Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thread

In honour of our fallen comrade. Archive of all previous canon series across all disciplines.
User avatar
SuperAguri
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2026
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 01:27
Location: Rio, Brazil

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by SuperAguri »

As Nathan McKane said, the fact that Phillippe Nicolas woefully missed his braking point, in which we struggle to work out why he was not given a penalty, byt I digress, Nicolas missed his breaking spot by miles, which cause him to clatter into Kazama, which cause Kazama to hit Mckane and Mckane to hit Fleet. McKane having the racing line was in the worst place. He did get damage, he did slide over the astroturf, he was a passenger for the most part having little control over his car.

We would like to end with a statement, if McKane was driving dangerously to say get back on the track, which is what he was banned for, would he, or any other driver try to get back in such a way that he would re enter the track sideways? He could have been seriously injured or killed if he was hit in the wrong place. Although it wasn't too fast in F1 terms, it was still a fair lick of speed that would have got you a speeding ticket. McKane did end up spinning and had a damaged car to show for it. Also remember he was t-boned by his team mate and there is not a single team in the pitlane that hasn't drilled into their drivers, 'Don't hit your team mate'.

Upholding this penalty would show poor judgement as several drivers should have also got penalities.
<@Ataxia> these people are making a mess of their crepe suzettes
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Thank you, Mr Edgeworth, that is all. The Panel now calls F1RWRS expert for the final interview in this hearing.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Aerond
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3504
Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 19:26
Location: Anschlussland

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Aerond »

Rakesh Rahul, as a representative of the F1RWRS Commission and steward at the Italian GP, will answer to the questions of the court.
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Mr Rahul, first of all, had F1RWRS commission access to the number 13 telemetry? If so, why no analysis was provided? If not, why wasn't it provided with by the team?
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Aerond
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3504
Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 19:26
Location: Anschlussland

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Aerond »

No, the commission hasn't had any access to the telemetry. However, we have no reason to believe telemetry data provided by Kamaha during this viewing is incorrect. Anyway, to us the action is clear enough to give a penalty to driver of the car #13 Nathan McKane and therefore we think the telemetry data is irrelevant, since the penalty is given for: a) Rejoining the track in a dangerous place, b) Not waiting for the track to clear before rejoining, which was done correctly by car of #10 Ben Fleet, involved in the same incident. However, the collision between cars #10 and #13 is not severe or serious in any way and there's no reason why McKane's car should have been damaged in the incident, as the contact was light and Ben Fleet didn't suffer any kind of damage either. We have seen this season other heavier contacts between cars which haven't produced any damage to the cars involved. I must also add that a Kamaha representative spoke to us after the penalty was handed and explained briefly that they believed McKane's car had its throttle stuck. First, why the throttle would be stuck after such a light contact is beyond us, and second, telemetry data doesn't show any effort from the driver to push the brakes before rejoining the track, not to change direction. So we decided to keep the penalty after speaking to the Kamaha representative.
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Doesn't your view, Mr Rahul, that the collision Mr McKane had with Mr Fleet wasn't enough to cause damage clashes with Kamaha analysis of the telemetry which you don't find incorrect? And how can someone judge the quantity of damage taken by a car in such an incident with only video evidence?
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Aerond
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3504
Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 19:26
Location: Anschlussland

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Aerond »

No, as I said it doesn't. Kamaha's telemetry only proves that the driver didn't take any efforts towards braking before rejoining the track, it also shows that the car doesn't gain any speed before rejoining the track, but we have no instruments for post-telemetry analysis so I'm not going to be the one saying the telemetry is wrong. About damage, we've never suffered steering damages since the commission was reformed in 2013. There's endless clashes between drivers before which have ended with no ammount of damage, so experience dictates that a steering damage is not possible from such a light contact. You could ask any team engineer, or team boss. As you can see in the video, neither Fleet's or McKane's car lost any piece of bodywork.
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Mr Rahul, why F1RWRS doesn't have any regulation towards drivers penalties and still applies them? What is the criteria?
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Aerond
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 3504
Joined: 25 Mar 2010, 19:26
Location: Anschlussland

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Aerond »

