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

Court of Arbitration for Sport (Virtual motorsport) thread

Post by DanielPT »

Let's start with the General Provisions:

Procedural Rules
A. General Provisions
R27 Application of the Rules

These Procedural Rules apply whenever the parties have agreed to refer a sports-related dispute to the CAS. Such disputes arise from regulations or of a later arbitration agreement (ordinary arbitration proceedings) or
involve an appeal against a decision rendered by a comission body where the statutes or regulations, or a specific agreement provides for an appeal to the CAS.

Such disputes may involve matters of principle relating to sport or matters of pecuniary or other interests brought into play in the practice or the development of sport and, generally speaking, any activity related or
connected to sport.

R28 Seat

The seat of the CAS and of each Arbitration Panel (“Panel”) is Porto, Portugal (We grew tired of rich countries). However, should circumstances so warrant, and after consultation with all parties, the President of the Panel may decide to hold a hearing in another place and issues the appropriate directions related to such hearing.

R29 Language

The CAS working language is English. Any other language is not taken into account by the Panel.


R30 Representation and Assistance

The parties may be represented or assisted by persons of their choice. The names, addresses, telephone and facsimile numbers of the persons representing the parties shall be communicated to the CAS Court Office,
the other party and the Panel after its formation. A power of attorney must be provided.


R31 Notifications and Communications

All notifications and communications that the CAS or the Panel intend for the parties shall be made through this thread.

All arbitration decisions made by the CAS and the Panel shall be notified by this thread also.

All communications from the parties intended for CAS or the Panel shall be sent by this thread, again.


R32 Time limits

The time limits will be fixed by the President of the Panel uppon each step of the arbitration Procedure which will be the time deemed necessary for each notification or hearing.

Upon application on justified grounds, the President of the Panel may extend the time limits provided at these Procedural steps. With the exception of the time limit for the statement of appeal, any request for a first extension of time of a maximum of five days can be decided by the President of the Panel.

The Panel may, upon application on justified grounds, suspend an ongoing arbitration for a limited period of time.


R33 Independence and Qualifications of Arbitrators

Every arbitrator shall be and remain independent of the parties and shall immediately disclose any circumstances likely to affect his independence with respect to any of the parties.

Every arbitrator shall appear on the list drawn up by the forum members list in accordance with the Statutes which are part of this Code, shall have a good command of the language of the arbitration and shall have the availability required to expeditiously complete the arbitration.


R34 Challenge

An arbitrator may be challenged if the circumstances give rise to legitimate doubts over his independence. The challenge shall be brought within seven days after the ground for the challenge has become known. Except for the President of the Panel which cannot be challenged.

If the challenge is ruled favorably the challenged arbitrator will have to be removed. The ruling shall be public.


R35 Removal

An arbitrator removed by the President of the Panel must be replaced by another of his choice. This arbitrator cannot be further challenged.
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 »

And now the procedure to appeal.

B. Special Provisions Applicable to the Appeal Arbitration Procedure

R47 Appeal

An appeal against the decision of comission body may be filed with the CAS as the parties have concluded a specific arbitration agreement and insofar as the Appellant has exhausted the legal remedies available to him prior to the appeal,
in accordance with the statutes or regulations of the said comission body.


R48 Statement of Appeal

The Appellant shall submit to the CAS a statement of appeal containing :

• the name and full address of the Respondent(s);

• a copy of the decision appealed against;

• the Appellant’s request for relief;

• the nomination of the arbitrator chosen by the Appellant from the CAS list, unless the parties have agreed to a Panel composed of a sole arbitrator;

• if applicable, an application to stay the execution of the decision appealed against, together with reasons;

• a copy of the provisions of the statutes or regulations or the specific agreement providing for appeal to the CAS.


If the above-mentioned requirements are not fulfilled when the statement of appeal is filed, the CAS Court Office shall grant once only a short deadline to the Appellant to complete his statement, failing which it shall be deemed withdrawn.

R49 Time limit for Appeal

In the absence of a time limit set in the statutes or regulations of the comission body concerned, the time limit for appeal shall be twenty-one days from the receipt of the decision appealed against.

R50 Number of Arbitrators

The appeal shall be submitted to a Panel of three arbitrators, unless the parties can't agree on the nomination of the other two arbitrators besides the President or have agreed to a Panel composed of a sole arbitrator.

When two or more cases have manifestly the same object, the President of the Panel may invite the parties to agree to refer these cases to the same Panel.

R51 Appeal Brief

Within five days following the reception of the statement of Appeal, the Appellant shall file with the CAS a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal,
together with all exhibits and specification of other evidence upon which he intends to rely or shall inform the CAS Court Office in writing that the statement of appeal shall be considered as the appeal brief,
failing which the appeal shall be deemed withdrawn.

In his written submissions, the Appellant shall specify the name(s) of any witnesses, including a brief summary of their expected testimony, and the name(s) of any experts,
stating their area of expertise, whom he intends to call and state any other evidentiary measure which he requests. The witness statements, if any, shall be filed together with the appeal brief,
unless the President of the Panel decides otherwise.

R52 Initiation of the Arbitration by the CAS

Unless it is apparent from the outset that there is manifestly no arbitration agreement referring to the CAS or that the agreement is manifestly not related to the dispute at stake, the CAS shall take all appropriate actions
to set the arbitration in motion. To this effect, the President of the Panel, in particular, shall communicate the statement of appeal to the Respondent, and shall proceed with the formation of the remaining arbitrators of Panel in accordance with Articles R53 and R54.

Where a party files a statement of appeal in connection with a decision which is the subject of a pending appeal before the CAS, the President of the Panel may, after consulting the parties, decide to consolidate the two procedures.

R53 Nomination of Arbitrator by the Respondent

Unless the parties have agreed to a Panel composed of a sole arbitrator the Respondent shall nominate an arbitrator within two days after receipt of the statement of appeal.
In the absence of a nomination within such time limit, the President of the Panel shall proceed with the appointment in lieu of the Respondent.

R54 Appointment of the Sole Arbitrator or of the President and Confirmation of the Arbitrators by the CAS

If, by virtue of the parties’ agreement or of a decision of the President of the Division, a sole arbitrator is to be appointed, the President of the Panel shall assume the sole arbitration role.

If three arbitrators are to be appointed, the President of the Panel shall confirm both the nominated arbitrators. Before proceeding with such confirmation, the President of the Panel shall ensure that the arbitrators fulfil the requirements of Article R33.


R55 Answer of the Respondent - CAS Jurisdiction

Within five days from the receipt of the grounds for the appeal, the Respondent shall submit to the CAS an answer containing :

• a statement of defence;

• any defence of lack of jurisdiction;

• any exhibits or specification of other evidence upon which the Respondent intends to rely;

• the name(s) of any witnesses, including a brief summary of their expected testimony; the witness statements, if any, shall be filed together with the answer, unless the President of the Panel decides otherwise;

• the name(s) of any experts, stating their area of expertise, whom he intends to call and state any other evidentiary measure which he requests.

If the Respondent fails to submit its response by the given time limit, the Panel may nevertheless proceed with the arbitration and deliver an award.

The Panel shall rule on its own jurisdiction. It shall rule on its jurisdiction irrespective of any legal action already pending before a State court or another arbitral tribunal relating to the same object between the same parties,
unless substantive grounds require a suspension of the proceedings.

When an objection to the CAS jurisdiction is raised, the Panel, shall invite the parties to file written submissions on the CAS jurisdiction. In general, the arbitral tribunal may rule on its jurisdiction either in a preliminary decision or in an award on the merits.

R56 Appeal and answer complete - Conciliation

Unless the parties agree otherwise or the President of the Panel orders otherwise on the basis of exceptional circumstances, the parties shall not be authorized to supplement or amend their requests or their argument,
nor to produce new exhibits, nor to specify further evidence on which they intend to rely after the submission of the appeal brief and of the answer.

The Panel may at any time seek to resolve the dispute by conciliation. Any settlement may be embodied in an arbitral award rendered by consent of the parties.

R57 Scope of Panel’s Review, Hearing

The Panel shall have full power to review the facts and the law. It may issue a new decision which replaces the decision challenged or annul the decision and refer the case back to the previous instance.
Upon transfer of the file, the President of the Panel shall issue directions in connection with the hearing for the examination of the parties, the witnesses and the experts, as well as for the oral arguments.
He may also request communication of the file of the federation, association or sports-related body, whose decision is the subject of the appeal.

