Valentina Rossi withdraws CAS appeal

JPSLotus said:

Gaz this is the biggest issue with not showing Rossi the black flag, and only giving him points on the license.

It sends a clear message that such moves will not even be punished in the moment, and you can wind up only with 3 points on the license. Think about that, I can now punt someone off the bike, and then argue to Race Direction afterwards such a move is only worthy of being hit with a 3 point penalty. They have no leg to stand on since the 3 points is now precedent for purposely taking another rider out.

What happens if the title comes down to the final race next year, or in future years, and a rider decides he is better off punting the other rider who is fighting for the title with since 3 points is well worth it if it means you get the title?

Race Direction has now officially opened the Pandora's Box with that decision because of the ripple effect it will have.

22 and I talked about how due to the lack of punishment for dirty and dangerous driving when it came to Michael Schumacher, it taught an entire generation of coming drivers that chop blocking and running guys to the track edge at 190MPH was a perfectly acceptable defensive maneuver. 22 even confirmed seeing young kids try and defend aggressive maneuvers by saying Schumacher never got punished!

Click to expand...

The issue is not that they did not show him the black flag but rather the 3 points.

A black flag takes him out of the race ............. simple (even if it were a ride through) and removes the opportunity for further punishment as you cannot be punished twice for the same offence.

Effectively by leaving him there (again, this I agree with) they then allowed themselves a more select range of punishments and removed themselves from a 'spur of the moment decision that may have gone wrong'

The fact of the situation is that if they DQ'd VR by black flagging him or gave him a ride through, but then found that MM (as example) admitted that the fall was his fault ............ did VR deserve the penalty?

By leaving him on track they allowed themselves to speak with everyone involved, judge for themselves the veracity of protestations by the riders and then make a judgement.

Gaz, spur of the moment? Haha. Never should a decision ever been made during a race then. This practice should be effectively a thing of the past. Jesus buddy, the incident left nothing to the imagination. It was black flag worthy, period. What was left to discover? VR's body language with his gesticulations and looking over several times as he toyed with Marc when he impeded his progress, ultimately leading to the crash was hardly something that needed a federal investigation. Consider also, that ride through and black flags are issued for less, and also are a tool to mitigate immediately an unsafe rider! Again, it's already been established that RD have issued sanctions for reckless riding regardless of intent. There was absolutely no reason to call them in to entertain the perpetrator to spin his actions.

Gaz said:

The issue is not that they did not show him the black flag but rather the 3 points.

A black flag takes him out of the race ............. simple (even if it were a ride through) and removes the opportunity for further punishment as you cannot be punished twice for the same offence.

Effectively by leaving him there (again, this I agree with) they then allowed themselves a more select range of punishments and removed themselves from a 'spur of the moment decision that may have gone wrong'

The fact of the situation is that if they DQ'd VR by black flagging him or gave him a ride through, but then found that MM (as example) admitted that the fall was his fault ............ did VR deserve the penalty?

By leaving him on track they allowed themselves to speak with everyone involved, judge for themselves the veracity of protestations by the riders and then make a judgement.

Click to expand...

I don't have any issue with him not being black-flagged, but don't think Simoncelli should have got the ride through either. He wouldn't have had much cause for complaint imo if he had lost all points from the race; he obviously would have complained and did complain (indeed appealed) about the 3 point penalty he did receive. Imo the unfair advantage he gained or maintained over Jorge by his illegal riding was 3 points of his lead over Jorge.

MM has historically been of course by far the more reckless and dangerous rider, and should have been far more severely penalised imo for the Willairot incident for instance, part of J4rn0's premise in starting the other thread. I think he has ridden carelessly and recklessly rather than deliberately illegally though, and has been better/ridden more responsibly in the latter half of the recent season.

Jumkie said:

Gaz, spur of the moment? Haha. Never should a decision ever been made during a race then. This practice should be effectively a thing of the past. Jesus buddy, the incident left nothing to the imagination. It was black flag worthy, period. What was left to discover? VR's body language with his gesticulations and looking over several times as he toyed with Marc when he impeded his progress, ultimately leading to the crash was hardly something that needed a federal investigation. Consider also, that ride through and black flags are issued for less. Again, it's already been established that RD have issued sanctions for reckless riding regardless of intent. There was absolutely no reason to call them in to entertain the perpetrator to spin his actions.

