Marc Marquez reportedly “going to win appeal”, will “benefit from clumsiness” of rule

#22 · Apr 5, 2023

I cannot discuss this anywhere else because most discussion forums are full of rabid Marc haters, so here we go.

Marc Marquez “going to win appeal”, will “benefit from clumsiness” of rule

Interestingly I took a few crucial bits of information from the article:

His legal case, that the original rule was changed or reworded after it was issued to him, is expected to be favoured by the MotoGP Court of Appeal, Spanish outlet AS report.

Which is what I said from the beginning. Honda are protesting essentially that ex post facto, his punishment was changed. It is also worth noting it was only changed due to public outcry.

Marquez repeatedly asked the FIM Stewards if his original double long lap penalty was only applicable for the Argentina MotoGP, and he was repeatedly told yes, before the Honda rider signed the sanction papers, it is reported.

Marquez was hit with a double long lap penalty for crashing into Miguel Oliveira in Portimao, to be specifically served in Argentina - but it was issued when he’d already confirmed that he’d be absent because he needed hand surgery.

No brainer, and I personally think that no way do they lose this case from a legal standpoint. As I said before, they found a loophole in the wording of the regulations and instead of saying "Yeah, they did and we ...... up, we will amend the rule going forward" They tried backtracking to pan to the outspoken critics.

A defence a number of people/trolls use is that there is some sort of clause that race direction/the stewards can do whatever they like. I've read the FIM regulations and I dont see any wording for that being correct. Regarding penalties, I found this in the regs:

Furthermore, the FIM MotoGP Stewards Panel can refer the case to the
MotoGP Court of Appeal in order to impose a higher penalty than the
FIM MotoGP Stewards Panel is empowered to do

Now, whether their actions here fall under 'impose a higher penalty' I guess could be argued. But regarding penalties, that is pretty much all it says in addition to what penalties they can give.

However, under 'Race Direction' is says this:

1.7.6
All decisions of the FIM MotoGP Stewards Panel must be communicated in
writing to the Race Direction and all affected parties

If the penalty said 'to be servied in Argentina', which based on the above article, it says it did. Then that is completely on the stewards/FIM. ESPECIALLY if they already knew Marc was not going to attend Argentina due to injury.

Its from 2022, but the regs can be found here"

FIM Grand Prix Regulations

evo9 · Apr 5, 2023

#22 said:
I cannot discuss this anywhere else because most discussion forums are full of rabid Marc haters, so here we go.

Marc Marquez “going to win appeal”, will “benefit from clumsiness” of rule

You ain't kidding! Motor Sport and The Race are just about as bad as it gets. That jon critter or whatever he goes by and his cronies are in need of serious mental health care.

On a side note: Because I did not renew my mototgp subscription, I got a survey wanting to know why? So, I did the 5 question survey. Where they wanted to know why I did not renew. My answer was, sprint races & 8 ducatis on the grid.
I'm thinking a lot of people may have not renewed this year why they are sending out survey.

#22 · Apr 5, 2023

evo9 said:
You ain't kidding! Motor Sport and The Race are just about as bad as it gets. That jon critter or whatever he goes by and his cronies are in need of serious mental health care.

God yes, and that 'Let's Go Brandon!' guy..he was a fool early on and had a different username which when you goggled it was the same as his main email address, which then easily linked his name, home address, phone number etc. So some posters on there keep posting his details. It's hilarious.

evo9 · Apr 5, 2023

#22 said:
God yes, and that 'Let's Go Brandon!' guy..he was a fool early on and had a different username which when you goggled it was the same as his main email address, which then easily linked his name, home address, phone number etc. So some posters on there keep posting his details. It's hilarious.

Oh the level of intelligence

mikesbytes · Apr 5, 2023

The reality is that if the rule says X then he's got a perfect right to protest if X isn't exactly applied. I'm assuming there will be a rule update.

PRS717 · Apr 5, 2023

evo9 said:
You ain't kidding! Motor Sport and The Race are just about as bad as it gets. That jon critter or whatever he goes by and his cronies are in need of serious mental health care.

