COURT OF ENQUIRY LODGED BY MSA TO INVESTIGATE THE ABUSE OF OFFICIALS BY COMPETITOR
JASON HELM/FAMILY MEMBER AT THE LESOTHO OFF ROAD JUNIOR NATIONAL EVENT HELD ON 7 AUGUST 2010
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM ON THE 30 AUGUST 2010 AT 14H00
Present :
Piet Swanepoel - Court President
Wally Pappas - Court Member
J J van Niekerk - Court Member
Ray Helm - Father of competitor
Jason Helm
Cindy Correia - Scribe
The president introduced himself and the Court Members.
There were no objections to the composition of the Court.
The Court apologized to the accused for the non attendance of the officials and in light of this fact we wish to convey our sincere appreciation for the honesty and positive attitude displayed by Mr Helm.
Findings:
Due to the severity and nature of this case the Court views the actions of Mr Helm (Snr) as serious. However, the human emotions and feelings involved are recognized as well as the fact that Mr Helm apologized to both officials directly after the incident.
In terms of the general conditions of Entrants and Competitors Mr Helm Jnr’s license is hereby suspended for a period of three years. This sentence suspended for 3 years.
These findings distributed at 11H00 on 7 September 2010.
All parties are reminded of their rights to a National Court of Appeal.
(08 September 2010)
COE 1046
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1046:
TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED ISSUES INVOLVING KARTING COMPETITORS ASTON HARE AND RAOUL HYMAN, AS WELL AS
MEMBERS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FAMILIES.
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM, 9 MONZA CLOSE, KYALAMI PARK AT 18H00 ON THURSDAY, 22NDJULY 2010.
Present:
George Portman - Court President
Christo Reeders - Court Member
Dick Shuttle - Court Member
Vanessa Wood - NRKC Chairperson
Richard Davis - Clerk of the Course
Eldrid Diedericks - Assistant Clerk of the Course
Mandi Briedenhann - Club Steward
Jenny de Wit - NRKC Race Secretary
Lyle Ramsay - Competitor
Mike Ramsay - Competitor’s Father
Raoul Hyman - Competitor
Trevor Hyman - Competitor’s Father
Anusha Hyman - Competitor’s Mother
Aston Hare - Competitor
Neil Hare - Competitor’s Father
Hennie van der Linde - Witness
Paulo dos Santos - Witness
Rodney Williams - Observer
Michael Parkins - Witness
Adrian Scholtz - MSA
Maria Buys - MSA (Scribe)
The president introduced himself and the other court members. There were no objections to the
composition of the court.
Having heard and examined the evidence presented, and having afforded every party present
sufficient time to state their cases, the court records the following:
Purpose
1. The court of enquiry was convened in terms of GCR 211 of the MSA handbook to investigate
the following complaints:
1.1 Alleged on-track incidents involving competitors Aston Hare (“Hare Jnr.”) and Raoul
Hyman (“Hyman Jnr.”) as well as alleged off-track incidents involving their respective
fathers (hereinafter referred to respectively as “Hare Snr.” and “Hyman Snr.”), during
a practice day at the Vereeniging Kart Circuit on 01 May 2010;
1.2 Alleged on-track incidents involving the same two competitors during the karting
event held on the Vereeniging Kart Circuit on 08 May 2010, as well as an alleged
altercation on the grandstand between members of their families;
1.3 An alleged on-track incident between competitors Aston Hare and Lyle Ramsay
(”Ramsay Jnr.”) during the 08th May event mentioned above.
Summary of Evidence
2. The court was presented with a very detailed written complaint spanning some six typed folios
dated 03 May 2010 prepared by Hyman Snr. which set out the events on the dates
concerned. This was supplemented by a further four page submission dated 10 May 2010.
3. Hare Snr. submitted a single page report dated 4 May 2010 which briefly set out his
perspective of the events.
4. In support of the third complaint, namely the on-track incident between competitors Aston
Hare and Lyle Ramsay, the court was presented with a single page protest (undated)
prepared by the competitor’s father, Mike Ramsay (“Ramsay Snr.”).
5. The court was presented with video evidence in support of both complaints 2 and 3.
6. It became apparent that the parties intended leading the evidence of what purported to be a
number of eyewitnesses. However, scant days prior to the court convening, several of the
proposed witnesses submitted written reports which all suggested that events had arisen
which precluded the witnesses from attending the court of enquiry, but sought to present a
version of the events on the dates concerned. Owing to the uncorroborated nature of these
reports and the fact that the court was unable to direct questions to the witnesses concerned
and test their general demeanour, these reports were ignored by the court for purposes of its
findings and ruling.
7. Several witnesses were on hand to give evidence; notably Mike Parkins who gave evidence
on behalf of Hare Snr and Hare Jnr while Hennie van der Linde testified on behalf of Hyman
Snr and Hyman Jnr.
8. Finally, supplementary evidence was provided by certain of the officials on the day, namely
Richard Davis (Clerk of the Course) Eldrid Diedericks (Assistant Clerk of the Course) and
Mandi Briedenhann (Club Steward).
9. An exchange of correspondence between the Northern Regions Kart Club and Hare Snr. was
also presented to the court.
Summary of Proceedings
10. It bears mention that Hare Snr. had sought and was granted permission to have external legal
representation in view of Hyman Snr.’s purported status as an advocate. On the day however,
Hare Snr. chose to represent himself and Hare Jnr. As a point in limine, Hare Snr. challenged
the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the complaints at all. In the process Hare Snr. relied on
wholly inapplicable GCR provisions. In the result, his argument was dismissed and the court
proceeded with its enquiry.
11. Both Hyman Snr. and Hyman Jnr. provided lucid and detailed evidence of the events of 01
and 08 May 2010. Apart from the fact that Hyman Snr. superfluously and persistently
belaboured persuasive arguments which already had been made during his evidence in chief,
the court found both Hyman Snr. and Hyman Jnr. to be credible witnesses and accepted their
versions of events.
12. The versions propounded by Hyman Snr. and Hyman Jnr. were confirmed by the evidence of
Hennie van der Linde.
13. Hare Jnr. initially appeared reticent to address the court and preferred for his account of
events to be put forward by Hare Snr. However, during the course of the enquiry and at the
invitation of the Court President, Hare Jnr. grew in confidence and freely addressed the court
in putting forward his version of events. As will be explained further below, it in due course
appeared that in certain respects his account of events was tainted by the version put forward
by Hare Snr. and could not prevail against the evidence presented by the Hymans as
confirmed by Hennie van der Linde.