Click to expand...

Ok Jums I will play a little .......... was it a Black Flag ride through or a Black Flag DQ?

Inaccepted practice for race control it was not as clear as 1500 replays both at real time and slow motion make it seem. FACT is there there some riders who sommented immediately that it was Black Flag worthy, but on replay they admitted that their mind changed and that it was best to be addressed after the event (Fogarty springs to mind as did Doohan).

People also seem to overlook that RD are responsible for the full race and as such just because VR/MM decided to play oopsy, they cannot stop concentrating on the live action to adjudicate on an incident that has a couple of interpretations. FACT is that VR made comments prior to the race and rightly or wrongly these would have been playing on RD's mind ............ did VR do that deliberately or intentionally or is it coincidence?

Were RD to concentrate wholly on this issue what of the remainder of the race should issues occur?

RD should and did state quickly that the incident was to be investigated .......... sure you may think that there is little to investigate as VR was involved and it 'looked' clear cut initially. There is no doubt that VR rode MM wide ......... he admits as such but to Black Flag him on that means that you will be issuing black flags many times per race as that is a tactic .......... what VR did was take it further than the standard and he admitted it. But to admit it, they needed to talk to the riders and as such you could not DQ on that or that alone.

As for the fall, that is another matter altogether and does require a good, thorough investigation of multiple camera angles (the public would not have seen all) together with reports from stewards, flag marshalls and so forth (have been involved in a few reports as club/national level ............. it is a time consuming process).

No, they got it right as it allowed them to consider harsher penalties (all IMO and I will not argue who is right or wring as this is all opinions).

But let me ask you .......... briefly ........... what is it that you think RD got wrong?

The failure to DQ?
The failure to Ride Through?
The 3 penalty points?

Remember that if you do 1 or 2 you then cannot offer a further penalty of suspension, points deduction and so forth.

From all of my reading people want VR hung, drawn and quartered .......... RD allowed themselves that opportunity. The fact that the end result of punishments seems (or is) soft is the issue.

michaelm said:

I don't have any issue with him not being black-flagged, but don't think Simoncelli should have got the ride through either. He wouldn't have had much cause for complaint imo if he had lost all points from the race; he obviously would have complained and did complain (indeed appealed) about the 3 point penalty he did receive. Imo the unfair advantage he gained or maintained over Jorge by his illegal riding was 3 points of his lead over Jorge.

Click to expand...

Exactly Mike.

For me the Simoncelli v Pedrosa one was adjudicated to quickly and again (funny in this regard) I think the protestation of riders about Simoncelli's purported dangerous riding actually 'helped' RD make up their minds in that regard.

Essentially, for mine RD went 'well they have all whinged and it looks like they were right so we need to do something and now', rather than, we need to have a good look as he was a long way up.

michaelm said:

MM has historically been of course by far the more reckless and dangerous rider, and should have been far more severely penalised imo for the Willairot incident for instance, part of J4rn0's premise in starting the thread. I think he has ridden carelessly and recklessly rather than deliberately illegally though, and has been better/ridden more responsibly in the latter half of the recent season.

Click to expand...

The Willarott incident is one of, the worst that I have seen at MotoGP level and (have said many times) I firmly believe that on that incident alone MM should have received a lengthy holiday. I was unfortunately watching that live on tv and (will not lie), but I thought I had witnessed a death.

MM definitely has been careless, but careless is just as dangerous (IMO) and whilst the jury is divided as to whether VR 'crashed' MM there is no doubt that he deliberately placed him into a position (he admitted as much) that results in the crash.

For MM, he did ride somewhat less aggressive later in the season but by then, his season was already over so in some way I am not prepared to say with surety that he has matured so much as say that the first 5 or so rounds next year will be a better indication ans new year, new championship. Will it be the MM of early seasons or the MM of late 2015?

Gaz, it's more simple. VR took Marc out to the edge of the track, with observable intention, looked in his direction several times, to a near stop. This is extremely rare, and more importantly, infinitely dangerous, it ceased being a racing tactic, therefore not a racing incident.

RD failed to Black flag. (I'm pretty sure that was the first sentence I said on the forum after the Sepang race. Something to the effect, regardless of RD's subsequent decision, they had already failed by not issuing the black flag. They allowed a dangerous rider to continue circulating.)

Gaz said:

The issue is not that they did not show him the black flag but rather the 3 points.