On a side note: Because I did not renew my mototgp subscription, I got a survey wanting to know why? So, I did the 5 question survey. Where they wanted to know why I did not renew. My answer was, sprint races & 8 ducatis on the grid.
I'm thinking a lot of people may have not renewed this year why they are sending out survey.

I was just trying to watch the Argentina race from onboard Fabio's bike because I wanted to see his charge through the field. For no reason, it switched me to Alex Marquez's bike and he wasn't even one of the 4 pre-selected riders from which to choose.

Mick D · Apr 5, 2023

How fecking stupid are the penalty writers?

"To be served at the next race the rider participates in."

Simps.

Gaz · Apr 5, 2023

Not gonna be nitpicky but the issue here is not the rule but the change to the imposition oft he penalty.

The rule/s used against Marquez to address the accident were correct and as has been reported a few times around the traps, he accepted those findings and penalty as he accepted blame for the incident.

If ast his article claims he pushed specifically to confirm Argentina and it was confirmed and is recorded in the minutes, outcome, tape or at least one member of the panel confirms it, then there is seemingly no way that Honda cannot win the appeal. But, a lot depends on the recordings and transcripts of the hearing as if MM does ask the question and specifically states Argentina andt hat is given a firm yes then all good but if there is doubt over the question or ansswer, different ball game.

Now, cue the social media hordes and the need for DORNA to look as if they care (they don't, we all know that else why increase risks of more races leading to fatigue).

Someone then decides to change the imposition of the penalty after all had been done and agreed, and signed to please those baying at the gates.

It is this that has been appealed, not the rule. The penalty is the outcome of a rule breach and is not a rule itself.

If the rule itself was altered so that it now states 'penalty to be served at the next race where the rider competes' that needs to have been done before the hearing and penalty was applied. It also needs to clarify as DORNA now have 2 races on the weekend so to me, if MM loses he should expliot and do the double LLP in the sprint.

DORNA and clusterf*cks continue

Edit to add:
Even if the rule/penalty itself states next race, that covers Argentina as without the clarification of 'rider being available' then they are screwed.

I genuinely say well played Honda on this one - they played the game and are doing the right thing. At this level of the sport there should be no gray areas or room for such confusion.

Gaz · Apr 5, 2023

Mick D said:
How fecking stupid are the penalty writers?

"To be served at the next race the rider participates in."

Simps.

Cue the double LLP in the sprint as it is a defined race and worth points for the championship

mikesbytes · Apr 6, 2023

Does the penalty apply to the next race of the same type, ie if the penalty is incurred in the sprint race, is it applied in the next sprint race?

#22 · Apr 6, 2023

mikesbytes said:
The reality is that if the rule says X then he's got a perfect right to protest if X isn't exactly applied. I'm assuming there will be a rule update.

There has to be.

Gaz said:
Not gonna be nitpicky but the issue here is not the rule but the change to the imposition oft he penalty.

The rule/s used against Marquez to address the accident were correct and as has been reported a few times around the traps, he accepted those findings and penalty as he accepted blame for the incident.

If ast his article claims he pushed specifically to confirm Argentina and it was confirmed and is recorded in the minutes, outcome, tape or at least one member of the panel confirms it, then there is seemingly no way that Honda cannot win the appeal. But, a lot depends on the recordings and transcripts of the hearing as if MM does ask the question and specifically states Argentina andt hat is given a firm yes then all good but if there is doubt over the question or ansswer, different ball game.

Now, cue the social media hordes and the need for DORNA to look as if they care (they don't, we all know that else why increase risks of more races leading to fatigue).

Someone then decides to change the imposition of the penalty after all had been done and agreed, and signed to please those baying at the gates.

It is this that has been appealed, not the rule. The penalty is the outcome of a rule breach and is not a rule itself.

If the rule itself was altered so that it now states 'penalty to be served at the next race where the rider competes' that needs to have been done before the hearing and penalty was applied. It also needs to clarify as DORNA now have 2 races on the weekend so to me, if MM loses he should expliot and do the double LLP in the sprint.