The F1RWRS Commission have been handing penalties for racing actions since 2013, when it was reached a verbal agreement between teams as to which organism should provide the stewarding. It is quite logical that the championship organization and governing body provides stewarding, apart that no other solution was found for this matter, which is a vital part of racing. There's also several cases of previous penalties handed by the stewards, so I don't think there's a need to discuss the matter of written set of regulations towards this matter. However, the F1RWRS commission has already included this regulation in the regulation book to avoid any kind of misunderstanding about how the whole system works in the future.
Tread lightly in ARWS. Every decision might be your last.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Thanks a lot Mr Rahul. That will be all. The Panel ends this hearing and now will reach a decision after a reviewing all the interviews and presented evidence.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The Panel has finally reached a decision. It was decided that Mr McKane ban will be upheld.

The Panel considers that F1RWRS has the responsibility to defend the safety and integrity of the participators and, as such, also has the authority to hand suspensions if a driver was deemed to be reckless. The Panel points out, though, that the lack of regulations might lead to appeals due to the confusion created on the participators. This should be addressed in order to achieve more transparency in the whole process. The Panel also acknowledges that this is currently being worked upon by F1RWRS.

As for this specific case, the Panel presented the following reasons:
- Mr McKane was deemed by this Panel to not have tried enough to avoid the car (e.g. braking) from entering the track dangerously as even if the Panel recognises that the car could have been damaged following the contact with Mr Fleet.
- As for the damage in the steering wheel, the lack of evidence presented leads only to speculation as the telemetry can only tell that the wheels are slipping a lot more.
- Video evidence clearly shows the wheels turning after contact with Mr Fleet and that fact was not fully explained by the appellant.

Finally, the Panel can only judge the cases presented to it and while acknowledges that many other cases where drivers were reckless might exist and never really went punished creating some sense of injustice, in this case Mr McKane was rightly suspended.

The President,
DanielPT
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by dr-baker »

While Ben Fleet deliberately did not take part in this, he is happy to see that the driver that took him out from the race was punished. However, he would like to see penalties formally spelt out by F1RWRS's commision, so that it will be known what punishments are to be expected when transgressions take place. Ben Fleet would also like to see a debate take place where participants' views differ to the Commision when they are announced.
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Scuderia Alitalia is pleased that CAS found the correct verdict, and hopes that this enforcement of penalties for bad driving will stop teams from launching frivolous appeals in future. As per established F1RWRS regulations, we expect the organisers to levy a points and/or financial penalty for Kamaha wasting everyone's time with such nonsense.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
SuperAguri
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2026
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 01:27
Location: Rio, Brazil

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by SuperAguri »

Shinji Zanmai wrote:If that is Justice then I'm a Banana. We still feel that McKane was not driving recklessly and that we did explain his and the cars actions. We also feel that the fine that the FRWRSC handed us was unjustified and excessive as there is no transparency on fines, they just seem to pick a number out of their fat rear ends and we do plan to appeal the size of the fine.
<@Ataxia> these people are making a mess of their crepe suzettes
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Shinji Zanmai wrote:If that is Justice then I'm a Banana. We still feel that McKane was not driving recklessly and that we did explain his and the cars actions. We also feel that the fine that the FRWRSC handed us was unjustified and excessive as there is no transparency on fines, they just seem to pick a number out of their fat rear ends and we do plan to appeal the size of the fine.

Alessandro Linari wrote:Pipe down Kamaha. You were relying on made-up evidence and biased opinions. Everyone else can clearly see McKane was driving recklessly. The fine was justified for wasting the commission's time with such a frivolous appeal. What you may not realise, because clearly your heads are very firmly lodged up your rectums at Kamaha, is that appealing the fine - an appeal which you will also lose as it is also frivolous - will result in yet another fine under the same set of rules. You can launch appeal after appeal if you want but all it'll do is bankrupt your team through a cycle of fines.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Salamander »

Shinji Zanmai wrote:If that is Justice then I'm a Banana. We still feel that McKane was not driving recklessly and that we did explain his and the cars actions. We also feel that the fine that the FRWRSC handed us was unjustified and excessive as there is no transparency on fines, they just seem to pick a number out of their fat rear ends and we do plan to appeal the size of the fine.


