[VASC16R25] SuperCheap Auto Bathurst 1000: 6-9 Oct (WITH POLL)

[GTRMagic]

[ford71]

Originally Posted by Tja

BTW any idea on how I can add that picture to my post? [IMG] isn't working for me...

And I agree - Tander is at speed, Whincup baulks him, the only logical move is to go around. Nobody waits for other competitors to sort themselves out and then tuck back in behind. Thats what you do when you redress (well when you redress correctly at least)

[peckstar]

I really struggle with the idea that GT has any blame, reckon that's just victim blaming

like somehow he knew what jamie was thinking or could look at jamie and some how see Scott coming from the side.

Im with Skaifes orginal comment. This redress rule is at fault for this.

Cam mcconville has come out and said scrap it. Not sure I 100% agree with this, it has a place, but only when two cars are involved and if done safely (ie not on the racing line in an acceleration zone)

[Terry S]

Peckstar, I refer to your posts of the last two days and your insulting comments about me. I have waited 24 hours to see that it is not all an illusion but actually took place.
Simply it appears that you may not have read either the CAMS Court’s decision or the rules in the Supercar Rules, so I will spell them out:
“The Chairman of the Court announced that the appeal was dismissed after debate regarding whether Triple Eight had a right of appeal against a decision made by the Stewards during a race.”
In the Supercars Operations Manual, Clause 4.2.1 states “No right of appeal exists against any decision made by the Stewards in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to these Rules.
The level of vitriol and aggression shown in your posts is uncalled for and unnecessary. On other forums you would be censured or banned for such actions.
In your post on 19 October:
“I’m not sure why any thinking person would want that”
In your post on 20 October
“Sorry what is your reasoning for that? Do you have any?”
“What an illogical idea!”
“It saddens me that you think Triple 8 are such morons that they don’t understand the Rules”
Later on 20th
“So you have no reason for your belief but to insult me. You have no rule to back your comment or no logical reasoning”
I think the post of Average Punter yesterday at 15:37 summed it up as did the post of JABWOA at 7:19.
I’m sure that when you have had a chance to read the rule you will see how unnecessary your comments are.
I await your apology.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Peckstar, I refer to your posts of the last two days and your insulting comments about me. I have waited 24 hours to see that it is not all an illusion but actually took place.
Simply it appears that you may not have read either the CAMS Court’s decision or the rules in the Supercar Rules, so I will spell them out:
“The Chairman of the Court announced that the appeal was dismissed after debate regarding whether Triple Eight had a right of appeal against a decision made by the Stewards during a race.”
In the Supercars Operations Manual, Clause 4.2.1 states “No right of appeal exists against any decision made by the Stewards in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to these Rules.
The level of vitriol and aggression shown in your posts is uncalled for and unnecessary. On other forums you would be censured or banned for such actions.
In your post on 19 October:
“I’m not sure why any thinking person would want that”
In your post on 20 October
“Sorry what is your reasoning for that? Do you have any?”
“What an illogical idea!”
“It saddens me that you think Triple 8 are such morons that they don’t understand the Rules”
Later on 20th
“So you have no reason for your belief but to insult me. You have no rule to back your comment or no logical reasoning”
I think the post of Average Punter yesterday at 15:37 summed it up as did the post of JABWOA at 7:19.
I’m sure that when you have had a chance to read the rule you will see how unnecessary your comments are.
I await your apology.

I apologies if you think i have attacked you personally, in all cases i believe i have questioned your posts and the thought pattern or logic behind them not you as a person. At not point have i felt the need to describe you as a person in any negative way

However I stand by what i said. It is not up to the stewards to determine if an appeal is allowed. There only job is to collect the form and the fees and pass it on appropriately

Just like its not up to a policeman to determine if you speeding fine is allowed to be appealed

It is the job of the court of appeal to determine that in all forms of sport and indeed in legal courts throughout the land.

That is logical judicial process.

you have added no further point. I still await your reasoning on why you think stewards should be able to judge if appeal against them should be allowed! Or you could just leave it and move on.

[dsg]

Surely the onus is on Jamie to redress when it is safe to do so. This must include actively blocking the car directly behind you because it wasn't the car he needed to allow redress.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Simply it appears that you may not have read either the CAMS Court’s decision or the rules in the Supercar Rules, so I will spell them out:In the Supercars Operations Manual, Clause 4.2.1 states “No right of appeal exists against any decision made by the Stewards in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to these Rules.

That clause refers to a protest, which is totally different to an appeal. You have even changed the word "protest" that appears in that rule number to "appeal" in your "quoted" part of the rules. Not disagreeing with your view on the stewards but protests and appeals are completely different animals.