After consulting the parties, the Panel may, if it deems itself to be sufficiently well informed, decide not to hold a hearing. At the hearing, the proceedings take place in camera, unless the parties agree otherwise.

If any of the parties is duly summoned yet fails to appear, the Panel may nevertheless proceed with the hearing.

R58 Law Applicable to the merits

The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the applicable regulations and the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to the law of the country
in which the comission body which has issued the challenged decision is domiciled or according to the rules of law, the application of which the Panel deems appropriate.
In the latter case, the Panel shall give reasons for its decision.

R59 Award

The award shall be rendered by a majority decision, or in the absence of a majority, by the President alone. It shall be written, dated and signed. The award shall state brief reasons. The signature of the President shall suffice.

The Panel may decide to communicate the operative part of the award to the parties, prior to the reasons. The award shall be enforceable from such written communication.

The award, notified by the CAS Court Office, shall be final and binding upon the parties. It may not be challenged by way of an action for setting aside to the extent that the parties have no domicile, habitual residence,
or business establishment in Switzerland and that they have expressly excluded all setting aside proceedings in the arbitration agreement or in an agreement entered into subsequently, in particular at the outset of the arbitration.

The operative part of the award shall be communicated to the parties within three weeks after the transfer of the file to the Panel. Such time limit may be extended by the President of the Panel if deemed necessary.

The award, a summary and/or a press release setting forth the results of the proceedings shall be made public by the CAS.
Last edited by DanielPT on 14 Feb 2012, 18:43, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

I now leave kostas22 to correctly lodge an appeal following article R48. He has 21 days to do so and one post only to do so. Any posts before or after the correct appeal will not be taken in consideration. Any posts made after the time limit will also not be considered for the CAS or the President of the Panel. Any other comments made by anyone outside the involved parties will have no consideration unless they belong to nominated arbitrators or to witnesses during the hearings. Let the games begin!
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 »

If it pleases the court, Scuderia Alitalia would like to inform CAS they are currently preparing their appeal and will submit a full statement in accordance with Article R48 in the very near future.
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 »

kostas22 wrote:If it pleases the court, Scuderia Alitalia would like to inform CAS they are currently preparing their appeal and will submit a full statement in accordance with Article R48 in the very near future.


The CAS informs Scuderia Alitalia that it still has 20 days to make the appeal. Exceptionally, the time limit to appeal begun after the release of the provisions which state the procedures of CAS, written at its inception instead after the time in which the original decision was taken. This is valid for all decisions taken by a commission body until the beginning of CAS and will remain so for the defined time limit. After the first 21 days, the article R49 takes full effect.
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 »

Alasdair Lindsay wrote:Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
Via Mantova 92/A
43122 Parma PR
Italia

Autosport wrote:MRT, Scuderia Alitalia penalised by commission

Melrose Racing Team and Scuderia Alitalia have both been penalised by the F1RWRS commission when the Commissioner Daniel Prieto found both of the organisations to be in breach of Article 15.4 at various points in the season. MRT has been handed a 100 credit penalty effective immediately while Scuderia Alitalia has been handed the maximum 500 credit penalty, 200 of which is suspended until the end of the year. At the extraordinary meeting in Madrid earlier today, Prieto stated that the behaviour of Scuderia Alitalia owner Alasdair Lindsay was "very much not welcome" and that "it is clear something must be done."

MRT was pinged after they responded to Alitalia predecessor Virgin Intercourse' lawsuit with a counter lawsuit instead of taking the correct course of action which would have been arbitration with the F1RWRS Commission. Alitalia was found guilty of breaking Article 15.4 on several occasions in their short tenure in the F1RWRS. Both teams do have the option to appeal the ruling but MRT aren't expected to contest the findings. The funds collected from the fines are expected to be redistributed as a one-off lump sum payment to some of the lowest ranked teams at the end of the year.


Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. would like to appeal the above the decision, based on numerous factors. These will be explained in more detail should it be required, however a brief summation of the main points behind our appeal are as follows;

A. The F1RWRS Commission did not follow their own procedure and protocol in awarding the penalty. Scuderia Alitalia discovered the penalty through mainstream media (as shown in evidence above, this is the original article from Autosport from which we discovered the penalty being in existence). Only days after this revelation were we notified of the Commission's decision to apply the penalty directly from them. This in itself makes the penalty invalid, having not used the correct official procedure to apply the penalty. However, we do not wish to demonstrate our innocence through a technicality, and while the above is a perfectly true and valid reason for our appeal, we will continue discussing other factors which we feel are appropriate to mention regarding our appeal.

B. The F1RWRS Commission had previously pointed to the lawsuit regarding Virgin Inter Corse vs Melrose Racing Team as a reason that we were being 'monitored' by them. Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. had no affiliation to either organisation at the time of the lawsuit. While Mr Alasdair Lindsay was previously connected to Virgin Inter Corse Ltd, at that particular moment in time he had already departed said company, and the actions of Mr Lindsay while employed or being in ownership of organisations not related to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. are not relevant to the application of a penalty to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as the two are not connected in any way other than Mr Lindsay. It should be noted, this penalty was applied to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and not Mr Lindsay, hence the above statement.

C. While Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. admits they raised a number of concerns with the sporting body, and occasionally these were broadcast via the media before being received in official form by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia has been seeking to plug a 'leak' in their company, one which is leaking information to various news outlets for personal gain. We are currently conducting an internal investigation into the incident to try and resolve the long running issue. This problem can be demonstrated by the revelation of interest in DGNgineering driver Mark Dagnall and Foxdale Auto Racing Team driver Ben Fleet, two stories leaked in a similar fashion to our concerns vis-a-vis F1RWRS regulations, none of which was intended with any malice or intent on the part of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.

D. The above mentioned concerns, after being leaked by the media, were not dealt with appropriately by the sporting body. A correct course of action by any governing body is to acknowledge the receipt of such a concern and investigate the claims detailed in the said raised issues. However, the F1RWRS Commission instead chose to publically denounce our claims using mass media, thus escalating a situation and causing the violation of Article 15.4, Section C, which the F1RWRS Commission penalised us under. Had the F1RWRS Commission taken the correct course of action, none of the events they list in their justification for the 500 credit penalty would have escalated to a point it would bring the sport into disrepute. Also, if said issues did bring the sport into disrepute, this is not the fault of Scuderia Alitalia. While we may have made the original comment that raised any questions in the first place, if a deficiency was discovered that showed the F1RWRS Commission in a negative light, it will have been due to a shortcoming on their part. We did not make baseless accusations, we suggested areas where there were ambiguities and flaws, and suggested methods where the sport could be improved. These approaches had no malice to them, as Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. has no intention to show the sport in a bad light. As an organisation we have been looking to increase our investment in the sport, and painting the sport in a negative light that would reduce it's value in the public eye would be counter-productive for us as a business. Therefore, any accusation that we deliberately or otherwise tried to bring the sport into disrepute is false, as it would be illogical for us to do so, as it would hurt our own productivity, revenue, and profit as a public limited company.

E. Any lawsuits Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. have been involved in were instigated as an act of self-defense to threats posed to the business. We are not interested in frivilous lawsuits, but will take necessary action if the running of the business to it's best possible level is put in jeopary by and external factor. Regarding the example given by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia & Andrea Acuri vs The Fox, we did not pursue the matter with the F1RWRS Commission and instead went to the courts, as racism is a criminal offence and therefore a legal matter, rather than an issue that can be dealt with on a concilliatory basis with a non-legal entity.

F. Also, CAS should take into consideration the impact of applying such a penalty. The resulting financial penalty would cause a massive level of collateral damage to many different parties outwith Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as well as internal interests. Firstly, from the sporting perspective, we have contracted Andrej Kremnicky on a long term contract, that has at least one season in F1RWRS written in as mandatory. A financial penalty of this size would force us to downscale our operation significantly, and would jeopardise the career of the most talented young prospect in junior formulae anywhere in the world. This is a statistical fact based on his starts to win ratio, as due to an injury sustained at the Turkish Grand Prix at the start of the 2014 Formula 2 Reject World Race Series, he has missed all but three races, four if Turkey is inclusive. It is important for the image of the sport that Mr Kremnicky advances his career as expected from the public, otherwise it could damage the image of the sport on a far greater scale than Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. is accused of doing.

An indivual arbitrator has already been put in place by both parties in advance, therefore this point does not require discussion.

We would ask CAS to put in a provision for the 500 credit penalty to be wholly suspended until the outcome of this appeal, as such a huge financial loss would have a large impact on the day-to-day operation of the business, and potentially put employees at risk. There are currently 436 staff employed by Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and its subsiduaries, and inflicting such a large penalty would make it financially impossible to maintain this staffing level. In the current economic climate it is essential we do not force redundancies upon staff where such action is not absolutely necessary.

