Stewards' Summary - 2005 V8 Supercar Championship Series, Round 8, Oran Park, NSW...

[retro]

credit to www.cams.com.au

Stewards' Summary - 2005 V8 Supercar Championship Series, Round 8, Oran Park, NSW
CAMS Media Release
16 Aug 2005

Matters arising from Qualifying:
Car #2, Mark Skaife, failed to stop at the weigh scales when instructed by an official (D16.5). The Stewards imposed a penalty of a loss of qualifying times to that point. Car #2 re-presented for weighing.

There were no other matters investigated from Practice, Qualifying and the Top Ten Shootout.

Matters arising from Media Conference following Top Ten Shootout:
Following a report by the IPO to the Stewards, and an admission by the driver, the Stewards found that Rick Kelly was in breach of the rules, presence of a branded drink bottle during the Media Conference (Supplementary Regulation 2.11.1). A penalty of a reprimand was imposed.

Matters arising from Race 1:
The following cars/drivers received a drive-through penalty during Race 1:
• Car #2, Mark Skaife, false start;
• Car #12, John Bowe, false start;
• Car #1, Marcos Ambrose, exceeding pit lane speed limit;
• Car #888, Craig Lowndes, exceeding pit lane speed limit;
• Car #34, Andrew Jones, exceeding pit lane speed limit.

Following an investigation by the IPO and an admission by the driver, the Stewards found that Car #7, Alex Davison, was in breach of the rules (false start). The Stewards imposed a time penalty equivalent to a pit lane penalty, equalling 33 seconds, to be added to Car #7’s race time.

In all other matters investigated from Race 1, no breach of the rules was found.

Car #8, Craig Baird, completed an engine change after Race 1 in accordance with Rule D18.2.3. Car #8 was relegated to the back of the starting grid for Race 2.

Matters arising from Race 2:
The following cars/drivers received a drive through penalty during Race 2:
• Car #17, Steven Johnson, false start.

The IPO has adjourned the following investigations until Round 9 (Sandown), in order to obtain further information (in-car footage and data):
• Incident between Car #3, Jason Richards and Car #52, Matthew White; and
• Incident between Car #22, Todd Kelly and Car #25, Steven Owen.

In all other matters investigated from Race 2, no breach of the rules was found.

--

[kramer]

"Matters arising from Media Conference following Top Ten Shootout:
Following a report by the IPO to the Stewards, and an admission by the driver, the Stewards found that Rick Kelly was in breach of the rules, presence of a branded drink bottle during the Media Conference (Supplementary Regulation 2.11.1). A penalty of a reprimand was imposed."

They have GOT to be kidding. This is getting insane. Really, really insane.

What's next - they won't be allowed to have their (personal sponsorship contra-deal) sunglasses on their hats? Is that Indian idiot from the FIA running things now? The one that told Villeneuve to get a hair cut and that his driving suit was too baggy.



Kramer

[SkaifeHRT]

That thing about Rick Kelly's drink bottle has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! There are some petty, petty people around....

And I still think that Skaife getting a penalty for a "false start" is utter madness. It is questionable as to whether he even moved, but that's beside the point really, he went from 3rd to something like 17th. Isn't that punishment enough? He certainly didn't gain anything from it. For what so many people think is the world's best touring car series, there are still some very ordinary decisions being made.

[Uncle Cranker]

Stewards' Summary - 2005 V8 Supercar Championship Series, Round 8, Oran Park, NSW
CAMS Media Release
16 Aug 2005

Matters arising from Qualifying:
Car #2, Mark Skaife, failed to stop at the weigh scales when instructed by an official (D16.5). The Stewards imposed a penalty of a loss of qualifying times to that point. Car #2 re-presented for weighing.

There were no other matters investigated from Practice, Qualifying and the Top Ten Shootout.

Matters arising from Media Conference following Top Ten Shootout:
Following a report by the IPO to the Stewards, and an admission by the driver, the Stewards found that Rick Kelly was in breach of the rules, presence of a branded drink bottle during the Media Conference (Supplementary Regulation 2.11.1). A penalty of a reprimand was imposed.

Matters arising from Race 1:
The following cars/drivers received a drive-through penalty during Race 1:
• Car #2, Mark Skaife, false start;
• Car #12, John Bowe, false start;
• Car #1, Marcos Ambrose, exceeding pit lane speed limit;
• Car #888, Craig Lowndes, exceeding pit lane speed limit;
• Car #34, Andrew Jones, exceeding pit lane speed limit.

