|
Thanks for your support wirth regards the time issue. And I hope that you do not speak from personal experience however with regards the appeal the agenda which was set by the M.S.A. was to establish whether the CofC had come to the correct decision considering the evidence he had and for that to be the marshals reports putting my car in variuos positions simply to reinforce their assumptions as to what was going on on track made it impossible to challenge without video evidence. The video evidence was not admissable simply because it existed so thankfully they accepted it as otherwise today I would have been an even angrier person. Cost seems to be too much an overiding factor in these cases; officials can't afford to stay late, circuits can't afford video evidence, and competitors can't afford the increased cost of competing all rounds are we now getting to the stage of saying can you afford to be innocent? My charge was downgraded and although I'm gratefull it still feels like a compromise. To add insult to injury the club have now asked me to resign my membership or face the embarassment of expulsion commenting that they don't see how the M.S.A. officials could have accepted the video as contradicting evidence, is this the appeal on the appeal or is this just politics. In eight yrs. of driving I've never been called to the CofC. for a reppremand. Is this amount of grief because two cars were wrecked and so instead of £'s were talking Euros? So the dividing line between close racing and dangerous racing is the cost of the damage? If that were the case there would be no more motorsport.regards.
|