Belated Gift from CAMS to 888

[hml2777]

with compliments of Racenews

CAMS
Dec 16 2005
V8 Supercar Championship Series - Race 3

...Triple Eight Race Engineering Pty Ltd, was found to be in breach of the rules, ... in that they were likely to bring the sport of motor racing into disrepute.

The breach related to comments made by Mr Campbell Little on national television following the application of a drive-through penalty to car #888, Craig Lowndes...

The Stewards imposed a penalty of a fine of $10,000, with $2,000 paid now and $8,000 suspended...

[storyline]

Welcome to the wondrful world of CAMS Motor SPort where you can't say anything that happens to be near to the truth - lest you be fined for speaking the truth.

[mmciau]

Notice how all "common sense" and "capacity to make comment" is being stamped out!

I think team managers should demand the use of digitial, encrypted communications so that no one out side of the loop can see or hear any communications.

A lot of Australian Police Forces are now on digital encrypted radio and all our scanners are redundant.

Mike

[Matt H]

i never saw any footage of the incident that was related to the drive thru... we only saw on telly the after pit stop, not the preparation, did anyone here see it ?

[storyline]

Not having seen or heard Campbell's comments - were they in an interview or 'overheard' by a Ch Ten intrusion camera?

[hml2777]

Originally Posted by mmciau

Notice how all "common sense" and "capacity to make comment" is being stamped out!

I think team managers should demand the use of digitial, encrypted communications so that no one out side of the loop can see or hear any communications.

A lot of Australian Police Forces are now on digital encrypted radio and all our scanners are redundant.

Mike

But Mike will they meet parity requirements and with the proper down-force with a redundant push-rod battery.

[hml2777]

Originally Posted by storyline

Not having seen or heard Campbell's comments - were they in an interview or 'overheard' by a Ch Ten intrusion camera?

overheard by the Ch 10 and televised

[stoned pony]

Totally agree, Mike, but there is probably some rule to ban that. As for Triple Eight, did the team really expect anything different? I feel sad for Campbell Little that he was hijacked by CAMS/VESA for having the audacity to speak to his driver over a "secure" radio.
Channel 10 will soon have a camera crew and pit reporter following drivers to the dunny!

[hml2777]

Originally Posted by stoned pony

...Channel 10 will soon have a camera crew and pit reporter following drivers to the dunny!

They already did that with Murphy at Bathurst a couple of years ago!

[Matt H]

5 f..... minutes mwhahaha

[Formula 5000]

I think the comment from Mr Little was " that's the way they want to orchestrate the results." Implying an SBR Ingall win was required.

There is a substantial difference betweeen an overheard conversaton and an interview surely.

[hml2777]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they (Ch. 10) pre-record the converstions and then play them a few minutes after reviewing them. Coz it amazes me how they pick up on all the controversial converstations amongst the 1000's that are going will all the teams for the day.

[JABWOA]

Or possibly CL being investigated for brake testing MA at Pit Entry...

[aj_308]

what a crock, thats total censorship.

[PVDA]

Of course the fact that no one knew the offence occured prior to the car arriving meant that he rightly believed they had done no wrong during the actual stop so I cant blame him for being upset.

I don't see the stewards investigating the AVE$CO pit lane officials for their incorrect passing on of the offence to the team. Then again are the AVE$CO officials CAMS licenced like the rest of us have to be, reminds me must send my renewal in or they wont let me work at the F1GP next year.

[Average Punter]

That, I'm afraid, is a complete joke!

What Campbell says to CL over the team radio is private and if the knobs at Channel TEN are eaves-dropping and broadcast it, then how can SBR be held to account???

You want disrepute?

CAMS are w@nkers!

[storyline]

Hmmmm could be interesting now - 888 possibly hitting 'Your Home of Motor Sport' for costs???

[Spunky]

IIRC it was when Channel 10 was asking Campbell questions that he replied the statement in his answer, it was not a private conversation with another crew member. When he said it I thought here we go, another donation to the kitty. Channel 10 thrive on interviewing when someone is pi$$ed off, how long until people will not give interviews until they have cooled down a bit?

[bestfit]

IIRC it was when Channel 10 was asking Campbell questions that he replied the statement in his answer, it was not a private conversation with another crew member.