14. The same cannot be said of Hare Snr. He plainly is an individual with a low irritation
threshold and while he initially addressed the court calmly, as the evidence mounted against
him and Hare Jnr., he became increasingly agitated and animated and persistently interrupted
the proceedings by means of interjections notwithstanding pointed warnings from the Court
President and the Court Members to refrain from doing so. His demeanour as a witness was
unimpressive and, as is to be expected, Hare Jnr. is severely under Hare Snr.’s influence and
the aggression displayed by Hare Snr. appears to have tainted Hare Jnr.’s behaviour, both on
and off the circuit. Hare Snr.’s irascibility is further demonstrated by the written exchange
between him and the Northern Regions Kart Club.
15. Hare Snr. disingenuously attempted to evade the consequences of his actions in at least the
following respects:
15.1 His challenge to the court’s jurisdiction in which there was no substance whatsoever;
15.2 His attempt at denying the grandstand altercation between members of the respective
families on no greater a proposition than that because he and Hare Jnr.’s mother are
divorced, no “Mrs Hare” could have been party to the incident as she is now known
as “Ms. Montgomery”;
15.3 However, the most damaging blow to Hare Snr.’s credibility is the discrepancy
apparent from his statement of 04 May 2010 in which he states that “Mike Parkins
and Jared Wray were present during both incidents. They both jumped to my
defense offering sworn affidavits attesting to the fact that I never swore”. However, in
contradistinction to this version of events, during the course of the court’s enquiry
Hare Snr. readily admitted to directing foul language at least at Hyman Snr. and also
admitted to a subsequent incident in the cafeteria. In view of the evidence against his
version of events, Hare Snr.’s concession was fairly made and counted in his favour.
16. In the court’s opinion Hare Snr.’s evidence is to be regarded with circumspection and on a
balance of probabilities, the version propounded by the Hymans stands to be preferred over
that put forward by Hare Jnr. and Hare Snr.
17. This having been said, the video evidence in respect of the on track incident on 08 May 2010
revealed that Hyman Jnr. could have avoided the accident. He simply was not in a position to
have fairly executed and completed the attempted overtaking manoeuvre.
18. Hare Snr.’s statement of 04 May 2010 reveals a high level of frustration with the behaviour of
Hyman Jnr. and to the extent that he is unable to bring any direct influence to bear on Hyman
Jnr., plainly Hare Jnr. has become the instrument by means of which Hare Snr. intends to
discipline Hyman Jnr. From any reasonable perspective this situation cannot be allowed to
continue.
19. Turning to the third charge, both Ramsay Snr. and Ramsay Jnr. provided articulate evidence.
However, the video evidence which was subsequently presented to the court revealed the
cause of the accident to rest solely with Ramsay Jnr. who, through the application of a
prudent driving style could comfortably have avoided the accident. Under the circumstances,
this complaint against Hare Jnr. must fail.
20. It would be remiss of this court not to address the conduct of the officials on the day, which
can only be described as unimpressive. The decision by the Clerk of the Course as well as
the Assistant Clerk of the Course to treat the first race incident merely as a racing incident
without imposing any penalty has effectively sterilised the court from imposing a much
harsher sentence than is now the case. In like fashion the Assistant Clerk of the Course’s
failure to have reported the grandstand altercation to the Clerk of the Course and their
collective failure to have taken appropriate action at the time also failed to serve the interests
of motor sport.
21. Of concern to the court was the overall impression left by the collective weight of the evidence
presented that Hare Jnr. appeared to have been entirely out of control on the day and was
involved in several on track incidents which necessitated several re-starts of the race. While
no complaints have been preferred against Hyman Jnr., there plainly is a high level of conflict
between the two competitors and their respective parents which is being fought out both on-
and off track by the various proponents. To the extent that Hyman Jnr. is unfortunately part of
this conflict, his future conduct ought also to be the subject matter of scrutiny. It is indeed
regrettable that this court is obliged to enquire into what is unacceptably deplorable and
puerile behaviour on the part of the parties who are engaged in an amateur sport and which
cannot be resolved amicably by the adults concerned. A lamentably poor example of
inappropriate behaviour is being presented to the junior competitors which will likely in due
course influence the conduct also of other competitors not directly involved.
22. The only evidence presented on behalf of the Hymans apropos the grandstand altercation
was presented by Mrs Hyman. The Hyman couple’s daughter declined to attend the enquiry
and hence Mrs Hyman’s evidence is uncorroborated. The version propounded by Hare Snr.
as was vaguely confirmed by Michael Parkins allows for the existence of sufficient doubt for
this court not to be able to come to any conclusion with regard to the specific incident and
hence, also this complaint must fail.
Finding
23. On an overall consideration of the evidence, the court finds as is set out below.
24. In respect of charge one, the alleged on track incidents involving Hare Jnr. and Hyman Jnr. as
well as their respective fathers, the complaint is upheld.
25. In respect of the second charge, the on track incident on 08 May 2010 and the grandstand
altercation, the complaint is dismissed.
26. In respect of the third charge, the on track incident between Hare Jnr. and Ramsay Jnr. on 08
May 2010, the complaint is dismissed.
Court Ruling
27. The court rules as follows:
27.1 Hare Jnr. is suspended from participating in any motor sport event with immediate
effect until 31 December 2010; which ban is suspended for a period of two (2) years
on condition that he is not found guilty of any misbehaviour or unfair practice or
reckless or careless driving during the course of any competition or practice
therefore, or any act which is prejudicial to the interests of motor sport generally; and
on condition further, that no family member, member of his pit- or service crew,
supporter or assistant (direct or indirect) is found in breach of GCR 172 where an
element of violence or verbal abuse is involved;
27.2 Inasmuch as under GCR 19 the natural parent or guardian of a minor is deemed to
be the competitor, Hare Snr. is, with immediate effect and until 31 December 2011,
suspended from participating directly or indirectly or to be part of or to be connected
with any competition held under the auspices of the MSA in which the competitor
participates in any capacity other than as a spectator, and in particular, that he does
not enter the pit area of any such competition, which sentence is suspended for a
period of two (2) years on condition that Hare Snr. is not found guilty of any conduct
which comprises misbehaviour or unfair practice or any act which is prejudicial to the
interests of motor sport generally; and on condition further, that no family member,
member of his pit- or service crew, supporter or assistant (direct or indirect) is found
in breach of GCR 172 where an element of violence or verbal abuse is involved;
27.3 Hyman Jnr. is to be placed under observation until 31 December 2010 and the
officials appointed henceforth in respect of the events in which Hyman Jnr. stands to
participate are directed to submit reports specifically addressing Hyman Jnr.’s on-
and off-track conduct;
27.4 Hare Snr. is ordered to pay costs to MSA in the amount of R3 000;
27.5 The officials are directed to act assertively and apply all rules vigorously and
consistently.