Following an investigation by the IPO and an admission by the driver, the Stewards found that Car #7, Alex Davison, was in breach of the rules (false start). The Stewards imposed a time penalty equivalent to a pit lane penalty, equalling 33 seconds, to be added to Car #7’s race time.

In all other matters investigated from Race 1, no breach of the rules was found.

Car #8, Craig Baird, completed an engine change after Race 1 in accordance with Rule D18.2.3. Car #8 was relegated to the back of the starting grid for Race 2.

Matters arising from Race 2:
The following cars/drivers received a drive through penalty during Race 2:
• Car #17, Steven Johnson, false start.

The IPO has adjourned the following investigations until Round 9 (Sandown), in order to obtain further information (in-car footage and data):
• Incident between Car #3, Jason Richards and Car #52, Matthew White; and
• Incident between Car #22, Todd Kelly and Car #25, Steven Owen.

In all other matters investigated from Race 2, no breach of the rules was found.

--
For more information regarding this update please contact:

Chris Terpos, Communications Officer, CAMS
Tel: (03) 9593 7777

FOR MEDIA INFORMATION PURPOSES - NO REGULATORY VALUE



It seems that Marketing is only allowed to be one way, AVE$$CO'S way....

Or in a tragic moment of weakness I might even give in and say that the little bandicoot was thirsty, and needed to moisten his vocal chords before saying (in a high squeaky voice) somthing like.............

[As taken from the "AVE$$CO "how to talk to the media" guide.]


Yeah, the cars was really good/crap* out there today.
I'm really happy/unhappy* with the way my engineer has got it going.
We sure have lots of/no real* horsepower.
I'm sure we can win/do better* tomorrow.

* Strike out comment not required...






Memo to Master Rick Kelly:


Instead of taking your cordial bottle into the the media room, think like a big boy and remember Uncle Tony's rules: You must take a Zinger Burger in, have a big chomp and wash it down with a nice cold VB,

That is sure to keep the AVE$$CO Nazi's happy.


Except for the fact you appear too young to be seen drinking a VB; (CUB's own policy and code of conduct in advertising).



Perhaps the IPO could charge AVE$$CO with bringing common sense into dis-repute ?




P.S. don't wear the wrong hat either Rick, or you might get the strap from Headmaster Wollerman.........

[Oaksnaf]

Rules are rules they should be applied to everyone in equal stature. Skaife jumped the start so he should get a penalty no matter whether he had dropped to last position, he still jumped the start. TO say otherwise is ludicrous.

As far as Rick Kelly, yes it was a can on Red Bull. I had to laugh about it though, but still ignorance is no excuse.

[Spunky]

It was mentioned somewhere that someone handed him a drink in the media centre and he completely forgot about it when he sat down, pretty easy to do.

[mountainstar]

I just read an article in MRA about Avesco trying to replicate NASCAR in forcing drivers and teams to behave to a certain standard. While one can understand rules imposing professional conduct on everyone, the drinks bottle deal is completely over the top and outregeous. Whoever spotted that and then imposed a reprimand needs to be hung from the rafters.

[lookleft]

On the scale of things I don't really see a problem. If a "series" sponsor can be conned into buying the rights to that space of course AVESCO need to protect it - it was only a caht and reminder not to do it.

No different than sponsors on cars really - funny how the teams pump "thier" brand of oil in from an unmarked container with a small sponsor sticker whacked on it....

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by retro

credit to www.cams.com.au

The IPO has adjourned the following investigations until Round 9 (Sandown), in order to obtain further information (in-car footage and data):
• Incident between Car #3, Jason Richards and Car #52, Matthew White; and
• Incident between Car #22, Todd Kelly and Car #25, Steven Owen.
--

I thought Mr Richards on V8Superstars said he was cleared of any wrongdoing regarding this incident??

[bartman71]

Originally Posted by lookleft

No different than sponsors on cars really - funny how the teams pump "thier" brand of oil in from an unmarked container with a small sponsor sticker whacked on it....

probably because they may not use their sponsors oil?
when i raced speedway i was sponsered buy 1 company and used anothers oil because the sponsers wasn't up to the job. would lose oil presure after 5 laps.

[Woolcor]

Surely someone from AVESCO spotted it at the press conference. Why not a quick tap on the shoulder, a whisper in the ear "hey Rick, you're not supposed to have that up here" and take the can off the table. Problem avoided. Instead they choose to ignore it at the time and then make a fuss about it later. Result - a ticked off driver/team and further fuel to fire that AVESCO are losing touch with the real reasons people go racing.

[resisturban]

If i was a company who has paid millions of dollars to promote my product, and a driver is using a competitors product, then they should get in trouble.