Copies of the 2014 Formula One Rejects World Race Series Sporting Regulations are attached with this document for your review.

Yours faithfully,
Alasdair Lindsay
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
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 CAS accepts Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. Statement of appeal as correct. Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. now has 5 days to produce an Appeal Brief according to Article R51. The CAS also accepts the reasons presented for the stay of execution of the decision appealed against. Such execution is now suspended until the Panel communicates the award.
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 »

In addition to the R48 Statement of Appeal we would like to include supplementary information and witness details.

Firstly, please reference the main body of the R48 Statement of Appeal as the main source of facts regarding the case. As a courtesy for the court, said section is included below;

R48 Statement of Appeal wrote:A. The F1RWRS Commission did not follow their own procedure and protocol in awarding the penalty. Scuderia Alitalia discovered the penalty through mainstream media (as shown in evidence above, this is the original article from Autosport from which we discovered the penalty being in existence). Only days after this revelation were we notified of the Commission's decision to apply the penalty directly from them. This in itself makes the penalty invalid, having not used the correct official procedure to apply the penalty. However, we do not wish to demonstrate our innocence through a technicality, and while the above is a perfectly true and valid reason for our appeal, we will continue discussing other factors which we feel are appropriate to mention regarding our appeal.

B. The F1RWRS Commission had previously pointed to the lawsuit regarding Virgin Inter Corse vs Melrose Racing Team as a reason that we were being 'monitored' by them. Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. had no affiliation to either organisation at the time of the lawsuit. While Mr Alasdair Lindsay was previously connected to Virgin Inter Corse Ltd, at that particular moment in time he had already departed said company, and the actions of Mr Lindsay while employed or being in ownership of organisations not related to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. are not relevant to the application of a penalty to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as the two are not connected in any way other than Mr Lindsay. It should be noted, this penalty was applied to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and not Mr Lindsay, hence the above statement.

C. While Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. admits they raised a number of concerns with the sporting body, and occasionally these were broadcast via the media before being received in official form by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia has been seeking to plug a 'leak' in their company, one which is leaking information to various news outlets for personal gain. We are currently conducting an internal investigation into the incident to try and resolve the long running issue. This problem can be demonstrated by the revelation of interest in DGNgineering driver Mark Dagnall and Foxdale Auto Racing Team driver Ben Fleet, two stories leaked in a similar fashion to our concerns vis-a-vis F1RWRS regulations, none of which was intended with any malice or intent on the part of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.

D. The above mentioned concerns, after being leaked by the media, were not dealt with appropriately by the sporting body. A correct course of action by any governing body is to acknowledge the receipt of such a concern and investigate the claims detailed in the said raised issues. However, the F1RWRS Commission instead chose to publically denounce our claims using mass media, thus escalating a situation and causing the violation of Article 15.4, Section C, which the F1RWRS Commission penalised us under. Had the F1RWRS Commission taken the correct course of action, none of the events they list in their justification for the 500 credit penalty would have escalated to a point it would bring the sport into disrepute. Also, if said issues did bring the sport into disrepute, this is not the fault of Scuderia Alitalia. While we may have made the original comment that raised any questions in the first place, if a deficiency was discovered that showed the F1RWRS Commission in a negative light, it will have been due to a shortcoming on their part. We did not make baseless accusations, we suggested areas where there were ambiguities and flaws, and suggested methods where the sport could be improved. These approaches had no malice to them, as Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. has no intention to show the sport in a bad light. As an organisation we have been looking to increase our investment in the sport, and painting the sport in a negative light that would reduce it's value in the public eye would be counter-productive for us as a business. Therefore, any accusation that we deliberately or otherwise tried to bring the sport into disrepute is false, as it would be illogical for us to do so, as it would hurt our own productivity, revenue, and profit as a public limited company.

E. Any lawsuits Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. have been involved in were instigated as an act of self-defense to threats posed to the business. We are not interested in frivilous lawsuits, but will take necessary action if the running of the business to it's best possible level is put in jeopary by and external factor. Regarding the example given by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia & Andrea Acuri vs The Fox, we did not pursue the matter with the F1RWRS Commission and instead went to the courts, as racism is a criminal offence and therefore a legal matter, rather than an issue that can be dealt with on a concilliatory basis with a non-legal entity.

F. Also, CAS should take into consideration the impact of applying such a penalty. The resulting financial penalty would cause a massive level of collateral damage to many different parties outwith Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as well as internal interests. Firstly, from the sporting perspective, we have contracted Andrej Kremnicky on a long term contract, that has at least one season in F1RWRS written in as mandatory. A financial penalty of this size would force us to downscale our operation significantly, and would jeopardise the career of the most talented young prospect in junior formulae anywhere in the world. This is a statistical fact based on his starts to win ratio, as due to an injury sustained at the Turkish Grand Prix at the start of the 2014 Formula 2 Reject World Race Series, he has missed all but three races, four if Turkey is inclusive. It is important for the image of the sport that Mr Kremnicky advances his career as expected from the public, otherwise it could damage the image of the sport on a far greater scale than Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. is accused of doing.


We would like to supplement point A with the addition of more information and witnesses for said additional information.
On 23rd August 2014, Autosport published the following story;
Autosport wrote:MRT, Scuderia Alitalia penalised by commission

Melrose Racing Team and Scuderia Alitalia have both been penalised by the F1RWRS commission when the Commissioner Daniel Prieto found both of the organisations to be in breach of Article 15.4 at various points in the season. MRT has been handed a 100 credit penalty effective immediately while Scuderia Alitalia has been handed the maximum 500 credit penalty, 200 of which is suspended until the end of the year. At the extraordinary meeting in Madrid earlier today, Prieto stated that the behaviour of Scuderia Alitalia owner Alasdair Lindsay was "very much not welcome" and that "it is clear something must be done."

MRT was pinged after they responded to Alitalia predecessor Virgin Intercourse' lawsuit with a counter lawsuit instead of taking the correct course of action which would have been arbitration with the F1RWRS Commission. Alitalia was found guilty of breaking Article 15.4 on several occasions in their short tenure in the F1RWRS. Both teams do have the option to appeal the ruling but MRT aren't expected to contest the findings. The funds collected from the fines are expected to be redistributed as a one-off lump sum payment to some of the lowest ranked teams at the end of the year.


This was the first time any member of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. became aware of the F1RWRS Commission imposing a penalty for an alleged breach of Article 15.4, Section C. No official notice of the penalty was served directly to Scuderia Alitalia before Autosport published this story. We can back up this claim, by providing evidence of all communication in and out of Scuderia Alitalia's Parma HQ, inclusive of emails of all staff memebers, all mail entering and exiting the facility, and all phone calls on both landlines and mobile phones of staff. No notice of the penalty was received by Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. until the 24th August 2014, breaching the F1RWRS Regulations. Witnesses that can verify the above fact are Marco Chiesa, Head of IT Systems at Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and Mario Rigoni, Chief Mailroom Officer at Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. They will demonstrate beyond doubt that no communication from the F1RWRS Commission regarding penalties was received before the media reported the story on the 23rd August. Scuderia Alitalia welcomes an CAS independently appointed technical consultant to verify no communication was recieved by Scuderia Alitalia in any form by looking over all records from the moment the F1RWRS Commission reached its verdict - a date we are not sure of as they never actually confirmed this fact to us. However, the above request can be waived if the court feels our two witnesses are of adequate expertise and trust to establish the above as unequivocal fact.

Why is their failure to notify us before the penalty was released to the media so critical? It needlessly ruined our reputation in the business world. A minor sponsor who shall remain anonymous at their request withdrew their support of Scuderia Alitalia as a result, and, even more significantly, it caused hurdles on the sporting side of our business. We had been open about wishing to hire Mr Kay Lon as a driver for 2015, and appeared to be seriously considering us as an option. However, thanks to the penalty being revealed publically, we have now lost any chance of signing Mr Lon, without a chance to appeal the decision privately before it was published to the mass media. This is also the reason we sought to directly appeal the decision via CAS rather than the internal F1RWRS system, as they had failed to follow their own basic principles. We felt CAS was a more appropriate option given the circumstances.

Regarding point D, we accept failings were made regarding the leaking of concerns about the F1RWRS to the media. We have already lanched an internal investigation to ensure this is not repeated again. However, we feel that the F1RWRS' reaction to our constructive criticism was extremely negative and seeking provocation. This was not necessary, and for this reason, we feel they are responsible for the breach of Article 15.4, Section C, as an alternative course of action on their part could have avoided the situation escalating to such a public furore.