28. The sentences imposed are aligned to sentences which have been imposed by the National
Court of Appeal in matters of a similar nature; save for that the suspension periods in this
instance have been abbreviated. All the competitors concerned are to take this ruling as a
pointed warning that no further conduct as that which forms the subject matter of this enquiry
will be tolerated. In the case of Hare Snr, the court considered disqualification under GCR 186
as read with GCR 187 as a potential sentence; a consequence which was only averted by the
fact that this is a first offence. In like fashion, this sentence is the only effective manner in
which a message can be conveyed to other entrants, competitors, teams, parents, supporters
and the like that any breach of the GCR’s will have grave adverse consequences for those
who are found to so be in breach of the GCR’s.
DATED at MIDRAND on this the 11th day of AUGUST 2010
157220/098
(12 August 2010)
COE 1045
MSA COURT OF ENQUIRY 1045:
TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED JUMPED STARTS MADE BY FORMULA FORD COMPETITORS WESLEIGH ORR AND ROBERT WOLK DURING THE PRO TOUR EVENT HELD AT KILLARNEY ON THE 17TH APRIL 2010.
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM, 9 MONZA CLOSE, KYALAMI PARK AT 15H00 ON THURSDAY, 24TH JUNE 2010
Messrs : George Portman - Court President
Wally Pappas - Court Member
Darryn Lobb - Court Member
Eldrid Diedericks - MSA Steward
Robert Wolk - Competitor
Philip Wolk - Competitor’s Father
Wesleigh Orr - Competitor
Adrian Scholtz - MSA
Maria Buys - MSA
The president introduced himself and the other court member. There were no objections to the composition of the court.
Having heard and examined the evidence presented, and having afforded every party present sufficient opportunity to state their cases, the court records the following:
1. The evidence of a jumped start in both cases and in terms of the appropriate regulations is inconclusive in that the video footage does not show the start lights. However, the court is of the opinion that both competitors could have been interpreted as performing an illegal jumped start.
2. The officials who reported the alleged jumped starts were not officially appointed under GCR 162 and the one official who allegedly did observe said incident, namely Mrs A. Brown (who was appointed as an Assistant Clerk of the Course and did not need to be appointed as a Judge of Fact as per MSA regulations), did not supply any evidence or document to substantiate the jumpstart.
The court therefore makes the following findings:
1. The organisers of the meeting are severely reprimanded for not complying with the requirements of GCR 162 and are instructed to ensure compliance at future race meetings.
2. The court upholds the decision of the Stewards.
3. The organiser of the event, namely Western Province Motor Club, is ordered to pay costs to MSA in the amount of R1000.
All parties are reminded of their rights of appeal to the MSA National Court of Appeal..
Findings sent via email
157104/098
(25 June 2010)
COE 1044
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1044
HELD ON 21ST JUNE 2010, TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS OF MR BOB WEST
WHO DISTRIBUTED AN EMAIL REGARDING MR GORDON SWANEPOEL, TO
WHICH MR SWANEPOEL FORMALLY OBJECTED.
THE COURT WAS FURTHER EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF THE DISPUTE RELATING TO THE IDUBE RACEWAY CIRCUIT.
PRESENT:
K. ROLFE COURT PRESIDENT
G. SMALBERGER COURT MEMBER
S. MILLER COURT MEMBER
J. LURIE REGIONAL CHAIRMAN
G. SWANEPOEL KZNKC CHAIRMAN
D. MAASKE KZNKC
K. RACHMAN KZNKC
L. PELSER KZNRRC
C. WING KZNKC
S. HOHLS EX-SECRETARY KZNKC
B. WEST REGIONAL REP. SH/C M/C
V. BRICKNELL DIRECTOR IDUBE INVESTMENTS
G. GALWAY REGIONAL REP. S/MOTO
J. STEWART KZNKC
N. GREY KZNRRC
PROCEEDINGS:
No objections were lodged against the composition of the Court.
However, Mr Swanepoel objected to the terms of reference which empowered the
Court to investigate the ownership and legitimacy of the lease of the Idube karting
circuit.
Mr Swanepoel was insistent that the person or persons at MSA who initiated the
CoE be named and recorded, and informed the Court that he had been instructed by
his Committee not to participate in this part of the enquiry as this was the subject
of impending litigation. He further indicated that, on instruction from his Committee,
he would recuse himself when these matters were discussed, which he duly did.
Having heard the evidence and representations of the person/s present, the court
finds as follows:
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
1. Both Mr West and Mr Swanepoel are in breach of GCR 172 iv) and their behavior is deemed to have brought motor sport in Kwazulu-Natal into disrepute.
1.1 Whilst Mr West may have had a legitimate grievance with the decisions taken to cancel his race meeting, the abusive manner in which he chose to express himself, the very personal nature of the insults hurled at Mr Swanepoel, and the fact that he also took it upon himself to proselytize his views by copying others on his offensive outburst cannot be condoned. As an MSA official it is unacceptable.
Accordingly, Mr West is suspended from participating in, officiating or attending any form of motor sport including attending races or practices at Idube Circuit for a period of 9 (nine) months, with immediate effect. He shall also immediately resign from any and all positions of motor sport authority or committee and shall be prohibited from assuming any such role until the end of his suspension.
1.2 It is clear to the Court that Mr Swanepoel’s tenure as Chairperson of the KZN Karting Club has been one characterized by tension, divisiveness and a predilection for confidentiality that borders on secrecy. His decision-making style, manner of communication and perceived authoritarian approach have, wittingly or not, created a climate of distrust, antagonism and antipathy not only between the motorcycling fraternities and karters who use the same circuit, but also deep divisions within the KZN Karting Club itself.
The nature of the criticisms verbalized at the Court and the volume, content and tone of e-mail correspondence alone between “interested” parties in the region, with Mr Swanepoel at the center, points to a fractiousness that is damaging to the sport and those who wish to participate.
It cannot be healthy for these facets of the sport in this region for this state of affairs to continue. It is the opinion of this Court that Mr Swanepoel sits at the core of this malaise.
Mr Swanepoel is therefore suspended from participating in, officiating or attending any form of motor sport including attending races or practices at Idube Circuit for a period of 6 (six) months, with immediate effect. He shall also immediately resign from any and all positions of motor sport authority or Committee and shall be prohibited from assuming any such role until the end of his suspension.