Guillaume Gauthier wrote:I will keep my own opinion on what ze proper outcome of the trial should 'ave been, but I will advise you that perhaps you should think of your bank balance next time you try and appeal zomething.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Il Barone Rampante S.r.L
Via Mantova 92/A
43122 Parma PR
Italia

GTRWC Commission wrote:Car #28 (IBR Ferrari - Roda/Voeckler) was handed a 30 second penalty for an avoidable collision with car #26 (Union Saver Corvette - Llosa/McKenna) The conclusion has come that the 28 was the cause of the 26's accident and retirement on the spot.


Il Barone Rampante wishes to appeal this verdict, and the appeal lodged with the competition's organisers against this penalty, which resulted in no change to the outcome of said penalty.

IBR contests this penalty should not be upheld in any form, as the race-ending incident for the #26 Union Saver Corvette was caused by the pilot (Ricardo Llosa) driving haphazardly and accelerating into the barrier, rather than any contact from the #28 IBR Ferrari causing it to be forced into the barrier as is suggested by the stewards.

While there was contact between the #28 IBR and #26 USD on the approach to the corner, this was very light contact considered part of tin-top racing, as demonstrated earlier in the race when the #19 Gerald Pereira Pan Asia Alliance Lister Storm careered in the to back of the #25 USD, which as a result hit the #28 IBR. The #19's late braking in this instance was far riskier than the actions of the #28 in the penalised incident, and resulted in a far larger impact, yet the stewards decided no penalty was warranted.

In other words, the stewards rationale for issuing the penalty to the #28 can be pinpointed to the fact the #26 USD retired in the aforementioned incident. However, because the #26's retirement was caused by its driver's own actions and not contact from the #28 IBR, we contest that no penalty should be applied.

We will explain the precise reasons that the #26 USD is at fault during the hearing of thise case.
Video evidence is attached for CAS' review.

IBR and GTRWC do not currently have an appointed arbitrator, and therefore we require CAS to appoint one on our behalf.

We trust the above is satisfactory for CAS to begin the appeals process.

Yours sincerely,
Alessandro Linari
CEO, Il Barone Rampante S.r.L.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
RonDenisDeletraz
Posts: 7380
Joined: 27 Oct 2011, 08:21
Location: Flight 643
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by RonDenisDeletraz »

You are doing pretty pretty much exactly what you criticised Kamaha for doing, lol
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either :P

tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

eurobrun wrote:You are doing pretty pretty much exactly what you criticised Kamaha for doing, lol

Well, no, not really.

There is a large difference between appealing a penalty despite video evidence showing your argument is a lie, while this time there is a genuine case to be answered for. RRR is essentially the anti-Aerond - he wishes to punish drivers as much as possible. He has admitted that "The works Corvettes and Ferraris are the best cars on the grid" and that he "doesn't want GTRWC to turn into DAGNALLWINSLOL", and will hand out penalties like free candy to make sure of it.

You look at other incidents in the race where other cars braked far later than Roda and smashed into the back of other cars with far greater force, and no penalty was applied. We got stuck with a 30 second penalty because Llosa drove like a twat.

Kamaha fumbled their way into CAS with no evidence to back up anything they said. F1RWRS actually looks at video evidence to decide penalties. Said video showed McKane t-boning Kazama while still having full control over the car. The GTRWC Commission's decision over penalties is literally a roll of the dice.

The two are poles apart. Once again, your bad habit of seeing everything in black and white is causing you to not come to the correct conclusion.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
RonDenisDeletraz
Posts: 7380
Joined: 27 Oct 2011, 08:21
Location: Flight 643
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by RonDenisDeletraz »

Llosa wouldn't have crashed in the first place if your car hadn't have driven straight into the back of him. Having seen the footage the penalty was 100% fair and realistic.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either :P

tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
User avatar
RealRacingRoots
Posts: 1941
Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 06:25
Location: Green Hill, Montana
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by RealRacingRoots »

Stramala wrote:
eurobrun wrote:You are doing pretty pretty much exactly what you criticised Kamaha for doing, lol

Well, no, not really.