To expand point F, there are members of staff this penalty will affect far beyond our race drivers. With 436 staff, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. is one of the largest organisations in the Reject World Race Series heirarchy, despite also being one of the newest. If we are penalised such a high amount, we cannot put forward a legitimate business plan to our investors, they will pull out, we will be left without the finance to sustain our current programme and planned growth, and will have to pull the plug on an extremely significant percentage. Rough estimates by our HR department so far have calculated we will have to downsize to only 114 emplyees to stop the business from collapsing. 322 staff from the motorsport industry will be forced into redundancy against the wishes of our company, a devastating amount of job losses in such a specialised industry. We are also the primary source of income for many of our contractors, who will also face going out of business if we scale down operations.

In conclusion, even if the penalty had been applied correctly according to standard procedure, the penalty wouldn't have fit the crime, to paraphrase a common saying. The accused infractions do not warrant such a high penalty to begin with, and the accused infractions were also caused in the majority by the accusing party. However the fact remains, the penalty was not applied correctly to start with and is therefore invalid.

This concludes our Appeal Brief, and we shall await further instruction from CAS.

Yours Faithfully,
Alasdair Linday
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
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 »

Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A,

The CAS informs that has correctly received all the necessary steps following the Statement of Appeal and will return to your contact in the brief delay of 5 days, at most, or after the reception of the Respondent's defence.

Court of Arbitration for Sport



F1RWRS Commission,

As is publicly known, the Commission is being targeted for an Appeal following a decision made against one entity under your regulations. A transcription of the Statement of Appeal according the Article R48 can be found in the annex of this missive. The CAS informs that, following the receipt of the grounds for the appeal, the Commission has five days to submit an answer according the Article R55 of the effective CAS Procedural Rules.

Court of Arbitration for Sport

Annex

MRT, Scuderia Alitalia penalised by commission

Melrose Racing Team and Scuderia Alitalia have both been penalised by the F1RWRS commission when the Commissioner Daniel Prieto found both of the organisations to be in breach of Article 15.4 at various points in the season. MRT has been handed a 100 credit penalty effective immediately while Scuderia Alitalia has been handed the maximum 500 credit penalty, 200 of which is suspended until the end of the year. At the extraordinary meeting in Madrid earlier today, Prieto stated that the behaviour of Scuderia Alitalia owner Alasdair Lindsay was "very much not welcome" and that "it is clear something must be done."

MRT was pinged after they responded to Alitalia predecessor Virgin Intercourse' lawsuit with a counter lawsuit instead of taking the correct course of action which would have been arbitration with the F1RWRS Commission. Alitalia was found guilty of breaking Article 15.4 on several occasions in their short tenure in the F1RWRS. Both teams do have the option to appeal the ruling but MRT aren't expected to contest the findings. The funds collected from the fines are expected to be redistributed as a one-off lump sum payment to some of the lowest ranked teams at the end of the year.



Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. would like to appeal the above the decision, based on numerous factors. These will be explained in more detail should it be required, however a brief summation of the main points behind our appeal are as follows;

A. The F1RWRS Commission did not follow their own procedure and protocol in awarding the penalty. Scuderia Alitalia discovered the penalty through mainstream media (as shown in evidence above, this is the original article from Autosport from which we discovered the penalty being in existence). Only days after this revelation were we notified of the Commission's decision to apply the penalty directly from them. This in itself makes the penalty invalid, having not used the correct official procedure to apply the penalty. However, we do not wish to demonstrate our innocence through a technicality, and while the above is a perfectly true and valid reason for our appeal, we will continue discussing other factors which we feel are appropriate to mention regarding our appeal.

B. The F1RWRS Commission had previously pointed to the lawsuit regarding Virgin Inter Corse vs Melrose Racing Team as a reason that we were being 'monitored' by them. Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. had no affiliation to either organisation at the time of the lawsuit. While Mr Alasdair Lindsay was previously connected to Virgin Inter Corse Ltd, at that particular moment in time he had already departed said company, and the actions of Mr Lindsay while employed or being in ownership of organisations not related to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. are not relevant to the application of a penalty to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as the two are not connected in any way other than Mr Lindsay. It should be noted, this penalty was applied to Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and not Mr Lindsay, hence the above statement.

C. While Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. admits they raised a number of concerns with the sporting body, and occasionally these were broadcast via the media before being received in official form by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia has been seeking to plug a 'leak' in their company, one which is leaking information to various news outlets for personal gain. We are currently conducting an internal investigation into the incident to try and resolve the long running issue. This problem can be demonstrated by the revelation of interest in DGNgineering driver Mark Dagnall and Foxdale Auto Racing Team driver Ben Fleet, two stories leaked in a similar fashion to our concerns vis-a-vis F1RWRS regulations, none of which was intended with any malice or intent on the part of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.

D. The above mentioned concerns, after being leaked by the media, were not dealt with appropriately by the sporting body. A correct course of action by any governing body is to acknowledge the receipt of such a concern and investigate the claims detailed in the said raised issues. However, the F1RWRS Commission instead chose to publically denounce our claims using mass media, thus escalating a situation and causing the violation of Article 15.4, Section C, which the F1RWRS Commission penalised us under. Had the F1RWRS Commission taken the correct course of action, none of the events they list in their justification for the 500 credit penalty would have escalated to a point it would bring the sport into disrepute. Also, if said issues did bring the sport into disrepute, this is not the fault of Scuderia Alitalia. While we may have made the original comment that raised any questions in the first place, if a deficiency was discovered that showed the F1RWRS Commission in a negative light, it will have been due to a shortcoming on their part. We did not make baseless accusations, we suggested areas where there were ambiguities and flaws, and suggested methods where the sport could be improved. These approaches had no malice to them, as Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. has no intention to show the sport in a bad light. As an organisation we have been looking to increase our investment in the sport, and painting the sport in a negative light that would reduce it's value in the public eye would be counter-productive for us as a business. Therefore, any accusation that we deliberately or otherwise tried to bring the sport into disrepute is false, as it would be illogical for us to do so, as it would hurt our own productivity, revenue, and profit as a public limited company.

E. Any lawsuits Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. have been involved in were instigated as an act of self-defense to threats posed to the business. We are not interested in frivilous lawsuits, but will take necessary action if the running of the business to it's best possible level is put in jeopary by and external factor. Regarding the example given by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia & Andrea Acuri vs The Fox, we did not pursue the matter with the F1RWRS Commission and instead went to the courts, as racism is a criminal offence and therefore a legal matter, rather than an issue that can be dealt with on a concilliatory basis with a non-legal entity.

F. Also, CAS should take into consideration the impact of applying such a penalty. The resulting financial penalty would cause a massive level of collateral damage to many different parties outwith Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A, as well as internal interests. Firstly, from the sporting perspective, we have contracted Andrej Kremnicky on a long term contract, that has at least one season in F1RWRS written in as mandatory. A financial penalty of this size would force us to downscale our operation significantly, and would jeopardise the career of the most talented young prospect in junior formulae anywhere in the world. This is a statistical fact based on his starts to win ratio, as due to an injury sustained at the Turkish Grand Prix at the start of the 2014 Formula 2 Reject World Race Series, he has missed all but three races, four if Turkey is inclusive. It is important for the image of the sport that Mr Kremnicky advances his career as expected from the public, otherwise it could damage the image of the sport on a far greater scale than Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. is accused of doing.

An indivual arbitrator has already been put in place by both parties in advance, therefore this point does not require discussion.

We would ask CAS to put in a provision for the 500 credit penalty to be wholly suspended until the outcome of this appeal, as such a huge financial loss would have a large impact on the day-to-day operation of the business, and potentially put employees at risk. There are currently 436 staff employed by Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. and its subsiduaries, and inflicting such a large penalty would make it financially impossible to maintain this staffing level. In the current economic climate it is essential we do not force redundancies upon staff where such action is not absolutely necessary.


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 »

kostas22 wrote:
Alasdair Lindsay wrote:Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
Via Mantova 92/A
43122 Parma PR
Italia

Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. would like to appeal the above the decision, based on numerous factors. These will be explained in more detail should it be required, however a brief summation of the main points behind our appeal are as follows;

C. While Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. admits they raised a number of concerns with the sporting body, and occasionally these were broadcast via the media before being received in official form by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia has been seeking to plug a 'leak' in their company, one which is leaking information to various news outlets for personal gain. We are currently conducting an internal investigation into the incident to try and resolve the long running issue. This problem can be demonstrated by the revelation of interest in DGNgineering driver Mark Dagnall and Foxdale Auto Racing Team driver Ben Fleet, two stories leaked in a similar fashion to our concerns vis-a-vis F1RWRS regulations, none of which was intended with any malice or intent on the part of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.