2 Idube Investments purported to own the land upon which the Idube karting circuit is situated and the resultant lease. Limited and not unequivocal documentation was provided in this regard. Without this assertion being tested by any contradictory evidence the Court had to accept this claim but could not, on the evidence provided, make a finding as to its veracity.
As no current or prior lease agreements were proffered to the Court by any party it is not clear to whether the KZN Kart Club legitimately holds the lease to use the improvements on the land, whomsoever the land and lease owner may be.
It is also not certain that the KZNKC is the natural successor to the NMCKC who apparently had the right of lease until said lease expired in August 2007. Neither the remaining representatives of the KZNKC Committee or members of the various bodies present could provide anything other than vague recollections of the division of assets, liabilities and contracts of the erstwhile NMCKC into the KZNKC and the KZNRRC.
As this is the subject of impending civil litigation it is recommended that the parties have this assertion tested in a court of law if they cannot reach an out-of-court settlement.
3 The Committees of the KZN Karting Club, the KZN Road Racing Club and the KZN Motard fraternity are instructed to form a six-person Liaison Committee (two representatives of each body) to map out an amicable, practical and implementable modus operandi for the remainder of the season. This group of six should amongst themselves select a Chairperson to conduct meetings and oversee the output of this Committee in the best interests of motor sport participants in the region.
4 MSA should satisfy itself that the two above-mentioned clubs (KZNRRC and KZNKC) currently enjoy MSA membership prior to holding any further events under MSA’s auspices. It is not clear whether these clubs are currently legitimately accredited with MSA given their somewhat murky antecedents. Should these clubs not be affiliated and should they continue to run events under the MSA banner they will risk censure under GCR’s 76 and 174.
5 Costs of R5000-00 (five thousand rand) each are levied against both Mr West and Mr Swanepoel to defray the expenses of the Court.
6 All parties are reminded of their right to appeal.
7 The findings were distributed at 10h00 on Wednesday 23 June 2010.
(23 June 2010)
COE 1038
MSA COURT OF ENQUIRY 1038
ENQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF GCR 172 (iv) BY MR. CORNEL PRINSLOO.
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM ON THE 14th JUNE 2010 AT 16H00
Present :
Wally Pappas - Court President
Hilton Harper - Court Member
Terry Stidworthy - Court Member
Allison Atkinson - Scribe
Izak Maritz - Promoter
Cornel Prinsloo - Competitor
Jan Kersten - Wintness
The President introduced himself and the Court Members. There were no objections to the
composition of the Court.
The Court held the view that the competitor should be afforded the opportunity of addressing the
Court on the alleged Contravention of GCR 172 (iv)
The Court was informed that witnesses Martin Engelbrecht, Thomas Ferreira and Paul
Ruschenbaum had tendered their apologies and informed the Court Scribe that they would not be
attending the hearing. The Court were presented with statements from the witnesses
The Court considered the evidence, by Mr. Cornel Prinsloo, Mr Jan Kersten and Mr. Izak Maritz
In considering the elements and evidence, the Court takes cognisance of the provisions of GCR
211 and GCR 220.
Findings:
The Court after having heard the evidence and the submissions finds that many of the incidents
brought forward from 2007 have no standing, and have exceeded their protest and appeal dates,
and have no influence on the Court of Enquiry.
In terms of the event which took place on the 22nd
March 2010 been the Rayton Social event.
Participation in this event is not allowed in terms of GCR 174 as this is a social event and is not
run under the auspices of MSA. It would appear from the information provided that many 4X4
competitors compete in these social events. With the knowledge of the committee. All
competitors are to be made aware that competing in social events is against the MSA rules and in
terms of the GCR’s penalties can be applied against them.
It would further appear by the information provided that many organizer’s and competitor’s do
not have sufficient knowledge of the MSA rules and regulations, as many latitudes are taken
which fall outside the rules and regulations. It is the opinion of this Court that the Court of
Enquiry called was due to a clash in personalities.
The Court feels that both Mr. Izak Maritz and Mr.Cornel Prinsloo should be warned that non
compliance to the GCR’s will incur penalties if persisted.
The Court feels that persistant animosity between parties is detrimental to the sport and brings
Motorsport into disrepute in terms of GCR 172(iv). Any further incidents will result in a 6 month
suspension for both members. The period of suspension is to run from the date of the publication
of these findings up to and including 15th December 2010.
Costs to the amount of R400 each are hereby awarded against Mr.Izak Maritz and Mr. Cornel
Prinsloo
These findings were not read at the Court Of Enquiry 1038
All parties are advised of their rights to appeal to a MSA Court of Appeal
These findings distributed at 11h30 on 15 June 2010.
157145/098
(17 June 2010)
COE 1043
FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY, NO. 1043
HELD AT THE OFFICES OF MSA, KILLARNEY RACE CIRCUIT ON 09TH JUNE 2010 AT 18H00.
THE HEARING WAS CONVENED TO LOOK INTO COMMENTS ON THE MSA STEWARDS REPORT FOR THE REACT RALLY THAT WAS HELD BY CPMCC ON THE 7TH AND 8TH OF MAY 2010.
PRESENT
COURT MEMBERS
Brian Jeffries Court President
Dave Malan Court Member
Steve Miller Court Member
OTHER PARTIES
Robert Marle Club Appointed Steward
Tom Lown MSA Steward
Graham Vincent Clerk of the Course
Patrick Johnson Secretary of the Meeting
There was no objection to the composition of the court members.
The content of the Steward’s Report pertaining to “General Rating of the Organization”,
“Any need to amend the Supplementary Regulations” and, “General Comments” was
read out to those in attendance.
The MSA Steward, Tom Lown expressed concern about the accuracy of certain
documentation and also the fact that stipulated deadlines had not been met. The Clerk
of the Course and Secretary of the Meeting under questioning conceded that there were
failings within the organizing and planning of the Event.
There were comments made by the Stewards which were lacking in substance and
were generalizations. There was specific mention of matters relating to the
Environmental Steward which again could not be verified as said Environmental
Steward (Phil Heroldt) was not in attendance.
It was ascertained that:
1. The SR’s for the Event were submitted late to MSA for approval and Permit
Issuance.
2. Permissions for Stages were either late and/or based on a previous Rally
organized by a different Club.
3. Changes to SR’s were not authorized by the Stewards of the Meeting prior to
Bulletins being issued.
4. Despite the above, it was apparent that the Rally was deemed to be
successful and safety not compromised.