There is a large difference between appealing a penalty despite video evidence showing your argument is a lie, while this time there is a genuine case to be answered for. RRR is essentially the anti-Aerond - he wishes to punish drivers as much as possible. He has admitted that "The works Corvettes and Ferraris are the best cars on the grid" and that he "doesn't want GTRWC to turn into DAGNALLWINSLOL", and will hand out penalties like free candy to make sure of it.

You look at other incidents in the race where other cars braked far later than Roda and smashed into the back of other cars with far greater force, and no penalty was applied. We got stuck with a 30 second penalty because Llosa drove like a twat.

Kamaha fumbled their way into CAS with no evidence to back up anything they said. F1RWRS actually looks at video evidence to decide penalties. Said video showed McKane t-boning Kazama while still having full control over the car. The GTRWC Commission's decision over penalties is literally a roll of the dice.

The two are poles apart. Once again, your bad habit of seeing everything in black and white is causing you to not come to the correct conclusion.


If I did intend to punish as many drivers as much as possible, then I would have excluded whole manufactures from results for some ludicrous reason. There will always be a stewarding standard that will be exclusive to each organizing user and series, it is up to each user who runs a series to put the writing on the wall what is and is not susceptible to wrath of the stewards, keeping in mind the limitations of the game amongst other variables.

Yes, the Prodrive 550s and Corvettes are the best cars in the field. That is a pure GT1 convention. Of course I don't want my favoured son to be winning in the PMMF's premier series all the time, it raises the ire of many users for potential undermining of other competitors. (Look at my RTS Lambos, and how bland they've been) And if I didn't penalise Roda, while having the other penalties in tact, there would be more strife among other users for a missed call rather than one user being butthurt that his favoured GT son messed up in a major way.

Yes, I RNGed your Appeal. If I ran it like Aerond (since you are calling me Anti-Aerond) I would have completely thrown out your appeal or kept the result without second guessing of even looking at the footage, but of course that is up for debate. I am not the only one who RNG's appeals; Klon also RNGs appeals for Canon-F1 but with more severe penalties/rewards up for grabs for those who successfully thread the deadly waters that are RNG. Penalties and Appeals are never ever easy. Never will everyone be happy with a result, it's simply not possible. And of course, the RNG itself is NOT KAYFABE (i.e NOT STORYLINE), the result of the RNG is Kayfabe.

And of course, driving like a twat and driving conservatively are two completely different things. Llosa was conservative under braking for the Retifillio and kept to the outside. Roda was visibly more aggressive under braking as can be seen be the rate the gap closed. Roda chose not to go to the inside of the first part of the Retifillio to make the pass and decided to run into Llosa which initiated the whole incident. Get your definitions straight, calm your tits (you too Eurobrun), ENJOY THIS PRIVILEGE WE ALL SHARE HERE AT THE PMMF, and if you don't like what you see you can always leave, start a new series and cancel it before you actually start it for the fifth time.
The Truth Shall set you free. (no theme music plays)
Tomáš.......Ttaaaaaaaattaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
.
Watch this if you want to learn about what Canada is really like.
.
GT Super Series
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

RealRacingRoots wrote:And of course, driving like a twat and driving conservatively are two completely different things. Llosa was conservative under braking for the Retifillio and kept to the outside. Roda was visibly more aggressive under braking as can be seen be the rate the gap closed. Roda chose not to go to the inside of the first part of the Retifillio to make the pass and decided to run into Llosa which initiated the whole incident.

I never contested Roda braking too late and giving Llosa a nudge. But you cannot blame a driver accelerating into a wall on another driver. You can see from the video that Llosa's speed was lower halfway through the chicane than at the exit, and the only contact was in the braking zone. Llosa had slowed down and made the corner, then floored the throttle and understeered into the barrier. Wiping yourself out by having a lead foot at a slow corner is driving like a twat. He had already made the corner. He was in a position to turn left, block Roda and make the corner no problem. He did not take that option. He was going slow enough to make the corner. Llosa was in control of his own car when he drove into that wall.