Its clearly in the rules.... I dont see anyone complaining that they HAVE to wear dunlop hats on the podium...

[lookleft]

Originally Posted by bartman71

probably because they may not use their sponsors oil?
when i raced speedway i was sponsered buy 1 company and used anothers oil because the sponsers wasn't up to the job. would lose oil presure after 5 laps.

Defence rests your honour!!

That was my point - the advertising dollar it is all about perception. If <company A> paid <$x> for all V8Supercar drivers to drink their drink (or use their oil) it doesn't matter what the actually drink as long as it LOOKS like their product.....

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by lookleft

Defence rests your honour!!

That was my point - the advertising dollar it is all about perception. If <company A> paid <$x> for all V8Supercar drivers to drink their drink (or use their oil) it doesn't matter what the actually drink as long as it LOOKS like their product.....

If the defence rest; The prosecution thorws itself at the mercy of the Court.

Maybe the Thirsty Bandicoot, should have been supplied with an AVE$$CO approved; authorised sponsors product; EMPTY drink bottle,

THEN Mummy could have put his red cordial in it,

& THEN idiots like us, with no lives or other intrests,(other than the Internet) wouldn't be able to crap on verbatim about meaningless tripe, like the IPO, and his skills or lack of them.







I think i'll slip quietly away now.

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by lookleft

Defence rests your honour!!

That was my point - the advertising dollar it is all about perception. If <company A> paid <$x> for all V8Supercar drivers to drink their drink (or use their oil) it doesn't matter what the actually drink as long as it LOOKS like their product.....

If the defence rest; The prosecution throws itself at the mercy of the Court.

Maybe the Thirsty Bandicoot, should have been supplied with an AVE$$CO approved; authorised sponsors product; EMPTY drink bottle,

THEN Mummy could have put his red cordial in it,

& THEN idiots like us, with no lives or other intrests,(other than the Internet) wouldn't be able to crap on verbatim about meaningless tripe, like the IPO, and his skills or lack of them.







I think i'll slip quietly away now.

[lookleft]

Originally Posted by Uncle Cranker

......

& THEN idiots like us, with no lives or other intrests,(other than the Internet) wouldn't be able to crap on verbatim about meaningless tripe, like the IPO, and his skills or lack of them....

But what would we do then?

[Uncle Cranker]

Originally Posted by lookleft

But what would we do then?

Umm,

Save up all year just to afford tickets to 1 V8 Supercar event......

Then actually go & see the 3 ring circus live......


Wollerman, Cochrane & another bottom; = 3 rings..........



Timmy; aka Julius Marlow, Schenken perhaps ?

[Conrod Kieron]

Originally Posted by resisturban

Its clearly in the rules.... I dont see anyone complaining that they HAVE to wear dunlop hats on the podium...

Actually, a few years back they did. Skaife didn't wear the Dunlop hat when on the podium (which I believe was a requirement) and IIRC used to cop the fine. Not an issue nowadays as we don't see Skaife on the podium.

There was also the crazy ruling that stopped Ford/Holden producing those posters after a race win, if I were F/H, I would have told AVESCO were to shove it!

[Oaksnaf]

Originally Posted by Conrod Kieron

Actually, a few years back they did. Skaife didn't wear the Dunlop hat when on the podium (which I believe was a requirement) and IIRC used to cop the fine. Not an issue nowadays as we don't see Skaife on the podium.

There was also the crazy ruling that stopped Ford/Holden producing those posters after a race win, if I were F/H, I would have told AVESCO were to shove it!

What did they really stop those posters?? Luckily i kept my one from Sandown last year then. Pity it didn't say Ford 1-2-3

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Uncle Cranker

...Timmy; aka Julius Marlow, Schenken perhaps ?

Julius Marlow? Surely not... its not Italian!

[RotorFan]

Originally Posted by CAMS Media Release

• Car #2, Mark Skaife, false start;

Wrong. He did not.

Originally Posted by Oaksnaf

Skaife jumped the start

Wrong. He did not.

Originally Posted by Oaksnaf

should get a penalty no matter whether he had dropped to last position

Right. I think he meant it was just harsh.

Originally Posted by Oaksnaf

TO say otherwise is ludicrous.

Right. The penalty still has to apply regardless of your luck.

But he did not jump the start. If you recorded the race you can look at the video and see he didn't. It was pure fabrication, no less.

Originally Posted by Conrod Kieron

Actually, a few years back they did. Skaife didn't wear the Dunlop hat when on the podium (which I believe was a requirement) and IIRC used to cop the fine.

Interesting! He's a character. I can't rememeber now what he wore, but did he choose to wear another hat or no hat at all?