Getting the Paperwork Right

**GTRMagic** · 25 Nov 2004, 08:17 (Ref:1163518)

With all the discussions regarding the correct and proper processes that should be followed when transacting in this sport, the following is an example of perhaps what not to do...

From RaceNews...

CAMS
Nov 23 2004
WPS MOTORSPORT APPEAL DISMISSED

The V8 Supercar National Court of Appeal last night dismissed an appeal lodged by WPS Motorsport as a result of a preliminary issue with the appeal papers submitted by WPS.

The appeal was dismissed after the CAMS respondent, Mr Michael Holloway, identified an error in the appeal papers submitted by WPS Motorsport, which specified the incorrect competitor (entrant) name on both the Notice of Intention to Appeal and Notice of Appeal papers.

The Court, chaired by Mr John Hardy and assisted by Mr Robert Dyer and Mr Robert Fraser, subsequently dismissed WPS Motorsport's appeal. The appeal fee was forfeited.

WPS Motorsport appealed the Stewards' decision to enforce Rule B1.5.4 (AVESCO Operations Manual), not to permit legal representation in a Stewards' inquiry at Round 11 of the V8 Supercar Championship Series, the Lexmark Indy 300 at Surfers Paradise.

The V8 Supercar National Court of Appeal reconvened at the CAMS National Office in Melbourne last night after the Court adjourned on 28 October 2004 to allow WPS Motorsport to respond to apparent errors in their appeal documentation.

What was that about dotting your "i's" and crossing your "t's"

laser · 25 Nov 2004, 08:53 (Ref:1163554)

Quote:

Originally posted by GTRMagic
From RaceNews...

CAMS
Nov 23 2004
WPS MOTORSPORT APPEAL DISMISSED

Wouldn't that mean that it is from CAMS ?

**GTRMagic** · 25 Nov 2004, 09:04 (Ref:1163561)

RaceNews distributed this release from CAMS... so the release pops up in my mailbox from RaceNews.

If others choose to take that distribution after it has already passed thru RaceNews and call it their own, then that may be another story entirely....

pplater · 25 Nov 2004, 09:05 (Ref:1163562)

I think it means that CAMS wrote the notice, and it was retrieved by GTR at RaceNews.

**GTRMagic** · 25 Nov 2004, 09:08 (Ref:1163568)

Well CAMS isnt actually a living person, so technically an entity cant write a notice either.

Just Do It! · 25 Nov 2004, 10:44 (Ref:1163654)

Cam McConville and Cam McLean are.....

resisturban · 25 Nov 2004, 11:07 (Ref:1163674)

LOL! good one JDI

retro · 25 Nov 2004, 11:11 (Ref:1163679)

Just trying to work out what's going on - Did WPS put the wrong team name on the appeal (their own name)........and who is Mr %%* ^%$$ Gore going to blame for this - the drivers??

resisturban · 25 Nov 2004, 11:25 (Ref:1163685)

Sounds like they put the wrong driver name on. Which i am guessing would be for the #23 car, they might have put bessys name on it, when it should have been that Mcsomething guy

**GTRMagic** · 25 Nov 2004, 19:31 (Ref:1164231)

Well they call it WPS Motorsport in this release, isnt it WPS Racing?? That is certainly the legal entity name...

laser · 25 Nov 2004, 20:48 (Ref:1164284)

Quote:

Originally posted by GTRMagic
RaceNews distributed this release from CAMS... so the release pops up in my mailbox from RaceNews.

Ah, so it's a matter of perception then. You almost make it sound like RaceNews is the official distributor of CAMS releases. I get my CAMS releases directly from CAMS so when they land in my inbox it's from a CAMS email.

Quote:

If others choose to take that distribution after it has already passed thru RaceNews and call it their own, then that may be another story entirely....

I'd be REALLY interested to see anyone renaming a CAMS release to make it their own, but it probably happens somewhere, but RaceNews can't make any claim on the release either. It's the same as every other PR, it's public domain not owned by anyone really.