The Court is of the opinion that this hearing has highlighted a not uncommon problem
within Motor Sport and that is poor or a lack of, Communication between Official parties.
It is essential that organizers of Events such as Rallies must create and work to a pre
event Check List of organizational priorities. The MSA Rally Sub Committee in Cape
Town must debate the known problems which have been highlighted and create a
system which can be effectively used by all Clubs. The Accuracy of SR’s is the
responsibility of the organizers and not of the MSA Regional Secretary and therefore a
system should be set up for a final check of SR’s to be implemented prior to submission
to MSA.
The Court feels that there is no necessity to impose penalties in view of the successful
outcome of the Event in which, safety was not compromised but, it is pointed out to all
parties involved that compliance with all Regulations is mandatory.
The findings of the Court were read to those in attendance.
B.Jeffries D.Malan S.Miller
(14 June 2010)
COE 1040
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1040
TO INVESTIGATE ALL ASPECTS OF THE OVAL NATIONAL EVENT AT
OUDTSHOORN MOTOR CLUB ON THE 1ST MAY 2010 WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED ALTERCATION BETWEEN EDWIN DRAKE AND THE TECHNICAL
CONSULTANT MR JOHAN COETZEE. THE COURT IS EMPOWERED TO INVESTIGATE ALL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER PRE, DURING AND POST THE
EVENT. HELD AT THE PE OVAL TRACK PREMISES ON TUESDAY 18 MAY 2010 AT 18H00.
PRESENT:
COURT MEMBERS :
Keith Coleman - Court President
Grant Bright (Sparky) - Court Member
Roger Stephen - Court Member
OTHER PARTIES:
Johan Coetzee - Technical Consultant
E B G Drake - Competitor
J van Eyk - Representative (For E Drake)
Lizette Bergland - Witness / MSA Observer
Peter Henning - MSA Steward at event
Piet Scheepers - Technical Advisor to
Competitor:
Charlene Drake - Witness
Dennis Fourie - Witness
Christo van Staden - Witness
Chris v Staden - Witness
Sworn Affidavits were also presented to the Court by Mr Johan Coetzee from the
following parties:
Marius Nevelling - Tribunal member
Lizette Neveling - COC 1660 Mod Saloon Class
Ina Barnard - Race Secretary
Dirk vd Westhuizen - Chairman Oudtshoorn Club
The hearing was held in terms of GCR 211.
The President introduced himself and the Court members. There was an objection to Mr
Keith Coleman as the President of the Court by Mr Johan Coetzee, which objection he
withdrew at 18h05. There were no further objections to the composition of the Court.
Evidence was led by all parties.
After hearing and examining all evidence led and taking into account the Race
Controllers report and the sworn statements submitted, which were in no way
challenged, it was apparent that there was no abuse directed from the TC Mr. Johan
Coetzee towards the competitor Mr. Edwin Drake or his family.
By the same token, it is also evident that Mr. Edwin Drake was highly frustrated and
upset straight after the prize giving, as there were no results posted prior to the prize
giving as was indicated in the Supplementary Regulations Art 8.4. In actual fact the
results had been incorrect and this was only determined by the competitors at the prize
giving.
Mr. Drake only received a third place trophy instead of 2nd place.
He and his family (in this case his daughter, Charlene Drake and her boyfriend) went in
search of Mr. Coetzee, who was eating his supper at the Prize Giving. Mr. Coetzee was
verbally and abusively attacked by Drake and his daughter. It is clear from the evidence
led by Drake’s daughter that she was the main aggressor. Drake and daughter where
visibly upset because they believed that the TC Mr. Coetzee had cheated and had not
exercised his authority after the “Bead Lock” rim was brought to his attention. Drake
believed that had the TC acted on the bead Lock rim information, the results of the
Championship would have been different.
Notwithstanding the above, the court cannot condone any form of abuse from
competitors or their families / crew, towards the officials.
With regard to the Technical infringement, the court is satisfied that the Technical
Consultant, in conjunction with the Race Controllers had decided to check selected
cars, which were kept in the in-field as a parce ferme’ area. In the 1660 Class, (The TC
checked the legality of the ‘Choke tubes’ and ‘Rose joints’). In the 2.1 Class he checked
the bore and stroke of the selected vehicles.
After all checks had been completed and everything had been signed off, someone
noticed that one of the 2.1 Cars (T257) which had already been checked was using a
‘Bead lock” rim on the right rear wheel of his car, which is illegal in this class. Mr.
Coetzee was approached and notified of the use of this rim.
Mr. Coetzee and the 1660 C.O.C. Lizette Neveling, then tried to contact the Oval
commission President, Mr. Keith Bateman, (who was not available) to find out if any
circulars had been issued regarding the matter concerning the Rim, as the event was
still being run under the 2009 Technical rules, although Mr. Coetzee was not aware of
any amendments in this case. He subsequently informed the competitor who had
noticed this infringement that it was his priority to object and put in a written protest.
Although Mr. Coetzee had not impounded the rim, he informed the court that after
further investigation, due to the manner in which this rim had been fitted and the wheel
on which it was fitted (right rear), that in terms of GCR 167 and 176 he would have ruled
that there was absolutely no advantage and the competitor would have been fined the
minimum amount for the technical infringement.
After the incident at the Prize giving, Mr. Edwin Drake filled in a protest form, which the
MSA Steward received at 22H38 and ruled the protest to be out of time as the racing
had ended at 18h30 and the prize giving had ended at 21h15.
FINDINGS
1) The altercation between competitor Edwin Drake, his daughter and the
Technical Consultant Mr. Johan Coetzee was not instigated by Mr. Coetzee and
there is no evidence to confirm that he abused the competitor Mr. Edwin Drake
or his family.
2) It is evident that the Technical Consultant, Mr. Johan Coetzee, conducted his
technical strips in accordance with the rule books and the interpretation of the
rights and duties of a Technical Consultant, however the court feels that even
though the issue of the illegal Rim was brought to his attention after he had
completed his strip, at the very least he should have impounded the rim as he
had advised the competitor to put in a written protest. Whilst the court is aware
of the confusion surrounding the 2009 / 2010 rules, the TC Mr. Coetzee is
reprimanded for not being up to date with all the necessary amendments for this
championship.
3) At no time during the hearing was there evidence led from the Drake family
rebutting the statements handed into the court. The only evidence led about the
assault and verbal abuse on the TC was from the daughter of Mr. Drake who
admitted to assaulting the TC by poking him on the chest.