Yours faithfully,
Alasdair Lindsay
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.

Sorry for my ignorance, but legalese has never been my speciality. But how does Ben Fleet fit into all this? I'm not quite following all this!
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:
kostas22 wrote:
Alasdair Lindsay wrote:Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
Via Mantova 92/A
43122 Parma PR
Italia

Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. would like to appeal the above the decision, based on numerous factors. These will be explained in more detail should it be required, however a brief summation of the main points behind our appeal are as follows;

C. While Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. admits they raised a number of concerns with the sporting body, and occasionally these were broadcast via the media before being received in official form by the F1RWRS Commission, Scuderia Alitalia has been seeking to plug a 'leak' in their company, one which is leaking information to various news outlets for personal gain. We are currently conducting an internal investigation into the incident to try and resolve the long running issue. This problem can be demonstrated by the revelation of interest in DGNgineering driver Mark Dagnall and Foxdale Auto Racing Team driver Ben Fleet, two stories leaked in a similar fashion to our concerns vis-a-vis F1RWRS regulations, none of which was intended with any malice or intent on the part of Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.


Yours faithfully,
Alasdair Lindsay
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.

Sorry for my ignorance, but legalese has never been my speciality. But how does Ben Fleet fit into all this? I'm not quite following all this!

He's not actively involved in this at all, it was only an example for the purposes of comparison and demonstration. Calm down. Breathe....
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 »

kostas22 wrote:He's not actively involved in this at all, it was only an example for the purposes of comparison and demonstration. Calm down. Breathe....

8-)


Hey, I was calm! Confused and puzzled, yes, but in need of calming down? No...
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
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 »

Davide Rennis, F2RWRS Commissioner, Former McLaren F1 Team Principal
F1RWRS Commission
Madrid, Spain


Good afternoon gentlemen. My name is Davide Rennis, more commonly known as Don Rennis, the Commissioner of the F2RWRS and F1RWRS Commissioner Mr Daniel Prieto’s right hand man. He was initially scheduled to handle the appeal but he couldn’t make it due to an urgent family emergency at home.

I am here to defend the F1RWRS’s findings into the Scuderia Alitalia team and the penalty imposed on them. First of all, before we continue, I’d like to say that the paperwork notifying them of the penalty was mailed to Scuderia Alitalia on the evening of the 22nd of August as well as MRT but the paperwork for both teams was somehow mishandled at the transfer point in Cologne airport which meant UPS didn’t find the paperwork again until the morning of the 24th.

The penalties assessed to both MRT and Scuderia Alitalia have been made on the basis of several months’ worth of evidence and I present to you exhibits A, B and C:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125071#p125071
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125103#p125103
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125164#p125164

As you can see, Scuderia Alitalia predecessor Virgin Intercourse, also run by Mr Lindsay, instigated a lawsuit against Melrose Racing Team which was already illegal under Article 15.4 Section C. Melrose Racing Team responded with a lawsuit of their own which, as team boss Daniel Melrose later admitted in the inquiry, that it was not the right thing to do when there were processes of arbitration with the F1RWRS Commission that should have been taken instead. On that basis alone, especially when the Article in question was introduced off the back of a lawsuit in 2013, the penalty to both teams is at least partially justified. We now present exhibit D:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=125190#p125190

Here, the F1RWRS Commissioner Mr Prieto stated that Mr Lindsay can return to the F1RWRS but he has be more series than his previous efforts. After several months in the series, we eventually felt that he hadn’t heeded the message and instead proceeded to create a whole world of problems within all three categories. We now move on to exhibit E:
[url]
viewtopic.php?p=127586#p127586[/url]

Now, this is an interesting exhibit as, if true, it completely rubbishes all claims from Mr Lindsay that the team will be in any financial trouble as a result of the penalty. And if it isn’t true and the team is responsible for giving the Sun the story, then it can be used as just another example of how he just isn’t capable of running a serious organisation by making ridiculous offers with money he just doesn’t have and hasn’t got any hope in having. Then again, it is the Sun we’re talking about and Rupert Murdoch isn’t known to be the most trustworthy of sources. Next, we have exhibit F:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133568#p133568

Out of all the exhibits so far, this is the most important so far. As the Commission has stated several times before, there are processes within the F1RWRS where this should have been dealt with and the appropriate action would have been taken by Mr Prieto. Instead, he went to the courts which, yet again, was in direct opposition to Article 15.4 Section C. The fact that it was settled out of court, to an extent, saved Mr Lindsay from further punishment and it’s to The Fox’s credit that he responded the way he did, in direct opposition to what MRT did a few months earlier. And we haven’t even moved on to the other categories yet. Before we do however, we have exhibits G and H and from a previous F1RTA meeting:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=132108#p132108
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=132111#p132111


It’s immediately clear that Mr Lindsay’s veto of the BMW P87 from the selection process for next year’s F1RWRS season was based on pure fiction and was simply trying to get one-up on MRT and to try and cause dissention within the ranks of the F1RTA. In hindsight, The fact that F1RTA president Sammy Jones didn’t send a warning to either team afterwards is a minor miracle and even other team owners argue that Mr Lindsay is ‘paranoid’.

We now move on to the F2RWRS and we start off with exhibits I, J, K and L:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133006#p133006
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133185#p133185
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=134995#p134995
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=135018#p135018

All four of these press releases back up the claims by other team manages of his Paranoia as the F1RWRS Commission has released technical data on three occasions to show that there is no corruption in the F2RWRS. In particular, in exhibit J, Mr Lindsay questions the abilities of the stewards at a race meeting with their decisions when video footage shows that their driver Marco Bizzarri was in clear contravention of the regulations about passing under yellow flags. These constant unfounded claims of corruption from both Mr Lindsay and other team owners were met with a warning from myself as the F2RWRS commissioner that if they were to continue, they would face the consequences. Mr Lindsay failed to heed this warning which leads us to exhibit M:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=135018#p135018

The Commission stated that BMW already have a valid contract until the end of the 2016 season to supply engines to F2RWRS teams which came from negotiations of starting the series during 2013. Mr Lindsay yet again contravened F1RWRS protocol and referred the matter to the CAS rather than the F1RWRS Commission as, in all fairness and respect to the CAS, should have been purely a matter for Mr Prieto to deal with.

We now move on to the F3RWRS with just the latest in a string of incidents we move to exhibits N and O:

http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133744#p133744
http://www.f1rejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=133751#p133751

Both of these exhibits relate to the attempted boycott of the Surfers SuperPrix by both Scuderia Alitalia and Red Bull Team Jagermeister. This boycott was over “safety concerns” when Joel Melrose was given a one-off driver with the Tropico F3RWRS Council for the above race. Now, if Mr Lindsay was really concerned about safety, he would have at least made a statement after the Belgian F2RWRS Grand Prix when two marshals were injured in separate incidents, or a bigger fuss than he did after Alberton Donegro deliberately drove Dan Greenlaw into a wall at the Norisring. The Commission put increased consideration on this particular incident as part of their wider investigation and decided that the purpose of the petition was politically motivated on the part of Mr Lindsay.

In terms of witnesses, we may a statement from F1RWRS Commissioner Mr Daniel Prieto later in proceeding but that is dependent on the family emergency and how that will turn out so we apologise to the CAS on his behalf if the he ultimately doesn’t appear at the case.

Yours Sincerely

Davide Rennis
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
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 »

Alasdair Lindsay wrote:Scuderia Alitalia would like to object to pretty much the majority of the above points made, and give reasons and explainations for said objections with the permission of the court.
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 »

To both the involved parties,

The CAS will now carefully analyse both arguments and evidence provided and publicly inform, within 3 days, if an hearing will be necessary to further debate all evidence. The CAS reminds both Appellant and Respondant that no new evidences are allowed for the hearing besides those already presented and any attempts to introduce them will not be taken into account for the decision of the award. In case a hearing is deemed necessary, it will then take place 2 days after the decision and directions have been issued for the hearing.

Court of Arbitration for Sport
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 »

MEMORANDUM

To: Davide Rennis
From: Alasdair Lindasy
Subject: Settlement Offer

From the nature of your response I can see what your true intentions are. For this reason, I will offer you the following settlement offer.

