Posted 11 April 2001 - 18:21
I'll answer the appeal questions on this thread, if I may.
Firstly, to Rainstorm's quote - 'no substantial evidence was provided to evoke even a shadow of a doubt that the race should NOT have been stopped'. I don't believe for a second that Rainstorm is deliberately belittling the contributions made by the Prosecution in this case. As Judges, we are greatly appreciative of the time and effort taken by members to research and post arguments. Your work stands as a research record that can be used by all future BB readers, and we certainly appreciate your contributions.
At the same time, I believe that many are misreading the most important word in Rainstorm's quoted sentence - the word 'substantial'. Let's examine the three key points that defined the Prosecution's case, and discuss whether they constituted 'substantial evidence'.
1) 'My argument is that the race should not have been stopped because they ran for 8 trouble-free laps just prior to the red flag coming out.' The job of the Race Director is not to wait until tragedy strikes, and then take reactive measures. The Race Director must instead anticipate disaster, and take appropriate preventative or proactive steps to avert tragedy. Demanding that the Race Director wait until somebody crashes and gets hurt, just to ensure the greatest possible chance of victory for Senna, is not a reasonable expectation in my opinion. The acid test is to ask whether you would have been so critical of Ickx's performance if the roles had been reversed - ie, if Prost had been catching Senna in the same situation. If the Prosecution had cited other wet races as precedent, giving examples of similar races which had run full distance, that would have lent credibility to their claims.
2) 'Many people pointed out that the rain was as hard when the race was stopped as at any time in the afternoon.' Who exactly are these 'many people'? And if it was the over-riding opinion that the rain was not severe enough to stop the GP, then why is there a total lack of back-up quotes from drivers who competed in the event, other F1 luminaries who attended, team owners, etc etc? Rainstorm had to decide who provided the most compelling argument - a marshal who was actually at trackside during the event, or a hearsay quote from a book citing an unspecified and nebulous 'many people'. Which do you think a real-life judge would believe - a credible eyewitness testimony or hearsay from an anonymous and unspecified third party, quoted out of a book? Besides, as Pascal has pointed out, the actual intensity of the falling rain was not the issue. That rain's effect on the track surface was the issue. Even if the rain had stayed constant, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the track conditions would have worsened systematically the longer the rain fell. Although again, the Prosecution could have refuted that argument using vidcaps of track conditions at race start and finish, quotes from drivers who felt the track conditions did not merit stopping the race, etc etc.
3) 'Race director Jacky Ickx, a renowned wet-weather expert in his days in Formula One, found himself in the midst of a political storm as he was accused of deliberately stopping the race to ensure Prost won. Ickx drove for Porche in sports car racing, the conspiracy went, and so of course he wanted Prost, who was powered by a Porche-built engine, to win.' If we are to take this theory as truth, then it would be possible to examine every single race in F1 history, and find some fishy connection between the winner and the official bodies. The link between Ickx as a works Porsche driver and Prost in a TAG-powered F1 car is, at best, extremely tenuous. The writer of the article includes a very important clause in his paragraph - '...the conspiracy went...'. He is openly admitting that the Ickx-Porsche connection was nothing more than a conspiracy theory. That is not to say that it is totally untrue. But if you want to convince a Judge, real world or Atlas F1 Court, then you need to back up conspiracy theories with a little bit more hard evidence.
There are suggestions, both on this thread and in the Atlas F1 forum, that Rainstorm was one-sided or biased in her decision. Having looked over the case, I cannot find fault with any of her conclusions, and I believe a real-life Judge would find the same. There was simply no 'substantial' evidence brought forth as to why the race should NOT have been stopped. There was certainly hearsay evidence, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and speculative argument. But nothing that any real Judge would call 'substantial'. Pascal's eyewitness account remains easily the most compelling argument put forth by either side.
Retrials or appeals are only held if :
1) New evidence comes to light, or
2) There is clear evidence that a Judge or Jury has, either willingly or under duress, made a ruling which is palpably wrong, ie which has no base in solid reason and common sense.
I cannot find any evidence that Rainstorm did not use logic and common sense in her reasoning and final verdict. Quite simply, the Defence (in the form of Pascal's eyewitness account) produced the more compelling argument. The appeal motion is denied.
Mario, if you took offence at the way the verdict was worded, then I apologise. However, I can also assure you that belittling your contribution was never Rainstorm's intent. I believe I know Rainstorm well enough to state unequivocally that she would be the last to write off any positive contribution to the Court proceedings. In fact without your contribution and one or two others, the Prosecution wouldn't have HAD a case in the first place. Of all the Senna fans on the BB, you were the one who was willing to do the research and put in the time and effort to build a case for your 'client'. It goes without saying that we appreciate that greatly.
But, at the same time, Judges cannot hand down wishy-washy verdicts. Our final decisions must be firm and clear, and that often means strong wording. We also cannot cushion the blow for the losing side. It's simple math - two sides, and the Judge can only find for one of them. Obviously there are going to be allegations of Judge corruption/bias/incompetence/ignorance by the side that loses - this is a F1 site, after all However, let us not confuse 'Judge incompetence/bias' with 'the Defence/Prosecution did not build a compelling case' - they are two very different things.
I was disappointed by the response to this particular case. Seeing that it involved Prost and Senna, I hoped that it would spark heated, exhaustive and thoroughly-researched debate. Reading through the completed arguments, I still don't even know how quickly Senna was catching Prost when the race was stopped - 1 tenth per lap, 1 second per lap, 5 seconds per lap? Maybe the general BB membership, even the Prost and Senna factions, didn't feel strongly enough about it to contribute to the case. In which case, one would assume that they also don't feel strongly enough to complain about the decision, whichever way it went...
Perhaps some people wanted to contribute, but couldn't find any available data as evidence. Well, it took me about sixty seconds at Forix to discover that the race was stopped on lap 31, and that Stefan Bellof set his fastest lap of the race on lap 29, two laps before the event was red-flagged. That stat alone may not have been enough to reverse Rainstorm's decision, but I guarantee you it would have caught her attention. Sadly though, it was never used as evidence. And who knows how many other individual items of 'evidence' are out there, unused by either side in this case? Again, I'm not knocking those who posted in the case - you were the guys who took the trouble to contribute, you WERE the case. But before anyone knocks the Judges for incompetence or bias, I think you owe it to yourselves to put up a decent fight for your 'client'. The Judges are not obliged to agree with you, you are obliged to make us agree with you. And that can only be done with rational, factual argument.
No side will be handed a Court victory on a platter. If you want the win, you have to work for it. Take a look at the GV case - the GV fans fought like terriers. So did the Defence, and that was why the case was so successful. The fact that I ruled in favour of the Prosecution is besides the point. I hated having to tell the Defence 'Sorry, but you guys lost', but that's court and that's life. Ultimately though, my verdict was secondary. The real value of the GV case was the huge database of statistics, anecdotes, quotes, expert opinion and other fantastic contributions which were made - from the Defence as well as the Prosecution. All those contributions remain for posterity. Anybody reading through the thread could quite reasonably come to a different verdict. That is their prerogative, and gives great value to the Defence's contributions, even though they 'lost' the case.
