Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:15
Note: every case rejected will be posted here without the identity of the person who submitted it.
Moreover, rejected cases can be re-submitted only if a different approach is taken, whereby the reason for rejection no longer applies.
Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:17
Judges' reason: This case cannot take place due to legal constraints.
Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:19
Judges' Reason: the FIA had already made the decision to ban tobacco advertising in F1 as of 2007. Therefore, the case has already been 'proved'.
Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:23
Judges' reason: "Michael Schumacher had already admitted to making a deliberate move on Jacques Villeneuve in the European Grand Prix of 1997.
Moreover, Schumacher stood trial for this exact accusation, and was found guilty by his own admission. He was penalised for that behaviour, and whether the penalty was sufficient or not, is not relevant here - as this was not the case brought to the Atlas F1 Court.
Hence, we find this to be an open and shut case, and judgement on our part to be redundant."
Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:30
Judges' Reason: this seems to be much too broad a question to be allowed on trial. In the format it was presented to the court, this case cannot be tried without making a precedent for hundreds of cases questioning whether almost every other driver in Formula One deserves a seat on this team or another.
Posted 15 January 2001 - 11:34
Judges' Reason: we find this case to be too general and too hypothetical, as it has been presented to the court. If someone wants to make the case that Mansell was robbed deliberately and unfairly of a specific WC title, they will have to make that claim more detailed.
Posted 15 January 2001 - 14:43
"In an interview for the International Herald Tribune in December 1998, Alain Prost said the following:
Prost's ambition to become a team director goes back at least a decade. One of the pivotal moments of his career came in 1991 when he was fired from Ferrari just before the end of the season, apparently for saying that driving the Ferrari was like driving a truck.
It was a statement he said he would regret for "10 years, 20 years, 100 years." He also said that the comment was taken out of context from a magazine interview, and that the real reason for being fired had to do with internal politics at Ferrari.
"Only days before I was fired," he said. "I was involved in very serious negotiations - it only needed a signature - to continue not only as a Ferrari driver for 1992, but also as the sporting director."
"(The full interview can be found at http://services.worl...eon/prost98.HTM )
"As these negotiations were private, we cannot realistically discover why they broke down, and therefore judge whether he was fairly fired."
Posted 19 January 2001 - 13:15
Judges' Reason: 1982 was a season of great tragedy. In normal circumstances, either of the Ferrari drivers might have won the championship. The fact remains that no driver won more than 2 races that year, and if the Williams was truly "uncompetitive", this would actually enhance the value of Rosberg's achievement, and certainly does not make him an "undeserving" champion. In short, this case is rejected because it is asking the court to make a subjective judgement, based on flawed assumptions.
Posted 19 January 2001 - 13:28
Despite breaking the rules, Ferrari kept their points. Was this a case of the FIA worrying more about potential TV figures rather than upholding the rules and regulations of Formula 1.
This is a classic long-standing controversy, with endless disputes started - and never ended - around it. Seemingly, it is one of those disputes among fans for which the Atlas F1 Court was founded.
However, this was a real court case.
Ferrari won the appeal by means of legal litigation and through presenting of evidence - evidence that we do not have the means to see for ourselves nor judge upon.
To successfully claim that Ferrari should or should not have been reinstated in Malaysia 1999, one would have to successfully prove that the FIA's court of appeal judged wrongly. How would anyone here be able to do so, without the ability to present protocols of that hearing, to cross examine the witnesses that were brought there, and to challenge the validity of the evidence which Ferrari presented?
And, even assuming that someone present on this Bulletin Board would be able to present some or all of the evidence and protocols of the above-mentioned trial, the mere acceptance of this case in the Atlas F1 Court would place us in a position where we would have to reach judgement on the decision-making of 5 REAL judges.
That is called APPEALING and it should be done in a real court, not here.
Posted 23 January 2001 - 08:42
Judges Decision: This case is rejected because, in general, hypothetical driver comparisons are notoriously inconclusive.
Posted 24 January 2001 - 12:12
Judges' Decision: This case is rejected because a partnership, by definition, is indivisible, and any suggestion of blame points to the failure of the relationship, and not to a failure on the part of either party. Such matters are argued daily in divorce courts around the world, but unfortunately are not suited to the Atlas F1 Court, where it would be impossible to rationally distinguish the relative mediocrities of the Prost chassis and the Peugeot engine, in the context of a climate described by Alain Prost as "human relations the like of which I've never known in the length of my career."
Posted 25 January 2001 - 16:44
Newey started out as a successful aerodynamicist, then a successful designer and now a successful technical director. He is arguably the most successful design talent of the past decade.
Since 1990 the stats for 'Newey cars' have been:
74 wins (50.6% of races)
96 poles (65.8% of races)
84 fastest laps (57.5% of races)
1294 points (4.45 per entry)
But, at the same time, these cars were powered by the most dominant engines (Renault and Mercedes) on the grid. There is no telling what Newey's reputation would have been like had he worked on cars powered by Peugeot, for that matter.
In the case brought to the court, the prosecution would have to argue that the work of a single individual brought McLaren to the point where it was "the fastest car for the last three years." It's doubtful that credit in such a large organisation can beset only one individual. It's even more doubtful that people outside this organisation will be able to determine exactly what can be attributed to Newey alone.
As such, we find this case unsuitable for the Atlas F1 Court.
Posted 27 February 2001 - 06:38
Judge's decision: this is a hypothetical situation, in fact laying the blame of the collision with Jacques Villeneuve. In reality Michael Schumacher was tried and found guilty of causing the collision, rendering this case obsolete in the first place.
Posted 05 January 2002 - 20:34
Judges Decision: this case is rejected because the incident is generally accepted as a racing incident by all parties involved and thus presents little controversy for the court's consideration.