Considering you referenced Virgin Inter Corse, which has nothing to do with Scuderia Alitalia, it seems you are looking to penalise me rather than the team. If that is what you really want, there is no need to drag a whole organisation down with me.

My request as part of the offer is you leave Scuderia Alitalia alone. They haven't broken any rules, they're looking to increase spending in the series structure but if you penalise them like this, they will cut and run. Or, at least reduce the fine amount and suspend 100% of the amount until the team commits the same offence again, should that happen.

My offer is to resign as Team Principal of Scuderia Alitalia. I will be contracted by them as an external consultant, but this means I will spend all my time working in Parma and attending non-RWRS sanctioned events. I will not be present at any round of the 2015 F1RWRS, F2RWRS, or F3RWRS championship events, and will sign an agreement banning me from speaking to the media regarding any of the aforementioned championships during 2015. Andrea Sassetti will become the new Team Principal in my place, and as you have seen publically he is a much reformed figure from two decades ago.

I will also aid the F1RWRS Commission by using my own personal fortune to register Road Safety Initiatives Ltd, which will be an official charity of the F1RWRS to promote safe driving and enhance the image of the sport. I will set-up and run the organisation for the first year at my own cost, before selling it to a nominated representative of the F1RWRS for a pre-arranged fee of £1.

The settlement would be immediately followed by a joint press conference between myself and Mr Daniel Prieto, with myself issuing a formal apology for my misdemeanours over the past 6 months, followed by a ceremonial shaking of hands and a message of forgiveness by both parties. Pursuing a court case to its end will do negative damage to the image of both parties, and coming to an out-of-court settlement will instead restore the image of the F1RWRS Commission back again.

As head of Scuderia Alitalia I have an obligation to the shareholders and the Board of Directors to remove as much risk as possible from the organisation to ensure a stable future. It seems I have become the cause of risk and instability in the organisation, so I am making this decision to save my own company.

I woud like to point out to you that most of the evidence you cited in your response are false newspaper clippings without source (Such as the Dagnall story - while we would like to have him, there's no way we can afford to pay him anywhere near $1 Billion, the entire company including fixed assets isn't worth that much), but regardless of my confidence that we would win this appeal, I would rather both parties walk out of this immediately with all reputations in tact. Imagine how bad the Commission would look if it were to lose this case? If you win, there are 436 completely innocent individuals who will suffer greatly for someone else's actions. Now, if said actions were a criminal charge of some sort, this would be an understandable course of action, however the collateral damage which would be caused by such a penalty makes the 'crime' committed look far worse than it actually is.

I urge you to consider this settlement offer, for the good of both parties.

Yours sincerely,
Alasdair Lindsay
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
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 »

To: Alasdair Lindsay
From: Davide Rennis
Subject: Re: Settlement Offer

As interested as I am in the settlement offer, we both know full well that I cannot make a decision on behalf of the Commission without consulting my superior in the organisation Mr Prieto first. That being said, I will forward your proposal to Mr Prieto once he returns from his enforced leave and hopefully end this dispute as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely
Davide Rennis
F2RWRS Commissioner
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
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 »

Wizzie wrote:
To: Alasdair Lindsay
From: Davide Rennis
Subject: Re: Settlement Offer

As interested as I am in the settlement offer, we both know full well that I cannot make a decision on behalf of the Commission without consulting my superior in the organisation Mr Prieto first. That being said, I will forward your proposal to Mr Prieto once he returns from his enforced leave and hopefully end this dispute as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely
Davide Rennis
F2RWRS Commissioner


To: Davide Rennis
From: Alasdair Lindsay
Subject: RE: Settlement Offer

I was not aware you did not have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the F1RWRS Commission. That said, I am pleased to hear your positive comments regarding the offer. Hopefully we can put this chapter behind us and start fresh for next year.

Yours Sincerely,
Alasdair Lindsay
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

Mr Sammy Jones, F1RTA President, co-owner of Scuderia Jones Italia
Jones Racing
Banbury, England


I have been asked by Davide Rennis, the F2RWRS Commissioner, to provide a witness statement in my position as the Formula 1 Rejects Teams Association President, and as co-owner of the F2RWRS team Scuderia Jones Italia alongside Mr Lindsay.

Throughout my time as F1RTA President so far, I have to say Mr Lindsay has for the most part conducted himself in a professional, co-operative manner, and has supported the initiatives that have been raised by different team principals over time. His conduct for the most part has been good, and he has been a valuable part of the Association. The fact that I have no evidence to prove otherwise confirms this statement.

During my time as Scuderia Jones Italia co-owner, it has become apparent to me that whilst Lindsay is a temperamental character that frequently uses expletives and is likely to launch into a tirade of abuse given the slightest provocation, there has been no malicious attempt to sabotage my side of the garage, or to favour his side and his driver Marco Bizzarri over Terry Hawkin. The words that have been exchanged have been harmless, and whilst I'd love to see that temper calmed in future, it's of no great threat to the series' health and prosperity for the seasons to come.

Ultimately, I'd like to finish this statement by saying that whilst I support the Commission's case against Lindsay and Scuderia Alitalia, and that they should face penalties for launching into such a series of high-profile incidents, I'd still like to see both remain part of the paddock, and the grid. Lancia is a good manufacturer to have supporting the series, as is a company like Alitalia. All three series are going from strength to strength and I think it would be a shame to loose what could possibly be a major part of those series in future. If there is a risk that Alitalia and Lancia will walk away from the sport, then the Commission needs to recognise this and try and reach a compromise of some sorts, whilst still handing out the punishment that the team deserves.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
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 »

Goddamn it Mr Jones. I did ask for the statement but I needed it like 3 days ago when I was drafting the Commission's statement :lol:
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
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 »

Alasdair Lindsay wrote:To: Davide Rennis
From: Alasdair Lindsay
Subject: RE: Settlement Offer

I am concerned regarding the lack of communication in relation to my settlement offer. I was hoping for a quick solution to this issue and put this saga behind us and start fresh. Can you please update me vis-a-vis your liasion of the offer to the F1RWRS Commission? May I remind you CAS have been notified of our communication and were therefore awaiting the resolution of this negotiation before delivering a verdict. They are waiting for us to complete these negotiations, and they will not wait forever for a definitive answer.

Yours sincerely,
Alasdair Lindasy
CEO, Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A.
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 »

To: Alasdair Lindsay
From: Davide Rennis
Subject: RE: Settlement Offer

I have sent a transcript of the settlement offer you've made to Mr Prieto but he is yet to get back to me with a final decision. I will also be heading to Madrid in a few days to finalise the F2RWRS engine tender so when I see Mr Prieto at the Commission, I'll bring up the issue with him again and further discuss it there. I have also notified Mr Prieto that, while careful deliberation may be required, time is of the essence as he has been notified that the CAS are awaiting his decision.

Yours sincerely
Davide Rennis
F2RWRS Commissioner
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 »

Given my busy state at the moment and therefore unable to study the evidence like it deserves, I will wait for Mr Prieto decision before I decide on a hearing or not...
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 »

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

Theo Ruleboke wrote:First of all, I am highly disappointed with Commissioner Tom Douglas for his conduct after the race. I mean, we may have gotten a bit carried away after the race, but even so, I have been telling him for months that this race was a bad idea after last year. But that is something for another day.

Onto more important matters and we made it perfectly clear to the drivers on multiple occasions throughout the year that we would not be tolerating 'crawling' around the track at Indianapolis, and we are disappointed that the warning went largely unheeded and as a result, we have handed out the following punishments for the following drivers:

Car 4 - Josh Carlisle: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 5 - Jordan Davies: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 6 - Marko Jantscher: 2 race ban for crawling around the track and parking in a dangerous position, to be served at the first two races of the 2016 season
Car 7 - Alberto Cara: 3 race ban for breaking his probation during qualifying, to be served at the first three races of the 2016 season
Car 9 - Andrej Kremnicky: 4 race ban for breaking his probation, crawling around the track and causing an avoidable accident, to be served at the first four races of the 2016 season
Car 14 - Marco Bizzarri: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 19 - Dave Anderson: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 24 - Terry Hawkin: 2 race ban for breaking his probation and crawling around the track, to be served at the first two races of the 2016 season
Car 27 - Martin van der Maeyede: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 29 - Gianluigi Pazzini: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season


Scuderia Alitalia S.p.A. are appealing as the main entity in a group lawsuit, consisting of themselves, Aston Martin Motor Racing, Jones Racing and Licor Beirão Portugal Racing, against all of the following penalties detailed above, with the exception of Alberto Cara. The information below details the reasons why the decision above should be rescinded;

A. The F2RWRS Commission has used excessive forced in the doling out of these penalties. The likelihood of 10 drivers being worthy of race bans in a single weekend is extremely unlikely. If such a freak occurence happens, there is a reason outwith of the driver(s) control causing such incidents.