Competitor Edwin Drake (together with his family members) are in
contravention of GCR 172 x) and he is hereby suspended from competing in
any MSA sanctioned event for a period of 6 months. Three months (3 mnths) of
this sentence is however suspended until the 30 June 2011, provided that there
is no further abuse of Officials (verbal or otherwise) by him or any members of
his family or Pit crew within this period.
4) Having established that the main aggressor in the altercation between Mr.
Drake and the TC Mr. Coetzee, was Mr. Edwin Drake’s daughter, Charlene
Drake (ID No. 8712220054086), the court is aware of the fact that she held an
Oval track licence for the year 2009 (Licence No. 101467), which has not yet
been renewed for 2010. She is hereby prohibited from renewing or obtaining an
MSA competition licence for the next 6 (six) months, until December 2010.
5) The Court recommends that the Oval Commission re-visit their rule book with
regard to the point scoring system for the duration of the Oval National
Championships with regard to the Technical Regulations which run from 1 July
until the 30 June of the next year.
6) The Court severely reprimands the Organising Club, Oudtshoorn Motor Club,
for not posting the results in terms of the SR’S and GCR’S, and in terms of
GCR 141 x) c) and GCR 200 viii) the Club Organisers are instructed to re-score
the event and to have the results forwarded to all competitors who were
involved in the event as per GCR 278.
All Parties are reminded of their rights of Appeal, Refer GCR 215.
Findings distributed via email on 31 May 2010.
(01 June 2010)
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1042
TO INVESTIGATE THE CONDUCT FROM COMPETITOR JAY-ZET POTGITER
AGAINST AN OFFICIAL AT THE DIRT BRONCO RACING EVENT ON THE 1ST MAY 2010. HEARING HELD AT 15:30 ON TUESDAY, 18TH
MAY 2010 IN THE MSA BOARDROOM, 9 MONZA CLOSE (Formerly 108), KYALAMI PARK, MIDRAND
Present:
Piet Swanepoel - Court President
Wally Pappas - Court Member
Ralf Gebert - Court Member
Chris Boshoff - Steward
Hanli Vermaak - Race Official
Jay-Zet Potgieter - Competitor
Pottie Potgieter - Father of Competitor
Johan Opperman - Witness
Allan Wheeler - Non Circuit Manager
Carmen Petzer - Scribe
The Court President introduced himself and the Court members, and there were no
objections to the composition of the Court.
Having heard all the evidence and afforded every person present ample time and
opportunity to state his or her case, the Court finds as follows:
1. By his own admission, Competitor Jay-Zet Potgieter used abusive language
and swore at an official.
2. As to the other allegations that the officials were drinking, the Court was not
able to come to a finding due to the lack of conclusive evidence
3. Competitor Jay-Zet Potgieter’s licences (National Quad Off Road and Club
Quad MX) is suspended for a period of 5 years. Such suspension is
effective to the 31stDecember 2010. The remainder of the suspension is
suspended on condition the Competitor is not found to have contravened
the provisions of GCR 172(x) during the remaining period of suspension.
All parties are reminded of their right of appeal to the MSA Court of Appeal
Findings not read at the Court
(23 May 2010)
COE 1039
COURT OF ENQUIRY LODGED BY MSA INTO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE
BOSHOFF JUNIOR NATIONAL OFF ROAD EVENT HELD ON 10TH APRIL 2010
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM ON THE 18TH MAY 2010 AT 14H30
Present:
Piet Swanepoel - - Court President
Wally Pappas - Court Member
Ralph Gebert - Court Member
Douw Steenkamp - Asst Clerk of Course
Johan Steenkamp - Parent of competitor
Pierro Antiga - Parent of competitor
Fred Fincham - Sponsor
Cindy Correia - Scribe
The president introduced himself and the Court Members. There were no objections to
the composition of the Court.
Findings:
The Court noted apologies from the jury members, organizer, officials and Clerk of the
Course. The Court expressed concern that only the organizer and a marshal
responsible for a road crossing had provided the Court with any written submissions
notwithstanding the severity of the matter.
Evidence was presented by the parties and the Assistant Clerk of the Course. The
Court considered the written submissions made by a variety of competitors as well as
those provided by the organizer and marshal. The Court was satisfied that up to a point
the procedures on the day met the requirements for the imposition of penalties by the
Clerk of the Course.
The Court however found that once protests were lodged by aggrieved competitors the provisions of GCR’s 201 and 202 were not complied with.
This was further complicated when the provisions of GCR 204 were also not complied
with, leaving competitors in an invidious position. The Court was further concerned that
the Jury consulted with the Clerk of the Course prior to the hearings.
After considering all the evidence presented and considering all options the Court finds
as follows:
Ruling:
The Court hereby directs that the following competitors be re-instated in the Boshoff
Junior National results. Results are to be amended accordingly as well as the awarding
of points and awards.
J266 - Matt van Galen
J609 - Joshua Louw
J20 - Darren McLeod
J124 - Matthys Eloff
J31 - Roan Lindsay
J21 - Ruan Smith
J433 - Thinus Bredenkamp
J477 - Gerhard Steenkamp
J401 - Giacomo Antiga
The officials concerned are hereby severally reprimanded for not adhering to the rules
and procedures as prescribed.
Cost in the amount of R1,000 are awarded against the organizing club.
These findings distributed at 11H00 on 20th May 2010.
All parties are reminded of their rights to a National Court of Appeal.
(23 May 2010)
COE 1037
FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY, NO. 1037
HELD AT THE OFFICES OF MSA, KILLARNEY RACE CIRCUIT ON 29TH APRIL 2010 AT 18H00. THE HEARING WAS CONVENED TO LOOK INTO THE CANCELLATION OF THE MOTOCROSS EVENT THAT WAS HOSTED BY CTMX AT ZONE 7 ON THE 3RD OF APRIL 2010.
PRESENT:
COURT MEMBERS
Joy Dolinschek (President)
Jimmy Pantony (Court Member)
Frank Creese (Court Member)
OTHER PARTIES Jan Thorsen (Jury President)
Paul Vlaanderen (Jury member)
Gayo Primic (Jury member)
Karen Sangster (Club secretary)
Mark Sangster (Witness)
Eric Barnard (CTMX Chairman)
The Court is convened to enquire into the cancellation of the Motocross event hosted by CTMX at Zone 7 on the 3rd of April 2010.
The Court heard input from all the parties present.
CTMX hires the facility from Zone 7; the court heard the rental includes the preparation of the facility. It would appear that both parties became aware that the underground water supply had dried up on or about the Thursday prior to the event.