DORNA and clusterf*cks continue

Edit to add:
Even if the rule/penalty itself states next race, that covers Argentina as without the clarification of 'rider being available' then they are screwed.

I genuinely say well played Honda on this one - they played the game and are doing the right thing. At this level of the sport there should be no gray areas or room for such confusion.

Exactly what I have been saying. A lot of people getting hot in the head have completely missed the point that Honda are not appealing the penalty, but the fact it was changed after being applied. As I noted above, in the regulations it is noted that penalties must be notified in writing. SO the original penalty presumably says 'in Argentina' or 'the next race'. Check mate.

Gaz said:
Cue the double LLP in the sprint as it is a defined race and worth points for the championship

Well, interestingly I've read that MotoGP/Dorna specifically refer to it as the 'Tissot Sprint' and not a race, due to contractual issues with riders if they called it 'a race'.

mikesbytes said:
Does the penalty apply to the next race of the same type, ie if the penalty is incurred in the sprint race, is it applied in the next sprint race?

Very good question. I'm guessing the simplest way is like for like. I.e. If you penalty was incurred in a Sprint, it applies to the next sprint. Same with the main race.

evo9 · Apr 13, 2023

Latest> Marc Marquez penalty: MotoGP Court of Appeal grants 'stay of execution’

Bern1 · Apr 13, 2023

What a joke. Their rules are so clumsily written. Who is writing all this nonsense? Sounds like somebody who has never even done any club racing. Not what you would expect from the premier class series.

#22 · Apr 14, 2023

Well said Bern.

Honestly, I'm not surprised the other teams are more openly supporting Honda. This isn't them flouting the rules and trying to get a technical advantage. It is them challengine the governing body who have saw fit to change a punshment after they issued it. What rule would they retroactively change next?

Gaz · Apr 16, 2023

#22 said:
Well said Bern.

Honestly, I'm not surprised the other teams are more openly supporting Honda. This isn't them flouting the rules and trying to get a technical advantage. It is them challengine the governing body who have saw fit to change a punshment after they issued it. What rule would they retroactively change next?

I suspect it is less about what will they change next (as we know, they altered the implementation of a punishment here) and more about removing a dangerous precedent.

If the punishment is allowed to stand (and it may well be that the the determination is based on intent) then the door is very much now opened to any manner of similar sanctions and changes to when, how etc. Essentially, if all stands it is effectively stating that punishments can be changed or altered based upon the whim or need to avoid unfair brand damage (as for mine, that is the only reason it was moved in the first place) or where the intent of the punishment is not met.

So, extreme example.

2015.

The general public (not this forum, think fans of a certain rider) cried tears and all after a penalty was appliedt he resulted in a rear of grid start due to that rider exceeding the points allowed att he time based on behaviours. This had a direct impact on a world title challenge. If the punishment could be altered based on outcry, well, we likely all suspect that things would be different in 2015 or even worse, what is to stop history being rewruitten etc.

However, if Honda win the pressure is then applied back to the stewards to appropriately word their punishments to meet the intent of the penalty.

#22 · Apr 24, 2023

Looks like the FIM president is doubling down on his ......:

FIM president: “Marc Marquez shouldn’t have appealed penalty - decision soon…”

One quote from the article:

Jorge Viegas, the FIM president, told MotoSprint: “The situation is clear: Marc did what he did and agreed with the penalty.

“The Stewards Panel wrote an unclear sanction, so I asked them to make it clearer, and Team Honda consequently appealed, so much so that I personally spoke to [team manager Alberto] Puig.

“The appeal was well done, so the ball went to the FIM judges, who decided to suspend the penalty, to have time to decide and avoid problems.

“The decision will come soon. Personally if I was Marc I would have served the penalty, without appealing, as now he has given people the chance to think that he doesn't want to serve it, which is not nice.”