Long story short; Roda nudging Llosa and Llosa hitting the wall are indirectly linked, not directly. It affected the positioning of his car going into the second phase of Retifillio, but he had slowed down to a low enough speed and had the space required to make the corner. Roda cannot be blamed for Llosa not taking the fact he was deeper into the corner into account before flooring the throttle. That is merely poor judgement on the latter's part.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
Salamander
Posts: 9570
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 20:59
Location: trapped on some prison island

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Salamander »

Having just watched the replay, I think that the penalty should just be reduced some. Roda was not responsible for Llosa hitting the wall, it's pretty clear to me that that was entirely down to a pretty fundamental error on Llosa's part. Regardless, the fact remains that Llosa was totally unsettled through the chicane by the contact, and it's reasonable to assume that Roda would have gained the place anyway had Llosa actually attempted to take the corner without ending his race in the process.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Everything's great.
I'm not surprised about anything.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

eurobrun wrote:Llosa wouldn't have crashed in the first place if your car hadn't have driven straight into the back of him. Having seen the footage the penalty was 100% fair and realistic.

Three users and three different opinions. This case is far from 100% in any shape or form.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The appellants brief was well received by the CAS. The respondent has five days to submit an answer according to R55 of the appeal procedure.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
RealRacingRoots
Posts: 1941
Joined: 21 Oct 2011, 06:25
Location: Green Hill, Montana
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by RealRacingRoots »

Terrance Carter, President of the GT-Rejects World Championship management group (and commission), will respond to the Il Barone Rampante S.r.L case regarding the appeal to the 30 second penalty to the car being co-driven by Giovanni Roda and Frederic-Maxime Voeckler.

The response to the Appeal to the Appeal:

*After re-watching the video footage of the incident we can conclude that:

-Car #28 made no liberties to move to the inside lane at The Retifillio when Car #26 left that portion of the corner open through it's braking path and initial turn into the first part of the chicane. This initially began with Car #28 making a more aggressive braking approach into The Retifillio in order to attempt to make up time on the car ahead.

-Brake was applied in car #26 at the second part of The Retifillio whist steering was applied to turn left onto the path of the exit of the chicane. If there was no contact made by Car #28 to car #26, Car #26 would have made it through that portion of the track without going into the sand or into the barriers at that portion of the track.

-Car #28 did not yield to Car #26 after the contact. Car #28 continued to follow a line at the Retifillio which nearly caused more contact with Car #26 on the moment of the change of direction in the chicane. The driver in Car #28 (Roda) made no attempt in allowing Car #26 to attempt to return to a normal line for the corner, which nearly caused another collision between the two cars, instead following his intended path in the corner. This raises the question if that Car #26 slowed down more than what actually happened if Car #28 would have run into the back of Car #28 and into the Barrier none the less.

*As for the second example/racing incident Il Barone Rampante S.r.L brought up in his initial appeal:

-The result of the racing incident was no as severe as any of the incidents that did get a penalty throughout the race. Car #28 continued on only mere seconds behind Cars #19 and #25 where as the cars that received the avoidable collision in penalties lost numerous time and did irreplaceable damage to their race while Car #28 remained in the contention for the lead at that point.

*As for the result of the initial appeal and the initial penalty:

-The initial conclusion to make the penalty 30 seconds rather than the omni-typical 15 second was reached after the other incidents that were handed penalties, then car reviving the avoidable collision was able to continue on in the race scot free besides Car #03 who merged back on track while cars were still flying through that corner. This was the only incident where the car received the contact ended up with either any semblance of damage to the car's internals or retired because of the incident incident itself, with this incident causing in the latter outcome.

-If through the appeal that the penalty was reduced to 15 seconds, we feel that this would cause the Ire of more parties whether related to the collision or not. That consistency raised in the point prior would be raised into question.

-In the future, guidelines for the penalties will be put into a public medium for all parties interested to see in case another incident of similar circumstances happens in the future.

*I conclude by saying that the appeal on the 30 second penalty and the penalty itself were justified. The allegations against the GT-R WC Stewards, Management and Commission would have been much more severe if a more sympathetic approach to the incident were taken. Above all else, there is a standard that we, drivers or not, must follow during the race, which in this situation, the driver of Car #28 drove outside the boundaries of. Which caused us to be where we are today.
The Truth Shall set you free. (no theme music plays)
Tomáš.......Ttaaaaaaaattaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
.
Watch this if you want to learn about what Canada is really like.
.
GT Super Series
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The respondent answer was well received by the CAS. The Panel will be solely constituted by its President and will now deliberate if an hearing is needed.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The Panel has determined that the evidence provided by both parties is both complete and clear enough for the Panel to be able to reach a decision. No hearing will take place. The Panel will now deliberate and announce its decision in the briefest delay possible.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The Panel has reached a decision. It's verdict is that the 30 second penalty handed given to the car #28 should be upheld.