Zone 7 represented by Gayo Primic, (who was also a jury member on the day in question) stated Zone 7 could not afford to bring in water tankers within the agreed rental amount. Additionally ‘Eric Barnard’ the chairman of CTMX tendered that the Friday was Good Friday & thus a public holiday. Many calls were made by both parties in an effort to secure tanker water. Alass nobody was able to assist.
While the Court has sympathy for both parties, the court has no jurisdiction over Zone 7. The responsibility lies solely with CTMX, refer GCR 70 to 73 inclusive.
The Court finds CTMX in breach of their responsibilities and to that end CTMX is fined the amount of R5000.00. R3500.00 is suspended to the 31 December 2010 in respect of a similar incident occurring at any event hosted by CTMX to that date.
2 CTMX is reminded of their right in this regard.
These findings are read at 19.35 and distributed on 11th May 2010 via e-mail
Joy Dolinschek Jimmy Pantony Frank Creese
(12 May 2010)
Court of Enquiry 1036
FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY, NO. 1036
HELD AT THE OFFICES OF MSA, KILLARNEY RACE CIRCUIT ON 21st APRIL 2010 AT 18H30. THE HEARING WAS CONVENED TO ENQUIRE INTO ALLEGATIONS MADE BY VARIOUS OFFICIALS OF ABUSE BY PETER BRABROW AT THE MOTOCROSS EVENT THAT WAS HOSTED BY CTMX ON THE 3RD OF APRIL 2010.
PRESENT
COURT MEMBERS:
Mrs. J Dolinschek -President
Mr. D Malan -Court Member
Mr. C Rieper -Court Member
Mr. G. de Jongh -Observer
OTHER PARTIES
Mr. Jan Thorsen - Jury President
Mr. G. Primic - Jury member
Mrs. D Terblanche – Clerk of Course
Mr. D. van der Berg – Competitor
Mr. J Ryan - Competitor
There was no objection to the composition of the court members.
The Court is convened to enquire into allegations made by various officials of abuse at the MX event hosted by CTMX on the 3rd of April 2010.
Matter of Abuse
The CoC, Dawn Terblanche, explained the circumstances of day which had lead to untold frustration by competitors. The matter causing the cancellation of the day is the subject of another court & was thus not handled at this hearing save & except to understand the emotions of the day.
The C of C described how she was confronted by a certain Mr. Peter Brabrow who swore at her, while invading her personal space appeared to spit at her. His entire mannerism was rude to the point where his rudeness and aggression was of such force it nearly caused her to slip
down the staircase.
Jury Member Jan Thorsen took Mr. Brabrow away from the environment.
The C of C added that she is friendly with Brabrow as are many individuals in the MX fraternity. This is unfortunately not the first occurrence of this nature from Brabrow.
Jury Member Jan Thorsen, open his evidence by tendering that said Mr. Peter Brabrow had telephoned him after the event & apologized for his actions. Mr. Thorsen confirmed the evidence of the C of C, but in defense of Mr. Brabrow added that Brabrow is a dedicated supporter of Motocross & the circumstances of the day simply ignited the already ‘short fuse’ which is the personality of said Peter Brabrow.
Mr. Gayo Primic, also a jury member on the day described a further incident with the same Mr. Brabrow, during which Brabrow confronted Mr. Paul Vlaanderen in front of a large crowd of competitors, spectators and families. Mr. Gayo Primic & Mr. Jan Thorsen
felt so strongly that said Brabrow may accost Vlaanderen that they intervened & physically placed themselves between Brabrow & Vlaanderen. Under questing Gayo confirmed he remains of the opinion that Vlaanderen’s safety was being threatened at the time.
Competitor Jan Ryan explained Mr. Brabrow is a great supporter of his, he mentors Ryan during practice once a week, Brabrow understands the financial implications of a young person participating in the sport & has great technical knowledge.
He also defended the action of Brabrow as being simply due to the circumstances of the event.
Dewald van der Berg, competitor, reiterated the sentiments of Ryan, adding that Brabrow is his role model, his trainer & his adviser often spending 2 afternoons a week training Dewald. He added later that Brabrow is preparing to be his pit board controller for the upcoming National event.
Dewald replied under questioning that certainly Brabrow had no right whatsoever to address or approach any official, but that Brabrow can tend to display a temper, which simply came to the surface in this case. Dewald tendered his ability to discuss the matter with Brabrow & gave the court his undertaking to assist in trying to avoid such incidents into the future.
The Court Rules as Follows:
In arriving at its’ findings the court took into account the circumstances of the day and the apparent value & passion which Brabrow brings to Motocross, as well as the subsequent apologies which have been received by various parties. However there is no doubt, in the opinion of this court that his conduct is as damaging as all the good which he brings to the sport.
Mr. Peter Brabrow is banned from any official area and contact with any official during or at all Motocross events held in the Western Cape until the end of 2010. This includes, but is not limited to, pits or pit areas,
timekeeping offices, official’s offices, documentation area, scrutineering areas. The ban is suspended for the last three race meetings of 2010 or any postponements of said events pending similar incidents.
Competitors Ryan & van der Berg are banned from participating for 3 race meetings, which ban is suspended for 12 months until 20 April 2011, pending repeated bad behavior of their mentor, trainer & role model Mr. Peter Brabrow.
All parties are reminded of their rights. Your attention is drawn to GCR 211 ii) in this regard.
These findings read at 19.45
Joy Dolinschek Dave Malan Clint Rieper
(23 April 2010)
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1033:
TO INVESTIGATE THE ACTIONS OF GOLDWAGEN CHALLENGE COMPETITOR CRAIG GAMMIE AT THE EAST LONDON EVENT HELD 27TH FEBRUARY 2010.
HEARING HELD IN THE MSA BOARDROOM, 9 MONZA CLOSE, KYALAMI PARK AT 18H00 ON THURSDAY, 08THAPRIL 2010
Messrs : Wally Pappas - Court President
Alan Kernick - Court Member
Eldrid Diedericks - MSA Steward
Jimi Smith - Clerk of the Course
Lindsay Steyn - Pro Tour Coordinator
Andre Furby - Timekeeper
Craig Gammie - Competitor
Mark Gregory - Competitor
Maria Buys - MSA
The president introduced himself and the other court member (there only being two members due to a last minute cancellation by the third member). There were no objections to the composition of the court.
Having heard and examined the evidence presented, and having afforded every party present sufficient opportunity to state their cases, the court records the following:
1.Competitor Gammie acknowledged practicing on the East London GP circuit without a transponder on the morning of official practice which was in contravention of the Pro Tour supplementary regulations.