B. The F2RWRS Commission has ignored the practicalities of such a blanket ban of drivers. It has effectively ended the season for half of the drivers on the grid and their chance of winning the championship before the season has even begun. In a single case such action can be justified, but where such a gross injustice has occured, damaging the career prospects of half the field in the second from top racing series in the world with frivilous penalties could end in all these drivers having their contracts terminated early, in favour of other drivers who did not attend this race and therefore have not ended up with such silly punishments.

We require CAS to assign an independent arbitrator to this case, as our previous choice cannot be impartial in this matter, due to their affiliation to one of the plaintiffs in this case.

Yours faithfully,
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
pasta_maldonado
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6429
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 16:49
Location: Greater London. Sort of.

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

Post by pasta_maldonado »

Luke Knight wrote:Plus One Group PLC
20-25 Euclid Way
Grays
Thurrock
RM20 3PO
United Kingdom


Theo Ruleboke wrote:First of all, I am highly disappointed with Commissioner Tom Douglas for his conduct after the race. I mean, we may have gotten a bit carried away after the race, but even so, I have been telling him for months that this race was a bad idea after last year. But that is something for another day.

Onto more important matters and we made it perfectly clear to the drivers on multiple occasions throughout the year that we would not be tolerating 'crawling' around the track at Indianapolis, and we are disappointed that the warning went largely unheeded and as a result, we have handed out the following punishments for the following drivers:

Car 4 - Josh Carlisle: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 5 - Jordan Davies: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 6 - Marko Jantscher: 2 race ban for crawling around the track and parking in a dangerous position, to be served at the first two races of the 2016 season
Car 7 - Alberto Cara: 3 race ban for breaking his probation during qualifying, to be served at the first three races of the 2016 season
Car 9 - Andrej Kremnicky: 4 race ban for breaking his probation, crawling around the track and causing an avoidable accident, to be served at the first four races of the 2016 season
Car 14 - Marco Bizzarri: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 19 - Dave Anderson: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 24 - Terry Hawkin: 2 race ban for breaking his probation and crawling around the track, to be served at the first two races of the 2016 season
Car 27 - Martin van der Maeyede: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season
Car 29 - Gianluigi Pazzini: 1 race ban for crawling around the track, to be served at the first race of the 2016 season


Plus One Group PLC are appealing regarding the sanctions imposed on Dutch national Martin van der Maeyede on behalf of both the Plus One Group itself and Kingfisher Racing PLC, of Sevenoaks, Kent, England, in defense of our mutually contracted driver. The reasons provided below outline our concerns about the legality of the penalty and serve as an explanation as to why both parties believe the decision should be rescinded with immediate effect.

1) The F2RWRS Commission, notably Theo Ruleboke, have acted in a highly irresponsible and irrational manner. Individual circumstances were not examined for the incident regarding Martin van der Maeyede, and that a blanket penalty was applied to both Martin and all of the other drivers for ease of operation. We request that the F2RWRS commission rescind the ban immediately on grounds of unexplained punishment.

2) The F2RWRS Commission as a whole was aware of the risks surrounding holding an event at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway and, despite incidents of this nature happening in two years previously, the Commission has done nothing to improve the safety of both the event and all participants in the months leading up to the race.

3) We regard the offence that our driver supposedly committed is a non-offence, and as thus can not be regarded as a ban-able action. Referring to the F2RWRS Regulations (a copy of the article in question has been attached overleaf for your perusal), Article 5.1. does not state that attempting to make one's way back to the pits to salvage the chassis, saving cost for the team and for the Commission in terms of recovery, is an illegal and therefore punishable offence. It is beyond the rights of the Commission to add and/or remove a particular clause (s) to the official rules and regulations without prior consent and notification of the teams, and in this case it is brutally honest that the Commission, in particular Theo Ruleboke, feel that they can modify the rules and regulations and penalise drivers for actions not covered within Article 5.1 at their own discretion.

We support the request of our fellow defendants Il Barone Rampante S.r.L., of Parma, Italy, that an independent arbitrator be assigned to preside over this case due to the residing arbritrator's direct involvement with a plaintiff in this instance.

Yours faithfully, on behalf of both the defendant noted and Kingfisher Racing PLC
Luke Knight
CEO, Plus One Group PLC


F2RWRS Rules and Regualtions wrote:5.1. Penalty system
5.1.1. As of 2016, the F2RWRS will adopt the penalty system of the F3RWRS
5.1.2. Any driver who is found guilty of a driving offence after an investigation will be subject to penalisation, based on the severity of the offence.
5.1.3. If a driver is found guilty of overtaking under yellow flags, they will be awarded 20 penalty points.
5.1.4. If a driver is found guilty of illegal blocking of another competitor, they will be awarded 30 penalty points.
5.1.5. If a driver is found guilty of an illegal overtake, they will be awarded 30 penalty points.
5.1.6. If a driver is found guilty of causing an accidental collision, they will be awarded 45 penalty points.
5.1.7. If a driver is found guilty of causing a deliberate collision, they will be awarded 65 penalty points.
5.1.8. If a driver is found guilty of causing an accidental collision that results in injury, they will be awarded 75 penalty points.
5.1.9. If a driver is found guilty of causing a deliberate collision that results in injury, they will be awarded 100 penalty points.
5.1.10. If a driver is found guilty of causing any offence that results in exclusion or disqualification, they will be awarded 150 points in addition to the amount awarded for the offence itself.
5.1.11. If a driver receives a total of 100 penalty points, they will be automatically banned for one event.
5.1.12. If a driver receives a total of 200 penalty points, they will be automatically banned for two events.
5.1.13. If a driver receives a total of 300 penalty points, they will be excluded from the championship and banned from racing for the remainder of the season.
5.1.14. All penalty points will be cleared upon the conclusion of each season.
Klon wrote:more liek Nick Ass-idy amirite?
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 »

CAS wrote:Both the appeals were received and accepted by CAS. The CAS will now give 5 days for the answer of the respondent. Due to the nature of the cases being the same, they will be joined together and be arbitrated by one panel as stated in R50. With the President of CAS not being independent to one of the appellant parties, it will nominate the one other forum member to be arbitrator on the behalf of the president unless the invitation is declined with valid reasons by said member. Both the appellant and the respondent parties are, of course, free to nominate two other arbitrators. Failure to do so or to agree on said nomination will result in a panel with only one arbitrator (R50).


Now, who wants to be the arbitrator of this? The President (me) can still guide the proceedings with the arbitrator intervention being reduced to one of Jury.

Also, Licor Beirão declares that it places its confidence on the arbitrator chosen by Mr Linari.
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 »

DanielPT wrote:
CAS wrote:Both the appeals were received and accepted by CAS. The CAS will now give 5 days for the answer of the respondent. Due to the nature of the cases being the same, they will be joined together and be arbitrated by one panel as stated in R50. With the President of CAS not being independent to one of the appellant parties, it will nominate the one other forum member to be arbitrator on the behalf of the president unless the invitation is declined with valid reasons by said member. Both the appellant and the respondent parties are, of course, free to nominate two other arbitrators. Failure to do so or to agree on said nomination will result in a panel with only one arbitrator (R50).


Now, who wants to be the arbitrator of this? The President (me) can still guide the proceedings with the arbitrator intervention being reduced to one of Jury.

Also, Licor Beirão declares that it places its confidence on the arbitrator chosen by Mr Linari.

Well, actually, we are dropping the complaint. After initially refusing to budge on the issue, the F2RWRS commission eventually backed down and rescinded the bans of all drivers except for Alberto Cara and Terry Hawkin. Therefore going through CAS is no longer necessary.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
pasta_maldonado
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6429
Joined: 22 Apr 2012, 16:49
Location: Greater London. Sort of.

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

Post by pasta_maldonado »

Stramala [kostas22] wrote:
DanielPT wrote:
CAS wrote:Both the appeals were received and accepted by CAS. The CAS will now give 5 days for the answer of the respondent. Due to the nature of the cases being the same, they will be joined together and be arbitrated by one panel as stated in R50. With the President of CAS not being independent to one of the appellant parties, it will nominate the one other forum member to be arbitrator on the behalf of the president unless the invitation is declined with valid reasons by said member. Both the appellant and the respondent parties are, of course, free to nominate two other arbitrators. Failure to do so or to agree on said nomination will result in a panel with only one arbitrator (R50).


