For someone whose occupation (apparently) involves the interpretation of laws and the like, ensign14 has some very strange views...
If standard legal fairness is strange, then I do indeed have strange views.
Tyrrell was charged with five breaches of regulations.
1. Illegal refuelling (in breach of Article 6.14).
2. Having non-regulation fuel (Art 14.1.2).
3. Not having safety valves on fuel lines (Art 6.9).
4. Not having fuel lines that could withstand the appropriate safety pressures (Art 6.11).
5. Having ballast on the car that could be removed without tools and to which it was impossible to affix a seal (Art 4.2).
The fifth you can see is down to interpretation - can you take out ballast that's been forced into a tank without a tool? Doubtful. After all, they had been doing it all season, in clear view of everyone, and nobody had landed a protest, not least the scrutes. And of course it's a piece of cake to affix a seal to a tank, the first-ever Grand Prix refers.
The other four all arose from the same thing; the water tanks that Tyrrell used to top up the car had fuel in them, which could pass down the water injection fuel. They are dependent on proving 1. Which was based on an FIA sample of the "water" Tyrrell had used; FISA's experts found that the water was over a quarter fuel.
On that there would be no problem with the verdict. That would be clear cheating.
And Tyrrell was found guilty of all charges and banned.
Only thing is, FISA's experts had screwed up. They had not sampled the water that was added to the car, but only substances that were not
water. It turned out that the percentage of fuel involved was minute - we're talking in the order of five thousandths of one percent, I'd drink it for a tenner - and was within a statistical error, and certainly could not have given an advantage.
So for the appeal FISA conceded grounds 2-4; they still insisted on ground 1, even though the evidence that FISA had come up with had been disproved, and 5, which, as a pretty evident disagreement on interpretation, would not involve a season-long banning. Especially as the results of the earlier races were now official. Past the protesting time.
But - and this is the thing that shows how much of a stitch-up it was - FISA introduced a new charge, namely the holes in the bottom of the car being in breach of the flat bottom regulations.
That is axiomatically a breach of the rule of law. New charges just cannot be thrown in at the appellate stage. Because they need to be evidenced properly. New legal arguments can be introduced, but not factual.
Basically, the best FISA could do was prove that Tyrrell had put a trace amount of fuel in Brundle's car at one race. We are talking literally a drop. That could found a DQ from that one race, but nothing more as nothing was found on the other races, indeed nothing could be found for Monaco, and there was no "bringing the sport into disrepute" penalty being slung at Tyrrell. FISA did not even bother to think about throwing in a charge of being underweight, they invented a new one on appeal without prior notice and basically invented the whole thing to get Tyrrell slung out.
Tyrrell played hard and fast with the rules on ballast, certainly; but there's an interpretation to show that what they were doing was not against the rules - no other team seemed to think it was, after all.
The question is, Henri and Michael, is you are insinuating Tyrrell was running underweight. I have provided a cogent argument to show that they were not. Nobody protested, the scrutes did not notice it, FISA did not charge them with it. Have you any scintilla of evidence to suggest Tyrrell was
However, I have also shown that FISA did not follow the rules of natural justice in dealing with Tyrrell. Given that FISA was meant to be neutral and fair to all, that undermines its entire stewardship of the sport. And certainly it shows that FISA had to lie and cheat to nail Tyrrell.
I don't really consider that conclusion to be very strange. Seems to be the only logical one.