2.Competitor Gammie further acknowledged that an incomplete entry form had been submitted to the Pro Tour race co-ordinator with a revised and completed entry form only being re-sent after the close of entries.
The court therefore makes the following findings:
1. Competitor Gammie’s competition licence is withdrawn, with immediate effect, until 31st December 2010. However the licence withdrawal for the period 31st May 2010 to 31st December 2010 (i.e. a period of 7 months) is suspended on condition that Mr Gammie is not found guilty of a similar offence during this period.
Note: The effect of the above is that Mr Gammie may return to the sport as a competitor on 01st June 2010 and the further 7 months of the licence withdrawal imposed shall only come into effect if and when he should (either directly or through the actions of any person/s connected with his entry) be found guilty of a similar offence to one that formed the subject of this enquiry during the period 01st June 2010 to 31st December 2010.
2. Competitor Gammie is ordered to pay the late entry fee from the East London event to the Pro Tour organisers, an amount of R400.
3. Competitor Gammie is further ordered to pay costs to MSA in the amount of R500.
All parties are reminded of their rights of appeal to the MSA National Court of Appeal..
Findings sent via email
156964/098
(14 April 2010)
Court of Enquiry, No 1029
COURT OF ENQUIRY 1029:
TO INVESTIGATE THE ALTERCATION BETWEEN THE PARENTS OF COMPETITOR RICHARDO RAAFF AND THE PARENTS OF COMPETITOR SEAN VENESS, AT THE NORTHERN REGIONS PRIZE GIVING FUNCTION, HELD AT THE ITALIAN CLUB ON THE 23RD JANUARY 2010. HEARING HELD AT 13H00 ON FRIDAY, 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 IN THE MSA BOARDROOM, 9 MONZA CLOSE (Formerly 108), KYALAMI PARK, MIDRAND
Present: Wally Pappas - Court President
Wayne Riddell - Court Member
Ralf Gebert - Court Member
Alex Veness - Mother of Competitor Veness
Alan Veness - Father of Competitor Veness
Tess Raaff - Mother of Competitor Raaff
Peter Raaff - Father of Competitor Raaff
Brad Mostert - Witness
Carmen Petzer - Scribe
The Court President introduced himself and the Court members, and there were no objections to the composition of the Court.
Having heard all the evidence and afforded every person present ample time and opportunity to state his or her case, the Court finds as follows:
1. That the altercation between the parties was not an isolated incident and evidence was led that previous altercations had occurred between the parties. Such altercations have resulted in both verbal and physical attacks.
2. The Court was concerned that both parties were well aware of the strained relationship that existed, however it appears that the parties saw fit to enter the pub area at the Italian Club and openly consume alcohol until the early hours of the following morning.
3. The Court could find no justification for either the altercation, or that which prompted it nor the retaliation, and could find no justification for the conduct of either of all of those involved.
4. The fact that the altercation in the club itself was stopped by a third party indicates the serious nature of the altercation.
5. The fact that it appears that altercation continued outside the club is indicative of a situation which saw neither party taking the moral high ground and accordingly the Court can find no distinction between the parties.
6. The Court finds that both parties are in contravention of GCR 172(iv and vi), and would like both parties to take note of GCR 113 and 115
7. The Court hereby fines both parties an amount of R10 000-00, and in addition withdraws the licences of Competitor Raaff and Competitor Veness for the period of 1 year, suspended for 2 years.
8. The Court awards costs of R500-00 against both parties
All parties are reminded of their right of appeal to the MSA Court of Appeal.
Findings not read at the Court
156787/098
(09 February 2010)
Court of Enquiry, No 1028
HELD ON 28TH JANUARY 2010, TO INVESTIGATE THE RACING OF THE NON-HOMOLOGATED INTREPID CHASSIS AT THE KZNKC REGIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP KARTING EVENT ON THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2009, AND THE SALE BY RALPH ODENDAAL RACING OF A NON-HOMOLOGATED CHASSIS TO MSA TO BE USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME.
PRESENT: SPARKY BRIGHT COURT PRESIDENT
PHILIP STEGEN COURT MEMBER
NEIL MC CANN COURT MEMBER
GORDON SWANEPOEL KZN KART CLUB/REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
KEVIN LA RESERVE KZN KART CLUB
JULIAN LURIE MSA STEWARD
HENRY ODENDAAL INTREPID
EBRAHIM JOOD COMPETITOR
APOLOGIES: WILLIE BLOEM CLERK OF COURSE
PROCEEDINGS:
No objections were lodged against the composition of the Court.
Having heard the evidence and representations of the person/s present, the court finds and isntructs as follows:
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
1. MSA has put its trust in a reputable company, namely Ralph Odendaal Racing, to take care of a development competitor and this trust has been abused.
2. By his own admission, the importer knowingly sold a non- homologated (Intrepid) chassis to MSA for development purposes to compete in MSA events, and furthermore entered the kart illegally in a MSA event.
3. The court recommends that MSA review its involvement with Ralph Odendaal Racing in respect of its development initiatives in KwaZulu Natal.
4. By his own admission, competitor Jood was aware that the chassis he used was not homologated and therefore was ineligible to be raced.
5. Competitor Jood is instructed to collect the MSA-owned kart from Ralph Odendaal Racing to prevent its possible usage by other unauthorized parties, and to await further instructions from MSA.
PENALTIES IMPOSED:
1. Competitor Jood’s MSA competition licence is withdrawn for a period of 3 months, which withdrawal of licence is suspended for 12 months. The effect of this is that, should competitor Jood be found guilty of a further infringement of the karting technical/homologation rules within the 12 months from the publication of these findings, his competition licence will be withdrawn for a period of 3 months.
2. Ralph Odendaal Racing is ordered to refund to MSA an amount of R3000 against its invoice 315 for the running of competitor Jood.
3. Ralph Odendaal Racing is fined an amount of R15000, half of which (R7500) is payable immediately and the balance of which (R7500) is suspended for a period of 12 months. The balance of the fine will therefore only become payable if Ralph Odendaal Racing is found guilty of further infringing the karting technical/homologation regulations in the 12 months from publication of these findings.
4. Ralph Odendaal Racing is further ordered to pay costs to MSA in the amount of R1500 in respect of this hearing.
Note: As the homologation process for the Intrepid chassis is already well underway, it may continue but the final homologation will be subject to Ralph Odendaal Racing complying with the abovementioned orders.
All parties are reminded of their right to appeal.
The findings were distributed Monday 8th February 2010
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