A black flag takes him out of the race ............. simple (even if it were a ride through) and removes the opportunity for further punishment as you cannot be punished twice for the same offence.

Effectively by leaving him there (again, this I agree with) they then allowed themselves a more select range of punishments and removed themselves from a 'spur of the moment decision that may have gone wrong'

The fact of the situation is that if they DQ'd VR by black flagging him or gave him a ride through, but then found that MM (as example) admitted that the fall was his fault ............ did VR deserve the penalty?

By leaving him on track they allowed themselves to speak with everyone involved, judge for themselves the veracity of protestations by the riders and then make a judgement.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately Gaz the trouble with leaving him out there, was that it was a strategically calculated move dressed up under the guise of getting the "full story" as a way to absolve themselves of making the right decision.

Sorry I will never buy their decision as being anything but self-serving with respect to the commercial considerations, and who the rider was. The delay was about trying to buy time for themselves to figure out if they could get away with a punishment that didn't involve any serious penalty.

Your hypothetical about MM admitting the fall was his fault shouldn't even enter into it. In fact, by this logic, there should never be a penalty ever given out during a race less there be some sort explanation from the rider. Do you see the slope you go down once you start arguing nothing should be done till after the race?

My exact reaction when VR started slowing down and pushing MM wide was, "What the .... are you doing?"

As soon as contact was made and MM went down, followed by VR speeding off like a hit and run participant, my reaction was, "You ....... ....., how could you be that stupid?"

Most anyone with a brain knew that was Rossi fully at fault.

michaelm said:

I don't have any issue with him not being black-flagged, but don't think Simoncelli should have got the ride through either. He wouldn't have had much cause for complaint imo if he had lost all points from the race; he obviously would have complained and did complain (indeed appealed) about the 3 point penalty he did receive. Imo the unfair advantage he gained or maintained over Jorge by his illegal riding was 3 points of his lead over Jorge.

Click to expand...

Simoncelli did deserve that ride thru.

It was a move that he had no chance of making successfully on Dani short of stopping space and time to move out of the way. Every camera angle showed Simoncelli was never going to make it, he rode into a disappearing gap. While I appreciate his enthusiasm in trying to get past Dani, it was a stupid move that left Dani with a broken collarbone.

Gaz said:

MM definitely has been careless, but careless is just as dangerous (IMO) and whilst the jury is divided as to whether VR 'crashed' MM there is no doubt that he deliberately placed him into a position (he admitted as much) that results in the crash.

Click to expand...

Sorry dude, that's bogus.

He was given the penalty precisely for creating contact between he and MM that resulted in MM crashing.

No two ways about it.

Jumkie said:

Gaz, it's more simple. VR took Marc out to the edge of the track, with observable intention, looked in his direction several times, to a near stop. This is extremely rare, and more importantly, infinitely dangerous, it ceased being a racing tactic, therefore not a racing incident.

Click to expand...

Taking him wide in the manner he did is one thing .......... absolutely and it is this that I have more issue with than the contact (like you, I said so very early in the Sepang thread)

I still say that to Black Flag him them would have been wrong as it excludes other punishment as the punishment had already been applied and thus no additional could.

I stated some time back, the fact that VR admitted the intent to put MM wide to 'ask WTF' (my paraphrasing) is what should be punished as that was at the time, a live race track.

If you recall my thoughts on Sepang, he got off light but and to me that remains the case, but the focus is (for me) on the wrong component of the entire issue. The crash is open to individual interpretation and coloured lenses, the fact that VR rode him there and admitted to it, is the larger issue (IMO) and seems to be missed in many of the discussions.

Whilst you could Black Flag VR for placing MM in the position, you then are restricted were VR to admit the deliberateness of it after the event (as he did).

VR was given rope by not being Black Flagged, he tried to use the rope to his benefit but his words betrayed him ................. the subsequent result (or leniency) is the issue for me.

Jumkie said:

RD failed to Black flag. (I'm pretty sure that was the first sentence I said on the forum after the Sepang race. Something to the effect, regardless of RD's subsequent decision, they had already failed by not issuing the black flag. They allowed a dangerous rider to continue circulating.)

Click to expand...

Ride through or DQ (both are done using a Black Flag)?