No it wasn't in an interview with Ch10. It was a direct conversation with Lowndes when Campell informed him that they had copped a drive through for a wheel nut allegedly entering the fast lane when the team were setting up for the pitstop. Ch10 cameras were in their box at the time, but not conducting an interview.
The comment was along the lines of "There's no use arguing, they have already orchestrated the results."

[kramer]

Well, despots traditionally don't enjoy criticism.

CAMS are trying oh so hard to improve their image and market acceptance (no, really - stop laughing. They ARE trying - they're just very bad at it) and this sort of thing keeps dragging them back.

Good thing they can't fine those of us who are CAMS members and licence holders for what we say here. And at car club meetings. And at race meetings, rallies, hillclimbs and in press rooms. Actually, I suppose they could fine us - but identifying us might be a bit hard. I hope.

Anyway, screw 'em if they can't take a joke. And I'm not a club member or licence holder at the moment, so I don't have to abide by their rules.


Kramer

[Average Punter]

And another thing!



I just had a look at the dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disrepute?view=uk

disrepute
• (noun) the state of being held in low public esteem.

Couldn't put it better myself...

[storyline]

Actually no one has to 'abide by their rules' as they have no legal standing upon which to sanction anyone. They will bully you and lie to you to try and tell you that they can do these things to you but, in reality, they don't.

Oh sure - they can try and restrict where you work as an official - but even that wouldn't stand up in court.

They can stop a competitor from racing at a meeting with trumped up reasons, charges and lies - but, particularly if that competitor is running as a 'profesisonal' he has recourse through the Trade Practices Act.

It all depends, really, on how far people want to be bullied around.

Of course, then there are other organisational bodies that appear to have accepted that motor sport should be for everyone, not those that work and live in Dandenong Road.

[Woolcor]

What has happened here is a team official has accused the establishment of being biased. In effect, cheating. Whether he was caught openly or overheard in a conversation or eavesdropped is not important. What is important is that he has questioned the integrity of the umpires, which is unacceptable in any sport.

Regardless of the merits of their argument or the competence (or incompetence) of the officials, teams and drivers should not be implying dishonesty in this manner. Marcos was rightly fined for a similar outburst at Barbagello, and future offenders should also be judged similarly.

[storyline]

So, what you are saying, is that when 'proof' of bias is available - it should be 'hushed up' and never talked about?

The problem with this sport is that the so-called 'umpires' (you know, those unbiased people who sit in on adjudication of the sport) are already being paid by both sides of the fence - you have a race director who is an employee of CAMS and also has expenses (and who knows what else) paid by V8SCA. You have stewards whose 'expenses' are paid by CAMS and V8SCA, are permitted to sit in race control listening to a one sided decision making process (and often assist in that process) and then also sit in adjudicaiton on actions brought about either by charges laid by the clerk od course/race director or on appeals or protests lodged by competitors. Any of which sittings the stewards have already taken part in by the mere fact they are present in race control at the time of the incident or alleged 'breaking of the rules'.

You then have personnel labelled as 'AVESCO officials' (apologies if my terminology isn't 100% correct here) who wander up and down pit lane - but are, more often than not, not even mentioned in the events list of officials and don't even hold those sacrosanct documents CAMS would have us believe we must have - an officials licence (possibly because they still haven't managed to come up with a name to describe what they actually do). Oh yes - and not to forget that these are usually 'paid employees' of the series organisers not your trained volunteers.

How many other sports do you know of where those that decide the penalties are actually involved in both sides of this process?

If this isn't, in itself, a corrupt behaviour, then I don't know what is.

But I forget myself - we shouldn't discuss this type of corruptness or immoral behaviour out loud - just in case we bring the sport 'into disrepute'.

[Average Punter]

No I'm sorry woolcor I can't agree with that.

Here's an example. Ricky Ponting gets LBW in Perth today and reckons he's got a raw deal. Bursts into the sheds and says to Adam Gilchrist. "What a joke, that umpire's f'n hopeless..."

If he does it out on the verandah in front of the members and Mrs Parker-Bowles hears it and spills her cup of tea then it's wrong.
If he says it in the sheds and nobody but Gilly hears him it's OK surely?
But if the room is "bugged" and the outburst is broadcast, why is he in the wrong???