Lowndesfan6 · 25 Nov 2004, 20:51 (Ref:1164286)

Quote:

Originally posted by Just Do It!
Cam McConville and Cam McLean are.....

Ummmm, let me see.........I know, 2 different people.

Bruce Moxon · 26 Nov 2004, 01:17 (Ref:1164491)

How about the deeper issue? Did anyone else notice in AA's article, that Stephen Chopping (CAMS V8 Supercar series Steward) is a lawyer? But teams aren't allowed to take one in.

How long before every team has a lawyer who is a 'part owner'?

And what were WPS doing in a Stewards' hearing over Surfers? What did I miss? I swore at another competitor once and was charged with an "Act Prejudical to Motorsport" (another way of saying "BTSID").

Bruce Moxon

retro · 26 Nov 2004, 01:58 (Ref:1164507)

Quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Moxon
How about the deeper issue? Did anyone else notice in AA's article, that Stephen Chopping (CAMS V8 Supercar series Steward) is a lawyer? But teams aren't allowed to take one in.

How long before every team has a lawyer who is a 'part owner'?

And what were WPS doing in a Stewards' hearing over Surfers? What did I miss? I swore at another competitor once and was charged with an "Act Prejudical to Motorsport" (another way of saying "BTSID").

Bruce Moxon

I think the appeal is that Team Expletive Deleted wanted to be able to take a lawyer in to a stewards hearing.

Matthew Ronke · 26 Nov 2004, 02:00 (Ref:1164509)

It has me beat why No one can use a legal representative to defend themselves at a CAMS hearing yet CAMS use a police prosecutor to represent them.

Also of interest Robert Dyer also sits as the chairman of the tribune to investigate the VSRS. The interesting part is the Michael Holloway who successful argued for CAMS that WPS paperwork was incorrect is arguing to Robert Dyer that the VSRS paper work lodgement errors where just an oversight. But after 11 months we are still waiting on that one.

Isn't the CAMS justice system an interesting world of mystery?

bazil · 26 Nov 2004, 03:58 (Ref:1164535)

Mathew,
Nothing like hitting it right on the head.Ted (Team expletive deleted)were kicked out of a minor stewards meeting regarding Alex Gone(oops sorry i ment Yoong) at Indy because the team Director representing him happens to be a silk as well.What sort of democratic system allows one side to have rocks and the other machine guns.....

stoned pony · 26 Nov 2004, 04:10 (Ref:1164539)

"CAMS justice system"
Surely one of Australian motorsport's greatest oxymorons?

Raglanparade · 26 Nov 2004, 04:41 (Ref:1164547)

Wouldnt each team having legal rep. push the cost of motorracing up substantually.

bazil · 26 Nov 2004, 06:07 (Ref:1164560)

Its not a matter of whether each team has one but whether they have the right to one.If allowed why could there not be a legal available at all meetings for any of the teams to use if they dont wish to have thier own.Apparently only those that decide our fate are entitiled to this luxury.

cavvy · 26 Nov 2004, 08:39 (Ref:1164602)

Chopping is a long term motorsport person, I think he raced FF . What is this thread on about, banning lawyers from the sport?
No. I'm not a lawyer & trust none will ever darken my door way, but.....

1200Datto27 · 26 Nov 2004, 09:43 (Ref:1164657)

Whats the difference between a good and a bad lawyer?

A bad lawyer will make a case last for several years.
A good lawyer will make it last for decades.

Plus make the money to match.

Matthew Ronke · 26 Nov 2004, 19:44 (Ref:1165123)

I have no problem with the no legal representation rule. Steve Chopping being a lawyer and the steward which if you like is the judges role, and I'm personally fine with legal industry people acting in that role. However in this particular case, CAMS have enforced the no legal representation ruling yet they draft in a well know police prosecutor to act in the role of a CAMS prosecutor. This is where I see the great problem. As Bazil said, its like throwing rocks at guys with machine guns.

And according to the judges decision in the webb case, There is now a good argument for WPS to take this outside the CAMS system and into the courts. I don’t think anyone would like to see this but CAMS must keep the right for people’s natural justice or the system will be continually rerouted into the courts.