And I think it may have been the second sentence after 'what the f*ck just happened'

JPSLotus said:

Unfortunately Gaz the trouble with leaving him out there, was that it was a strategically calculated move dressed up under the guise of getting the "full story" as a way to absolve themselves of making the right decision.

Click to expand...

And it is a move that is standard in many places - sports and courts of law in many regard all place the burden or onus of proof as being required PRIOR to conviction.

We have many times described issues as 'racing incident' based on our interpretation and whilst this issue goes outside the bounds of that description, what if Yamaha could prove that VR suffered brake issues and so on?

Yes hypothetical but if they could prove it and VR had been DQ'd by a black flag then VR would have a bigger right to CAS action (all hypothetical )

Sorry I will never buy their decision as being anything but self-serving with respect to the commercial considerations, and who the rider was. The delay was about trying to buy time for themselves to figure out if they could get away with a punishment that didn't involve any serious penalty.

JPSLotus said:

Your hypothetical about MM admitting the fall was his fault shouldn't even enter into it. In fact, by this logic, there should never be a penalty ever given out during a race less there be some sort explanation from the rider. Do you see the slope you go down once you start arguing nothing should be done till after the race?

Click to expand...

Nope, wrong.

VR admits that he rode MM wide when RD investigate - thus he is penalised still for his action.

No slipper slope needed.

JPSLotus said:

My exact reaction when VR started slowing down and pushing MM wide was, "What the .... are you doing?"

As soon as contact was made and MM went down, followed by VR speeding off like a hit and run participant, my reaction was, "You ....... ....., how could you be that stupid?"

Most anyone with a brain knew that was Rossi fully at fault.

Click to expand...

I have a brain thank you .............. my mother had me tested.

VR ...... up, he knows it, Uccio knows it, Talpa knows it, Pappawhatever knows it .................. there is very few people on earth who follow racing that do not know that VR ...... up. What they question is the level of .... up involved.

Some believe that the sole intention of the running wide was to make MM crash.

Others suspect that the running wide was VR making a statement (which VR admits) and that the crashing whilst a consequence was not the sole or original intent. Yes it happened, MM crashed and Rossi bolted ............ as you say like a hit and run merchant on a drunken Saturday night .......... poor form but it is also racing and intentional or not VR had gotten clear of the nemesis plus he could hardly go back and help pick him up.

My opinion doesn't and won't change as I have seen similar at club level (worse in one or two cases) and know that the offending riders in those cases were not DQ'd so that they could suffer a larger penalty post race.

It was evident post race that VR knew he was in the ...., the depth of that .... he did not know

JPSLotus said:

Sorry dude, that's bogus.

He was given the penalty precisely for creating contact between he and MM that resulted in MM crashing.

No two ways about it.

Click to expand...

Absolutely he was penalised for causing another rider to crash

The impact however is, was and will be discussed for years as VR placed MM into the position ......... did VR then force the impact or did it occur as a results of two immovable objects on a trajectory line.

Read back to Sepang tread, what I said .............. I clearly apportion blame one way and there is no M in the name of the rider I blamed.

The jury is out however on many aspects - minute as they may be

JPSLotus said:

Simoncelli did deserve that ride thru.

It was a move that he had no chance of making successfully on Dani short of stopping space and time to move out of the way. Every camera angle showed Simoncelli was never going to make it, he rode into a disappearing gap. While I appreciate his enthusiasm in trying to get past Dani, it was a stupid move that left Dani with a broken collarbone.

Click to expand...

But was he penalised for the move or the result of the move?

And if he was issued a ride through, why the calls for a full DQ of VR?

Both were deliberate moves albeit with seemingly obvious different intent

Gaz said:

And it is a move that is standard in many places - sports and courts of law in many regard all place the burden or onus of proof as being required PRIOR to conviction.

We have many times described issues as 'racing incident' based on our interpretation and whilst this issue goes outside the bounds of that description, what if Yamaha could prove that VR suffered brake issues and so on?

Yes hypothetical but if they could prove it and VR had been DQ'd by a black flag then VR would have a bigger right to CAS action (all hypothetical )

Sorry I will never buy their decision as being anything but self-serving with respect to the commercial considerations, and who the rider was. The delay was about trying to buy time for themselves to figure out if they could get away with a punishment that didn't involve any serious penalty.





Nope, wrong.

VR admits that he rode MM wide when RD investigate - thus he is penalised still for his action.

