BAR banned for two races /FIA further warnings (merged again)

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

Look, its not like Max and his cronies sit as judges. From http://www.fia.com/resources/documen...005_TAI_QA.pdf

Where do the Judges come from?

The judges that make up the ICA come from 18 different countries (Article 188 of the ISC).
Each year one third of the Judges and their Deputies are elected by the FIA General
Assembly. The Judges must have both legal and sporting experience and cannot also serve
as a member of the FIA World Motor Sport Council or any of its Sporting Commissions.
At each hearing the Secretary General of the ICA chooses a panel that must consist of a
minimum of three Judges (Article 188 of the ISC). His choice is determined by two factors:
the rule that a Judge coming from a country that is the same as that of an involved party
cannot serve in the panel; and the practical matter of the availability of Judges for hearings
that sometimes have to be held at short notice.
--------

I don't know what its like in other countries, but in Canada, judges are appointed by the government. At least in the FIA, they are elected!

What you describe there in broad terms is the general approach to an arbitral hearing for international contracts. Nothing wrong with it at all.

[alfanano]

OK, I give up. Clearly, you all think that the appeals system is totally acceptable and I bow to your superior debating skills. Mosley would be proud of you all. I’m off to start an Appeal Court in Indonesia (but I'll come back for Goodwood to see some real motor racing).

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by alfanano

OK, ..............................(but I'll come back for Goodwood to see some real motor racing).

Now you're talking.

[johnw]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

The FIA runs a sporting event and can make and enforce the rules as it pleases.

Therein lies the problem K-B. If it just enforced the rules it would fine, but it does have this tendency to change such as measurements for reasons of expediancy and one perceives, just to suit it's purposes at the time. (Witness the tyre measurement fiasco and the dry weight debacle, discussed ad nauseam elsewhere in this forum.)

Originally Posted by alfanano

OK, I give up. Clearly, you all think that the appeals system is totally acceptable and I bow to your superior debating skills.

Never give up alfanano. I've not detected any superior debating skills, just a repetition of dogma

See you at Goodwood.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by johnw

Never give up alfanano. I've not detected any superior debating skills, just a repetition of dogma

This would have worked so much better if you'd not just done what you are complaining about

Of course the descripion on the situation as 'debacle' rather depends on whether you thought it was. If you do then the next thing to consider is who made it a debacle (the FIA, BAR, the press, or us).

In addition I see no change of rule here, or interpretation, or even method of measurement. Or, for that matter, a purpose (other than to investigate if a car was illegal).

[johnw]

Thank you for implying I almost got something right Adam.

Patently there was a change of procedure. If the "lifted pump" process had been in general use, then the "hoovering out" was a change.

Even you must accept that the rules were ill defined, and needed an appeal from the FIA of it's own Stewards to rectify them.

It could all have been resolved out of the public domain so easily. That it wasn't, is the subject of this conjecture.

[Adam43]

I agree that it wasn't ideal that the FIA had to appeal. However the important thing was to assertain the legality of the BAR. Even ignoring possibility of further protests (subject of another thread) then I am sure that BAR would have appealed at a stewards decision that they were illegal.

As for public domain. Which ever way it was resolved - even another clarification beforehand would have kicked up a fuss. There would have been rumours flying around that BAR were cheating! They could have lingered and done as much damage.

My main point through all this is that these are secondary considerations. The primary one was to assertain whether the BAR was illegal. If we want to talk politics*, then there is the smoke screen that BAR is putting out about the secondary issues.

*or was that another thread

[johnw]

No doubt the BAR was illegal, but only after the clarification of dry weight.
Obviously not before, when the Stewards declared them legal.

[Adam43]

Well they were illegal, the stewards just declared it incorrectly

[Inigo Montoya]

Originally Posted by johnw

Never give up alfanano. I've not detected any superior debating skills, just a repetition of dogma

Hmm dogma? You mean, of course, facts?

[Dixie Flatline]

I've probably dived into this debate too late, but that's not going to stop me. So here goes.

It is a tenet of Australian common law jurisprudence, and presumably in other civiled countries around the world, that parties to a dispute are entitled to natural justice. This means that the parties are entitled to have their dispute heard and resolved independently and impartially by those empowered to resolve such disputes.

Therefore, it is fundamental to the operation of the FIA Court of Appeal that it is not only independent, but seen to be independent. Otherwise, effectively any decision it makes will be subject to scrutiny by a civil court on the grounds that it was made without natural justice being accorded to the parties.

The name does not connote that the body itself is not independent nor impartial. It merely associates the body with the particular forum in which disputes might occur.

Trying to resolve the dispute out of the public domain would have meant that charges of non-independence and bias would have been levelled against those resolving the dispute, even if these charges were unfounded. Like natural justice is a tenet of jurisprudence, so is public transparency, for the reason that it ensures the public has confidence in the ability of the judicial system to resolve disputes.

[1200Datto27]

But most sporting bodies, like soccer, bicycle racing, etc, have their own tribunals and appeal systems, to keep things "within the system" and to avoid messy situations like their right to exist being bought into question.

[Glen]

If any team considers the FIA's right to exist to be tenuous, they know where the door is.