So he admits that he requested they modify the sanction. As noted above, this is in direct contradiction to rule 3.3.2.3 in the FIM rule book. I love how he is spinning it as 'He has given the chance to think he doesn't want to serve it'

Newsflash, what rider DOES want to serve a penalty?! Aside from that, he also noted that Marc agreed to the penalty, something Marc also stated in interviews. Sure, some people will think this is Marc and Honda trying to avoid a penalty but if they choose to do so, that is their issue. As I said from the moment Honda appealed. They are not appealing the original penalty, but the fact is was changed after being administered and agreed in writing.

This entire mess could have been sorted with a simple statement saying 'Marc Marquez will not serve a penalty if he is not competing in Argeintina per the current rules. In light of this, the ruling and wording for penalty requirements will be reviewed and altered going forward to indicate that a penalty sanctioned by the FIM will be taken at the penalised rider or teams next MotoGP race event in which they are competing"

misfit · Apr 24, 2023

Is this about the penalty or when the penalty is served?

Is it the next event vs the next event the rider with the penalty competes in? If it's normally the former, then precedent should lead to MM/Honda winning the appeal. However, if there is no precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was none, then this should be interesting. In an article sited earlier in the thread, it's claimed that the wording of the rule claimed that the penalty must be served at the next race. Is there proof of this? But then there was a clarification/rewording saying that the penalty is to be served at the next race he competes in, which cannot be done. The rewording/clarification can only apply to future penalties and cannot be applied retroactively. We know this all too well from F1.

michaelm · Apr 24, 2023

misfit said:
Is this about the penalty or when the penalty is served?

Is it the next event vs the next event the rider with the penalty competes in? If it's normally the former, then precedent should lead to MM/Honda winning the appeal. However, if there is no precedent, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was none, then this should be interesting. In an article sited earlier in the thread, it's claimed that the wording of the rule claimed that the penalty must be served at the next race. Is there proof of this? But then there was a clarification/rewording saying that the penalty is to be served at the next race he competes in, which cannot be done. The rewording/clarification can only apply to future penalties and cannot be applied retroactively. We know this all too well from F1.

That’s the issue, I can’t see how retrospective rule changes can be valid whether or not as a response to fan opinion. Surely it wouldn’t survive a challenge in the general world sports arbitration body.

Whatever they think of MM I suspect most in the paddock would not want such retrospectivity either.

I wouldn’t be expecting any leniency were I MM or HRC for the perhaps inevitable next offence though

#22 · Apr 24, 2023

This is what confuses me. You'd think other teams and riders would at least be in support of the fact that Honda are questioning the penalty process. If the FIM can change that on a whim, at what point would it end up affecting others?

Gaz · Apr 25, 2023

#22 said:
This is what confuses me. You'd think other teams and riders would at least be in support of the fact that Honda are questioning the penalty process. If the FIM can change that on a whim, at what point would it end up affecting others?

Gonna go king conspiracy theory.

Look at the article you linked, and particularly the comments of Viegas. To me, it almost reads threatening and I strongly suspect that there will be repercussions for Marquez and I suspect Honda for appealing and highlighting the incompetence of the steward findings and penalty wordings imposed.

I also suspect that every other manufacturer is supportive of the appeal (well, excepting Olivera's team) as the penalty as applied was not clear and as such, having it defined is only beneficial if/when others are subject to penalty.

Viegas I suspect is playing with himself somewhat as he states that the sanction was unclear and that the appeal was well done, well written but them immediately states that Marquez should accept the penalty regardless of the unclear sanction. He is acquainting or seems to be falling into teh social media line that it is Marquez appealing (ie. he should just accept the penalty) and not Honda (appeal well written) and at the same time there is insinuation that riders must not question decisions..................

Sounds kind of dictatorship and 'do not rock our boat' from one of the bosses who's name is not Ezpeleta

Marc Marquez reportedly “going to win appeal”, will “benefit from clumsiness” of rule

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

#22

evo9

#22

evo9

mikesbytes

PRS717

Mick D

Gaz

Gaz

mikesbytes

#22

evo9

Bern1

#22

Gaz

#22

misfit

michaelm

#22

Gaz

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions