from Denver Rockets to strike down this rule.) We do not believe the challenged arrangement can properly be viewed, however, as an attempt to fix prices in the sense that that term is used in antitrust law. The district court’s error, we believe, was to lump all modified class racing tires together into a single category, Prior to the 1982 season, the drivers were purchasing the fastest tires they could afford, which meant that they were selecting high-cost, 15-inch tires that sold for around $140 apiece in 1981 (and would have cost as much as $170 in 1982). The single tire rule was designed to shift drivers from a 15-inch high-cost tire to a budget 13-inch tire which commonly sold for between $90-$100 apiece. M & H’s own economic expert, Dr. Dalton, testified that the two types of tires were different:
The impact of the group that you have referred to resulted in a lower price, as I mentioned, and a short term for a product that was different than that which was run generally in the market.
M & H concedes in their brief that the products are different. Brief for the Apat 13 Pe cc a P-
^he tracks and drivers were not attempt-*n£ to fix the prices of high quality 15-inch tires, for which the free market had set prices close to $170, at the much lower price of $90-$100. Rather, the tracks and drivers simply asked the tire companies to supply them with budget 13-inch tires in the $90-$100 category. The tire companies then told the tracks and drivers what tires they were offering in that price range, The tracks and drivers were not demanding that the tire companies sell them any particular tire at a price below market — i.e., they were not asking to be sold a $150 tire for $90. To the extent that any price break was offered, it merely reflected a permissible volume discount of a few dollars per ^re> which the tire companies may have extended in the hope of increasing the chance at winning the bid. For these reasons we do not perceive the single tire rule as an attempt to artificially hold down the price of a particular product, a practice condemned by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982). All the rule attempted to do — like a rule specifying the use of certain low cost engine components — was to counteract the natural tendency of racers, if left unregulated, to buy the latest, state-of-the-art equipment, which cost more to manufacture and hence more to sell.
Although the district court recognized the legitimacy of attempting to achieve competitive equivalency among racers, it said it was “not aware of any case that has approved the elimination of interbrand competition as a legitimate form of sports self-regulation.” If interbrand competition had truly been eliminated, there might be cause for concern, but nothing so drastic occurred here. First, Hoosier was selected after non-collusive, competitive — if unsophisticated, see infra — testing of various brands. Second, the court found that the rule was limited to the 1982 season, and • there is no evidence to suggest that the tracks and drivers would not have conducted another competitive test to select a track tire for the 1983 season. A single racing season does not seem an unreasonably long period to tie up a relatively small portion of the racing tire market.
Finally, the district court was clearly erroneous in its finding that the four defendant tracks comprised 100 percent of the relevant market and that even after two tracks suspended the rule, M & H was still foreclosed from 50 percent of the market. We do not see how the relevant market can be said to comprise only the four tracks that adopted the rule. In the Northeast alone, there are at least 15 other tracks which feature modified short oval racing. While racing tires constitute a separate market from ordinary street tires used on passenger cars, racing tires are sold nationwide. The president of M & H testified that his company sold racing tires “[nationally, as well as overseas.” Even if the relevant market were considered only short oval modified racing tires, as the president of M & H testified, M & H increased its sales of such tires from $52,000 in 1981, the year before the rule, to approximately $250,000 in 1982, the year that the rule was in effect. Some of these M & H sales were made at other tracks at which M & H had been designated for use under a single tire rule. In light of this information contained in the record, it seems fanciful to suggest that the relevant market was limited only to the tracks that adopted the tire rule at issue here.
M & H has not shown, therefore, nor does the record reveal, any significant market foreclosure; nor was any foreclosure for an unreasonably long time. Thus, it is simply not accurate to say that the single tire rule “eliminated” interbrand competition.
With respect to the district court’s view that sports regulations must be promulgated by an “independent sanctioning organization interested in the sport as a whole,” the assumption seems extreme. We recog- • nize that if a regulation is adopted by an independent sanctioning organization with no financial stake in the outcome, a court will have maximum assurance that the regulation is to protect fair competition within the sport. But it does not follow that the absence of such an organization absolutely precludes either a rule of reason analysis, or a successful result under that analysis. The absence of a sanctioning organization may well indicate a greater need to show that the regulation in fact promotes a significant sports aim, but that is a different matter.
In rejecting rule of reason analysis, the district court also cited an absence of “procedural fairness” in selecting the Hoosier tire. The court said that the notice given to tire manufacturers of the tests held in the fall of 1981 was inadequate. It found that manufacturers were not notified of key criteria used in judging the tires. It also found that the test procedures themselves were hit or miss, failed to account for relevant variables, and were not adequately recorded. Additionally NEDOC’s surviving records were insufficient to satisfy the court as to why NEDOC thought Hoosier was superior.
We cannot agree

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.
Answer:

Answer: 99