national court The second Provisional Results Document appears to have been signed off at 15.53. Perhaps not surprisingly upon the posting of these results Ian Rochelle and Chris Hammond immediately decided to challenge them and requested the appropriate documentation from an event official. Although strictly a formal appeal form is not required, this was not known or announced by any of the interested parties as a consequence of which some 10 minutes was lost in time. When eventually provided, the Protest Appeal Form was completed by Ian Rochelle in 14 minutes or thereabouts and submitted at 4.24. The complaint in essence related to the fact that as no official last run start time extension had been issued to be signed up to by competitors, and with vehicle no. 5 having left the Start Line 6 minutes late, a penalty, namely a maximum time should have been awarded. From the documentation, it appears that the complaint was: a) A gain regarded as a protest. b) Dealt with by the Deputy Clerks of Course who c) R ejected the matter on the basis that the 30 minute protest period had been exceeded. The documentation is dated and signed at 16.35. Ian Rochelle and Chris Hammond maintain that they were told that they were “one minute late” and nothing could be done as the MSA Steward at the event had made his decision on the subject and it was final.
Half Page Horizontal.indd 1
From the documentation produced, it is clear that none of the material boxes have been completed. In particular, there is no time recorded for when: a) The protest/appeal was first intimated. b) The hearing was decided. c) The Decision was actually given. It is regrettable that the relevant paperwork was not completed satisfactorily, but it certainly appears that the 30-minute protest period may well NOT have been exceeded and that an appeal should have been permitted. For an event of this importance, which was part of an MSA British Championship, we have to note that sadly judicial procedures were not properly implemented and the protests/appeals by the crews of both vehicle no. 5 and vehicle no. 22 were seriously flawed. Under Regulation C.9 the National Court, having heard such evidence as it considers appropriate, can make such orders as it deems appropriate. The matter of critical importance in this case is whether the maximum time penalty originally imposed on vehicle no. 5 was or can be justified for his final run being started 6 minutes late. In the opinion of the Court, it can as: a) It is the duty of the competitor to read and understand the regulations of an event. b) The final instructions for the event stipulated that: i. Each competitor will be issued with a start time via a bulletin.
ii. A Bulletin (no.4) was properly issued giving vehicle no.5 a start time of 14.01. iii. Competitive vehicles and crews must be within the Start Control Area at or before that stipulated time and ready to start. iv. V ehicle no.5’s actual start time was 6 minutes late. c) Under the provisions of P.24.1.4 of the Blue Book, which covers all cross country events, any competitor not reporting as instructed may be fined, EXCLUDED or forfeit their starting position. d) It was the well-known and established norm in this Championship that late arrival for “last runs” would invoke the maximum time penalty. The National Court considers that the following additional points should be made: a) The two decisions of the Deputy Clerks of Course were so seriously flawed as to be invalid. b) The regulations for this event were seriously lacking in detail, particularly with regard to penalties for breach of rules and/or regulations. c) The officials at this event did not comply with their own or the relevant MSA regulations. The results of the event in question will be re-issuedin compliance with these findings, namely that the maximum time penalty originally imposed on vehicle no. 5 should stand. GUY SPOLLON, CHAIRMAN
15/02/2012 15:48
Spring 2012 www.msauk.org 63