No slipper slope needed.





I have a brain thank you .............. my mother had me tested.

VR ...... up, he knows it, Uccio knows it, Talpa knows it, Pappawhatever knows it .................. there is very few people on earth who follow racing that do not know that VR ...... up. What they question is the level of .... up involved.

Some believe that the sole intention of the running wide was to make MM crash.

Others suspect that the running wide was VR making a statement (which VR admits) and that the crashing whilst a consequence was not the sole or original intent. Yes it happened, MM crashed and Rossi bolted ............ as you say like a hit and run merchant on a drunken Saturday night .......... poor form but it is also racing and intentional or not VR had gotten clear of the nemesis plus he could hardly go back and help pick him up.

My opinion doesn't and won't change as I have seen similar at club level (worse in one or two cases) and know that the offending riders in those cases were not DQ'd so that they could suffer a larger penalty post race.

It was evident post race that VR knew he was in the ...., the depth of that .... he did not know

Click to expand...

Motor racing isn't a court of law. Sure not every one gets penalized at the moment something happens, but the greatest deterrent is penalizing when the incident happens because it sends a message to all riders and drivers that there will be real repercussions.

I don't want to get into a discussion over hypotheticals truthfully, we could play the 'what about this situation card' endlessly. Only thing I'll say regarding brake issues, is that they have access to real time telemetry. That can easily be looked at right away by Race Direction. I know telemetry is usually checked in other series because it will give a very good idea about certain things before the excuses can come piling in.

The entire thing that kills all hypotheticals with this incident is the whole VR gesturing at MM prior to running him wide, and then looking directly back at him as he was running him wide.

But I will meet you part of the way and say okay, let him finish the race.

At the end of it, he should have been handed a disqualification and a 1 race ban after they talked to him. Admitting to running the guy wide was enough to do it. Either way the end result of everything should have been an automatic DQ and no participation in Valencia. Instead they opted for 3 points which was a total farce.

Gaz said:

But was he penalised for the move or the result of the move?

And if he was issued a ride through, why the calls for a full DQ of VR?

Both were deliberate moves albeit with seemingly obvious different intent

Click to expand...

Intent matters and always has mattered with regards to punishment not only in motor racing, but in real life. Sort of like how you have Manslaughter and Murder, it factors in for intent. It was obvious Simoncelli was attempting an audacious overtake.

VR was running a guy wide and then put him down to try and provide the evidence to his wacko Spanish mafia theory.

JPSLotus said:

Motor racing isn't a court of law. Sure not every one gets penalized at the moment something happens, but the greatest deterrent is penalizing when the incident happens because it sends a message to all riders and drivers that there will be real repercussions.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but the courts now impact into MotorSports, and not just the CAS as many sports end up in court for one reason or other (aside from injury claims).

In Oz, a number of sports have gone to the judicial system to beat/change/challenge an implemented rule or decision that had been applied by the ruling bodies.

It isn't good and would be far better if it never occurred, but sport is business.

JPSLotus said:

At the end of it, he should have been handed a disqualification and a 1 race ban after they talked to him. Admitting to running the guy wide was enough to do it. Either way the end result of everything should have been an automatic DQ and no participation in Valencia. Instead they opted for 3 points which was a total farce.

Click to expand...

And this is my whole point actually.

Let him finish the race, then issue a penalty as they can exclude post race whilst removing any possible issue (no matter how remote) of getting the penalty wrong for the crime committed (so to speak) were they to make a decision on the run.

IMO only (and another can of worms), he should have been sanctioned for the statements made prior to Sepang purely on the basis of the suggestion of collusion and impropriety of MM. The ruling body had opportunity to read the full transcript, view the footage and sanction ............ had they done so, maybe, just maybe the reaction to MM's perceived actions may have been different and the discussion would have stayed at 'what a ........ to say abc' and 'how good a race was PI'

JPSLotus said:

Intent matters and always has mattered with regards to punishment not only in motor racing, but in real life. Sort of like how you have Manslaughter and Murder, it factors in for intent. It was obvious Simoncelli was attempting an audacious overtake.

VR was running a guy wide and then put him down to try and provide the evidence to his wacko Spanish mafia theory.

Click to expand...

Absolutely intent matters and it is this where there is a very fine line.

