Now this is a topic that concerns us all, whether it be within KA, or within any other jurisdiction in karting. The use of non-compliant fuel is simply, at its best, blatant cheating. Or is it?
I wish to draw your attention to this press release:
https://www.kartsportnews.com/2018/08/25/fuel-anomalies-cause-champi...
It is interesting that in this press release, it would appear that the 4 competitors involved have been deemed to have done nothing more than to purchase and use a fuel that was supplied by an approved, at that time, supplier who sold a non-compliant fuel, while the supplier believed the fuel to be as labelled, as an approved fuel.
Under the circumstances, and as acknowledged in the press release, the 4 competitors have purchased the fuel in good faith, believing the fuel to be an approved compliant fuel. The supplier has now informed us all, having gone back to his supplier, that a monumental stuff up in the labelling and supply of the fuel has occurred, so it would seem.
There is virtually no way possible that the competitors would be likely to know that the fuel was non-compliant.
So what is there penalty you might ask?
Exclusion from the competition. They have been spared the further indignity of having to face a disciplinary tribunal for the long holiday normally associated with the use of a non-compliant fuel. Small mercies.
Bullshit say I.
Have we now come to situation where each and every competitor must purchase an horrendously expensive fuel analyser to ensure that the fuel that some KA approved hopeless outfit that few if any have ever heard of is legitimate and as approved? Since clearly the competitor is responsible for the integrity of some KA approved fuel unheard of to the general Australian consumer.
Because, otherwise without this expensive fuel analyser, there is no way of knowing just what you have purchased.
Another question also arises. Were these 4 competitors who used this non-compliant fuel the only ones to do so, or were they the only ones tested who were using this shit?
I see that this shit fuel is no longer an approved fuel. Bit late really, isn't it?
The guilty party here is KA, surely. As the authority responsible for approving the fuel, they are the party most guilty of the offence of allowing competitors to be caught up in their own ineptitude. They also are the party with the best access to the equipment or firm conducting the fuel analysis.
So KA should now do the right thing and own up to the setting up of the conditions for the competitors to fail, and re-instate them with all points.
I also wonder whether there might have been some financial benefit to KA in approving this fuel, rather than to allow a local supplier to supply a suitable Premium Unleaded grade of fuel, with no kickback?
If KA did indeed receive a financial or other benefit from the approval and use of this fuel, then surely it must compound their complicity in this farce?
Comments5
Terry, you're on the money here. KA have failed and are fundamentally guilty...
I doubt that the KA ineptitude mob will reverse anything ..the 4 people named will just be labelled fuel cheats by their peers forever and a day, with no recourse...but that's the way this parliament of KA dimwits operate. And the KA followers will continue to simply cowtail to whatever KA do or say...
KA = Fair and just..???? ...Fair bastards and just see you on Tuesday..!!!!
Hey Guys ,
I am no lover of KA but there should not be unfair bias when levelling criticism at the organisation that we foolishly put in control.
We have all been stewards and have had to impose penalties in accordance with the rule book whether we believe it was fair or not !
The fuel was the issue
1. it was previously legal
2. supplier admitsĀ there was a stuff up in the manufacture of this batchĀ (hardly KAs fault )
3. Divers who used the fuel are now outside the rules ( I know not their faultĀ but they have to be excluded)
KA quite rightly did not refer them to tribunal as they (KA) acknowledgeĀ that the drivers did not knowingly break the rules
They (KA) have taken steps to exclude the fuel supplier from further participation.
I suspect that in a pre-emptive move and with the knowledge of hindsight ....
KA would be well advised to test all control fuels prior to competition to ensure their validity
Very unfortunate and I feel for those involved which does include everyone involved
Why not refer to a tribunal (appeals)?
Let the facts be tabled and then the 'guilty' can be exonerated.
I have a couple of comments re the above replies.
First, fuel legalityĀ is determined as a judge of fact.Ā The penaltyĀ cannot be appealed.
I do wonder whether there may be some recourse to a remedy in an expensive civil proceeding. And at what cost? Particularly if the appellant was unsuccessful in his appeal.
Re Ian's comments, as former officials, we have all been there and done that. Rules are rules, and the penalties are the penalties.
In this instance, it seems to me that KA must have felt some guilt, as they haveĀ deviated from the manual process, in not proceeding to a tribunal to apply the, what was in my time, mandatory extended holiday.
That they chose to not take the full path, surely they have broken their own rules, and if they were prepared to partially not follow procedures, then surely they would have been no less negligent in completely ignoring the relevant procedure altogether.
Notwithstanding the rules, the competitors had absolutely no knowledge that the fuel was non-compliant. Nor did KA at the time that it was purchased, so it would seem, nor even did the importer, until the smelly stuff apparently came into contact with the fan. The 4 competitorsĀ just appear to have happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time to receive the non-compliant fuel.
One has to wonder what might have been the outcome had someone else, not pointing fingers, or naming names,Ā been so unfortunate?
At least when a particular local commercial fuel outlet was specified for control fuel, the fuel would have come from the one underground tank, and almost 100% from the most recent delivery. And with the testing equipment capable of recording such things as additives and oxygen content, such as must have been used here, if you were silly enough to buy fuel elsewhere that didn't meet spec, then you deserved to have the book thrown at you. And I would have expected that it would have been.
In this case, it would appear that the competitors purchased fuel that, as per the supplementary regulations was supplied as complying with the specifications laid down by KA.
To penalise them as they have been in this caseĀ is a bit likeĀ prosecuting a victim of food poisoning from food consumed in a flash restaurant, for consuming said contaminated food, and letting the restaurant off scott free.Ā
I rest my case.