The 3 engines were found to be non compliant (camshaft,ignition timing or both) by a Technical Commisioner, presumably the highest authority available to the court.There seems to be no dispute over this...Remarkable! that the governing body uphold an appeal against exclusion irrespective of any shortcomings in the protest/s.
I understand it to be normal practice for at least the first three finishers to be eligibility scrutineered in 'parc ferme'after the final or at other points during the meeting. Since I further understand that the appellants' runners finished in the top two places in both final and prefinal at 'Clay',were the two karts and engines not scrutineered after the racing at 'Clay'? If so, how come the engines were found compliant at Clay but non compliant subsequently by the Commissioner. If not, why not? We are not told which contravention/s were found on which engines, but an ignition timing check would surely be one of the first 'ports of call'
So there was a protest at 3.10 pm and a further protest at around 4.10 both of which fell 'at the first hurdle'of the appeal on a technicallity. Were these protests posted before or after any post race scrutiny?
I am amazed (if it is the case) that protests are not required to be submitted on an official numbered form, laid out to ensure that the protestor is unable to complete it without submitting the information needed to make the protest valid. Anything else 'smacks of' a donation to the MSA as described by 'Alan' recently. Usual disclaimers regarding any association with any of the parties involved, but also not constrained by any relationship with MSA.
|
|