The Panel presents the following reasoning for its decision:
a) The Panel has considered that the car #28 used the car #26 in order to stop in time for the chicane and at the same time unsettle said car #26 enough for an overtaking manoeuvre;
b) No very light contact or nudge could damage like the rear right lights from the car #26 and that clearly shows that the impact was quite strong;
c) Video evidence shows that the car #28 keeps pushing car #26 into the runoff area and that, coupled with the impact of the crash, is what caused car #26 to lose control and crash into the barrier;
d) Other penalties at the same race were handed, as was refered by the respondant, but the fact that this particular event ended in a car retiring from the race justifies the stronger penalty;
e) Having also analysed the impact between cars #28, #25 and #19, the shadow and sound evidence from the replay point out to the fact that it was car #25 who hit car #28 first and the consequent speed reduction caused the impact between #19 and #25. The fact that both #25 and #19 managed to overtake while #28 stopped on the spot might indicate that #25 was caught out by the heavier than normal breaking from #28 and thus leading to what the stewards deemed as a racing incident. This might be why there was no penalty in the first place.

The President,
DanielPT
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

IBR is simply aghast at the justification behind the decision made, given C is visibly not true, as there is a clear gap between the #26 and #28 after both cars have reached the first apex. This was critical to IBR's defence, and simply ignored by CAS. Had they worn their glasses, they would have noticed the gap, and realised Llosa had accelerated into the wall by himself, thus completely changing the nature of the incident from deliberately causing a car to retire, to deliberate contact without malicious intent.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

Melrose Racing Team
Toyota Alle-14
50858 Köln
Germany

F1RWRS Commission wrote:- Tomo Kazama is handed a One Race Ban for these two actions;
1.Causing a collision with Schiller and Lon, which resulted in Schiller retirement.
2.Rejoining the track in a dangerous matter (backwards), when there was no need for it.

Kazama will fill her ban in Germany.


Melrose Racing Team would like to appeal the latter part of this decision made by the F1RWRS Commission against Kamaha driver Tomo Kazama. Despite having discussed the issue multiple times over the last few days, the F1RWRS Commission has refused to overturn the decision, despite the original decision directly contravening Article 8.1.5 of the regulations, which states that "All active bans are to be served in the race(s) immediately after the announcement of the ban within the prescribed ban length."

The F1RWRS Commission has used the reasoning of 'exceptional circumstances' that Kamaha Motorsport would not be able to get a driver in place for the short turnaround between Long Beach and Road America. This is simply not true, as we at MRT know for a fact that Japanese F2RWRS driver Yuka Katayama is available that weekend, and qualifies for a Reject License under Article 1.2.6 section E, which states that a driver must "Have participated in at least three (3) F1RWRS test sessions, one of which have to be a private test and one of which have to be a public pre-season test." In addition, she is managed by Prince Falik, who has close ties to the Kamaha Motorsport group, and thus slotting her into the car for Road America poses no issue whatsoever.

With this in mind, we request that whatever deal Kamaha Motorsport and the F1RWRS Commission have struck up concerning Tomo Kazama be declared null and void, and her ban to be served at Road America, as Kamaha's excuse that they won't be able to find a driver in time simply doesn't stack up. Should a decision not be made in time for the F1RWRS race at Road America, we believe that another punishment should be determined for Kamaha Motorsport, as both they and the Commission have willingly colluded to break regulations that are written within the rulebook when there is patently no need to do so. Failure to act would set a dangerous precedent within the F1RWRS, as it would imply that the Commission has the right to break basic regulations such as Article 8.1.5 as it sees fit.

As MRT do not currently have an appointed arbitrator, we would require CAS to appoint one on our behalf to adjudicate over the case.