Simoncelli was attempting a bold race move .................. but it was also a risky race move with possible/probably consequences that could result in a crash

VR's deliberate action was to run MM wide (personally but I believe that his arrogance of the time allowed him to admit this in itself as he did not think he could be penalised)

Both led to a crash with one being careless, negligent or dangerous, the other being deliberate in placing a rider into a dangerous position.

Same outcome, different intent and whilst at the time I agreed that MS should have been Black Flagged, there have been similar incidents since (not just VR) where flags have not been shown .

JPSLotus said:

Intent matters and always has mattered with regards to punishment not only in motor racing, but in real life. Sort of like how you have Manslaughter and Murder, it factors in for intent. It was obvious Simoncelli was attempting an audacious overtake.

VR was running a guy wide and then put him down to try and provide the evidence to his wacko Spanish mafia theory.

Click to expand...

Yes, but stripping him of the points post race would have been pretty much the same penalty. It was the reduction in penalty because of supposed provocation from MM where things got dodgy imo (EDIT I see reading all the posts you have already made the same point).

I have always had a different view on the Simoncelli incident which I realise is idiosyncratic; there is not much point discussing it now but I saw it as more akin to the Rossi/MM thing at the Argentinian race this year which I saw only on replay and quite recently. When an injury occurs it always changes perceptions as well.

povol said:

Not exactly, those 3 points will remain on his license till Valencia 2016, if he loses his mind again and gets even more points, it could cost him. My concern is that once he realizes he is not championship material on his own skills or without misfortune of others, he will become extremely bitter and start using his presence to ensure riders such as Marquez and Lorenzo cant win championships or match his records. With his ego, i can see a day when Dorna is forced to part ways with Rossi in a very unceremonious way.

Click to expand...

I have not attempted to study the points system, but I would assume points only accrue for the current championship season. The next year, they all start again on 0 points. Otherwise, Rossi would remain on 4 points until whatever round he lost the 1st.

Also, I assume once the participant reaches the points threshold, they get penalised but once. Rossi accumulated 4 points, he gets penalised, then goes back to 0 points. Done the crime, done the time.

I think I finally understand why it was so important for RD to make it clear Marquez broke no rules but still rode unethically. Rossi received a 3 point penalty. Which is to say, its not an actual penalty for Sepang, just a warning. If not for the 1 point, he would have started in his normal grid position.

So you can crash a rider deliberately and only receive a warning? Well yes says RD, because in this case there was provocation. Marquez rode unethically. This was I suppose cleaver in hindsight. Perhaps RD were scared to give Rossi the black flag because:

1. He likely would have refused to come in, and
2. he would have unleashed his lawyers.

Even now he still unleashed the lawyers to the CAS. But his problem is RD did not directly penalise him. The 3 points would have effectively mean nothing more than a slap on the wrist if not for the already outstanding 1 point.

RD delayed the decision for two reasons I can see:

1. They had already decided Marquez was unethical. They wanted to go over every move he made to find even the slightest hint of him initiating contact or breaking a rule. They were not reviewing the race to check on Rossi, what he had done was clear enough.

2. They wanted to get legal advise first, because they were concerned they would likely be seeing Rossi in court.

birdman said:

I have not attempted to study the points system, but I would assume points only accrue for the current championship season. The next year, they all start again on 0 points. Otherwise, Rossi would remain on 4 points until whatever round he lost the 1st.

Click to expand...

Birdy, I haven't checked but thought that they changed the system a year ago such that the points remained on your licence for a period of 12 months from when the points were accrued.

From memory when initially applied it was as you suggest, all cleared after the last race but then it meant that there was no way to apply penalty points with an effective deterrent at the last round (ie. apply a point to mean start from rear of grid next race etc)

birdman said:

Also, I assume once the participant reaches the points threshold, they get penalised but once. Rossi accumulated 4 points, he gets penalised, then goes back to 0 points. Done the crime, done the time.

Click to expand...

I believe that it keeps accumulating (will see if I can find) as the penalties for high level of penalty points accrue from start at rear of grid, to pit lane, to races and so on



EDIT.

All Classes - Effective 2014
Penalty Points
“In 2013 any Penalty Points imposed were wiped from the record of the rider at the end of the season. From 2014 penalty points will remain on the record of the rider for 365 days after which they will be cancelled. This means that a rider will have a rolling tally of penalty points with new points being added as incurred and points being deducted on their anniversary.