Now, who wants to be the arbitrator of this? The President (me) can still guide the proceedings with the arbitrator intervention being reduced to one of Jury.

Also, Licor Beirão declares that it places its confidence on the arbitrator chosen by Mr Linari.

Well, actually, we are dropping the complaint. After initially refusing to budge on the issue, the F2RWRS commission eventually backed down and rescinded the bans of all drivers except for Alberto Cara and Terry Hawkin. Therefore going through CAS is no longer necessary.

Plus One also wish to with to withdraw their appeal because MVDM is no longer banned :)
Klon wrote:more liek Nick Ass-idy amirite?
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 withdrawal of the appeal given the decision change made by the F2RWRS commission.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
roblo97
Posts: 3847
Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 16:42
Location: my house \M/ (Brent Knoll)
Contact:

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

Post by roblo97 »

Could I please be a member of panel whose job is to review supplied video footage
Mexicola wrote:
shinji wrote:
Mexicola wrote: I'd rather listen to a dog lick its balls. Each to their own, I guess.

Does listening to a dog licking its balls get you excited?

That's between me and my internet service provider.

One of those journalist types.
270 Tube stations in 18:42:50!
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 »

roblomas52 wrote:Could I please be a member of panel whose job is to review supplied video footage


At the moment of your application, there are no open cases. Nevertheless, the CAS acknowledges your wish to be present in an arbitration panel whenever future cases occur. The CAS would also remind Mr Roblomas52 that the President of this Tribunal takes the duties of arbitration himself except when his independence is not clear, which means that Mr Roblomas52 needs to be nominated by the parties involved in the appeal if his presence in the arbitration panel is to be official. However, the President reserves for himself the decision to call on Mr Roblomas52 independent video reviewing duty if required. Finally, the CAS would like to thank Mr Roblomas52 for making himself available at the court's will.
Last edited by DanielPT on 02 Apr 2013, 09:07, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

After all, it's only a matter of time until Il Barone Rampante end up in here once again...
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 »

I'd also be up for helping in arbitration, should it be necessary.
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
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 »

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I'd also be up for helping in arbitration, should it be necessary.


Your availability has been registered by the CAS. Thank you for your application.

Since it is now possible for CAS to present a fixed panel of three arbitrators, it will therefore declare that, in the future, the panel will be composed by the President, Mr Roblomas52 and Mr BlindCaveSalamander unless clearly stated otherwise by the involved parties, which in this case the panel will revert to a sole arbitrator panel in the person of the President or, if deemed necessary, either Mr Roblomas52 or Mr BlindCaveSalamander.
Colin Kolles on F111, 2011 HRT challenger: The car doesn't look too bad; it looks like a modern F1 car.
User avatar
roblo97
Posts: 3847
Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 16:42
Location: my house \M/ (Brent Knoll)
Contact:

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

Post by roblo97 »

DanielPT wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I'd also be up for helping in arbitration, should it be necessary.


Your availability has been registered by the CAS. Thank you for your application.

Since it is now possible for CAS to present a fixed panel of three arbitrators, it will therefore declare that, in the future, the panel will be composed by the President, Mr Roblomas52 and Mr BlindCaveSalamander unless clearly stated otherwise by the involved parties, which in this case the panel will revert to a sole arbitrator panel in the person of the President or, if deemed necessary, either Mr Roblomas52 or Mr BlindCaveSalamander.

Thank you for inducting me into the CAS, I shall provide impartial advice and hey, I may study law at sixth form
Mexicola wrote:
shinji wrote:
Mexicola wrote: I'd rather listen to a dog lick its balls. Each to their own, I guess.

Does listening to a dog licking its balls get you excited?

That's between me and my internet service provider.

One of those journalist types.
270 Tube stations in 18:42:50!
User avatar
AndreaModa
Posts: 5806
Joined: 30 Mar 2009, 17:51
Location: Bristol, UK

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

Post by AndreaModa »

roblomas52 wrote:
DanielPT wrote:
BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I'd also be up for helping in arbitration, should it be necessary.


Your availability has been registered by the CAS. Thank you for your application.

Since it is now possible for CAS to present a fixed panel of three arbitrators, it will therefore declare that, in the future, the panel will be composed by the President, Mr Roblomas52 and Mr BlindCaveSalamander unless clearly stated otherwise by the involved parties, which in this case the panel will revert to a sole arbitrator panel in the person of the President or, if deemed necessary, either Mr Roblomas52 or Mr BlindCaveSalamander.

Thank you for inducting me into the CAS, I shall provide impartial advice and hey, I may study law at sixth form


Biggest mistake you could ever make. Especially if you want to do law at degree level. Pick solid subjects, but most importantly, ones that you are good at, and enjoy.
I want my MTV...Simtek Ford

My Motorsport Photos

@DNPQ_
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 »

AndreaModa wrote:Biggest mistake you could ever make. Especially if you want to do law at degree level. Pick solid subjects, but most importantly, ones that you are good at, and enjoy.

Yeah, this is what they don't tell you at High School. Don't try and specialise in anything that early. You'll end up getting A-Levels that are not as highly regarded and you'll lose out to people who have the same results in a more generic subject. I absolutely detest that this is the case, but unfortunately it seems to be persistent problem with the more 'traditional' universities. I have a litany of crap Highers (Scottish A-level equivalent) and no useful ones. So I ended up at a crap University instead of a good one.

Although, I partly blame my pathetic excuse of a high school for such a poor choice of subjects on offer. For example, let's look at Strathclyde Uni's entry requirements for Law LLB...

"Essay-based Highers/Advanced Highers/A Levels recommended, eg Social subjects, Philosophy, Psychology, RMPS" - my high school offered none of these subjects. Literally, zero.

"French or Italian or Spanish (for Law and a Modern Language) Higher (B) or A Level (B) or IB (HL6)" - the system screwed me here again. Languages are taught starting from the second last year of Primary here. We are not given a choice, primary schools only teach one language. Mine was German. That continued on until the end of my fourth year at high school. Then, when I was about to step up to fifth year, the school decided to drop Higher German and only offer Higher French instead. One freaking language in the entire school. What a farce. They never mentioned this could happen in first year, when I could have switched to French and worked to catch up instead. A bit late by then...

Sorry, but every time someone mentions schooling, it gets me very riled up inside. I could have managed a lot better if they hadn't f***ed me about for six years. Cunts.
Novitopoli wrote:Everytime someone orders at Pizza Hut, an Italian dies.
Novitopoli wrote:Juve's Triplete: Calciopoli, doping & Mafia connections.

Image Image
User avatar
roblo97
Posts: 3847
Joined: 16 Sep 2012, 16:42
Location: my house \M/ (Brent Knoll)
Contact:

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

Post by roblo97 »

Well on the languages front, I'm f***ed since I was supposed to learn French in years 7,8&9 but only did 7&8 and it was only the basics as well
Mexicola wrote:
shinji wrote:
Mexicola wrote: I'd rather listen to a dog lick its balls. Each to their own, I guess.

Does listening to a dog licking its balls get you excited?

That's between me and my internet service provider.

One of those journalist types.
270 Tube stations in 18:42:50!
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 »

Wow. The state sector is in a mess. I went to public school, and ended up learning French from the age of 7 all the way through to uni level. Along the way, I also did 3 years of German (ended up with a GCSE in both French and German) and Latin for a few years (but no GCSE there). Age 13 was interesting when I was doing English (obviously), French first year of German and final year of Latin... Would probably have started French earlier if I hadn't needed full-time Speech and Language Therapy for two years. In a special department of a main-stream school.
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
Londoner
Posts: 6423
Joined: 17 Jun 2010, 18:21
Location: Norwich, UK
Contact:

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

Post by Londoner »

I learnt French between Year 6 and the end of Year 9, when it stopped being a compulsory subject (unless you wanted to carry on at GCSE level). Hated it. All the teachers were crap, and my classes always messed around. I think out of 230-odd students in my year at the end of Year 9, a grand total of 5 carried on with the subject at GCSE. :lol:

I did like Spanish though, and I carried that on at GCSE level. Somehow managed to get a B overall despite my incredibly lackadasical approach to the subject. I was also the only male in the class... 8-)

I took English Language and Maths as two of my A-levels.
Fetzie on Ferrari wrote:How does a driver hurtling around a race track while they're sous-viding in their overalls have a better understanding of the race than a team of strategy engineers in an air-conditioned room?l
Post Reply