Yours sincerely,
Pierre Depault
COO, Melrose Racing Group GmbH
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The CAS acknowledges the appellant brief. The respondent, F1RWRS, or someone on their behalf, has now 2 days, given the urgency of the appeal, to submit an answer according to R55 of the appeal procedure.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
SuperAguri
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2026
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 01:27
Location: Rio, Brazil

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by SuperAguri »

Kamaha Motorsports Ltd
1 The Pits
Brands Hatch
Fawkham
Longfield
Kent DA3 8NG
England

As both our main drivers would be banned, we asked the FRWRS commission if Kazama could take her penaltuy in Germany rather then the next race. They agreed stating that we have exceptional circumstances, these being.

1 - Short duration between races
2 - Having both main drivers suspended would cause us hardship
3 - Using our reserve driver would cause Prospec hardship as they struggle to find a repacement driver after the departure of Rosco Vantini.

MRT state that we could sign any number of drivers including Yuka Katayama, however although the Kamaha Motorsports Group have sold the F3RWRS and IRFC teams to Prince Falik and his Falik Arrows team in which we have no relationships apart from a business one.

We believe we out above board as we made a request for the ban to be delayed a race and the F1RWRS commission gave us permission and Kazama is on the America North GP entry sheet.

We believe that MRT is wasting ours, the CAS and the F1RWRS comissions time by bringing this frivilous case and should be fined for doing so.

We have also asked the comission to add a rule clause of allowing the ban to be delayed in exceptional circumstances.

Yours Sincerely
Shinji Zanmai
Team Principal of the Kamaha Motorsports Group
<@Ataxia> these people are making a mess of their crepe suzettes
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

The CAS needs to know if Kamaha Motorsport is acting on behalf of F1RWRS in the appeal presented by MRT.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
TomWazzleshaw
Posts: 14370
Joined: 01 Apr 2009, 04:42
Location: Curva do lel
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by TomWazzleshaw »

In light of developments within the last few minutes, MRT will withdraw their case, and would like to thank CAS for taking the time to look into it.
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
User avatar
DanielPT
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6126
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 18:44
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DanielPT »

Case withrawn.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
Warren Hughes
Posts: 1334
Joined: 23 Aug 2009, 10:37
Location: Sunderland, UK

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by Warren Hughes »

I'M BACK! How do I go about suing Mestolio for breach of contract?
Nico Rosberg wrote:Break me down mentally? Good luck with that one.

:roll:
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

Warren Hughes wrote:I'M BACK! How do I go about suing Mestolio for breach of contract?

I think we all know how this goes. Contracts in RWRS generally aren't worth the paper they are written on, unless you stipulated clauses punishing non-mutual contract termination when you signed them...

For example, I know well that Wizzie breaks contracts like they're going out of fashion. So every time I have to deal with him, I specify come 'punishments' if he doesn't fulfil his end of the bargain... ;)
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
dr-baker
Posts: 15426
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 17:30
Location: Here and there.

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by dr-baker »

Stramala wrote:Contracts in RWRS generally aren't worth the paper they are written on, unless you stipulated clauses punishing non-mutual contract termination when you signed them...

For example, I know well that Wizzie breaks contracts like they're going out of fashion. So every time I have to deal with him, I specify come 'punishments' if he doesn't fulfil his end of the bargain... ;)

I once tried to do this in F1RWRS a few years ago, with the 'punishment' involving credits. Then I was told that that wasn't permitted. :(
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
MCard LOLA
User avatar
DemocalypseNow
Posts: 13185
Joined: 17 Aug 2009, 09:30
Location: Lost, send help
Contact:

Re: Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thre

Post by DemocalypseNow »

dr-baker wrote:
Stramala wrote:Contracts in RWRS generally aren't worth the paper they are written on, unless you stipulated clauses punishing non-mutual contract termination when you signed them...

For example, I know well that Wizzie breaks contracts like they're going out of fashion. So every time I have to deal with him, I specify come 'punishments' if he doesn't fulfil his end of the bargain... ;)

I once tried to do this in F1RWRS a few years ago, with the 'punishment' involving credits. Then I was told that that wasn't permitted. :(

Then you have to be a bit more creative with what the 'terms' are ;)
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
Post Reply