Originally Posted by peckstar

It is not up to the stewards to determine if an appeal is allowed. There only job is to collect the form and the fees and pass it on appropriately

The stewards are required to enforce and follow the rules and the rules only allow an appeal in regard to the outcome of a hearing, which an in-race penalty is not. Therefore it is a logical argument to suggest that under the rules, the stewards should not have accepted the appeal. Having said that, your line of thought also makes some sense and given that appeals rarely happen so the stewards don't get much practice at the process (I believe that the last appeal in the main game was in 2007) it will be interesting to see how the court of appeal views the question of the stewards accepting the notice of appeal when the findings are published. All largely conjecture until that happens.

[Terry S]

Originally Posted by Tourer

That clause refers to a protest, which is totally different to an appeal. You have even changed the word "protest" that appears in that rule number to "appeal" in your "quoted" part of the rules. Not disagreeing with your view on the stewards but protests and appeals are completely different animals.



The stewards are required to enforce and follow the rules and the rules only allow an appeal in regard to the outcome of a hearing, which an in-race penalty is not. Therefore it is a logical argument to suggest that under the rules, the stewards should not have accepted the appeal. Having said that, your line of thought also makes some sense and given that appeals rarely happen so the stewards don't get much practice at the process (I believe that the last appeal in the main game was in 2007) it will be interesting to see how the court of appeal views the question of the stewards accepting the notice of appeal when the findings are published. All largely conjecture until that happens.

At last some sense on this, or is it only one poster being obtuse,

Will they refund the 10,000 they should not have taken in the first place?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Terry S

At last some sense on this, or is it only one poster being obtuse,

Will they refund the 10,000 they should not have taken in the first place?

I'm told that the court advised the team that would happen straight away on the night of the hearing.

[ForumNick]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Simply it appears that you may not have read either the CAMS Court’s decision or the rules in the Supercar Rules, so I will spell them out:...

In the Supercars Operations Manual, Clause 4.2.1 states “No right of appeal exists against any decision made by the Stewards in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to these Rules.

You have (conveniently, for your spurious argument) 'spelt out' the word "protest" as "appeal" in your falsified quote from the Ops Manual

The Supercars Operations Manual "Div B Clause 4.2.1" actually states...

“No right of protest exists against any decision made by the Stewards in the course of carrying out their duties pursuant to these Rules..."

As Tourer states; 'protests and appeals are completely different animals' !

In your attempt to take the high moral ground, you have built a 'Glass House' so beware of incoming 'stones' !

(apologies for the mixed metaphors)

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I'm told that the court advised the team that would happen straight away on the night of the hearing.

Im told differently.

Who will fund the costs of the sitting if the fee is refunded? Remember they hired a room at the county court, they provided 3 serious legal experts (at least 1 is a QC) and v8 supercars itself provided two people. Plus I assume there was more

So if the money is returned either SuperCars funds it (ie the teams and Archer) or Cams funds it, ie memberships

Rules concerning it

5.2.3 Appeal Fee (“Fee”)

5.2.3.1 The Fee remains payable even if the appellant does not follow up the
declared intention to Appeal contained in the Notice (Rule B5.2.1).
5.2.3.2 No part of the Fee will be returned to the appellant if the Appeal (Rule B5.2.2) is withdrawn at any time or if The Court rejects the Appeal.
5.2.3.3 If The Court finds the Appeal partly founded, The Court may order a part of the Fee be returned to the appellant.
5.2.3.4 If The Court upholds the Appeal, The Court may in its discretion order part or all of the Fee be returned to the appellant.

As far as i can tell there is no scope for refund in this case as the appeal was not found to be partly founded or upheld

[Tourer]

We'll have to wait for the court's findings to know 100% then Peck - the person who told me said that as the appeal should not have been accepted, the fee should not have been accepted and it was refunded.

Whoever you've spoken to believes differently.

[peckstar]

just wanted to share this comparison of two "horse"power events

Bathurst 1000 4 days(officially) 5 arrests, 9 evictions

Melbourne Cup 1 day 9 arrests 78 evictions

Think the 1000 has an undeserved Bad Rep

[Umai Naa]

I wonder what the clean-up was like, after a week of Bathurst patronage?

Flemington looked worse than the local tip.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

I wonder what the clean-up was like, after a week of Bathurst patronage?

Flemington looked worse than the local tip.

Went up the mountain on monday afternoon after the race in 2009. My wife described as like being at the tip

But yes Flemington looked filthy. Lack of bins and full strength alcohol

[Terry S]

Has the reasoning for the stewards decision ever been released as promised?

[Terry S]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Has the reasoning for the stewards decision ever been released as promised?

I see that it was supposed to be within 14 days of the hearing. happened?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Terry S

Has the reasoning for the stewards decision ever been released as promised?

The stewards decision? I think it was released in the summary wasn't it?

The appeal court on the other hand, I'm not aware of anything being released publicly but I assume the parties directly impacted have in fact received the findings.