Belgium 2008 GP - Court of Appeal Thread

[WhiteBlue]

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.ns ... penelement

here you can read the rules of ICA proceedings. from rule 21:

Independently of the parties to the appeal, the ICA may hear any competitor in a major FIA Championship referred to in Article 1, who so requests and who could be directly and significantly affected by the decision to be taken. It is the responsibility of such parties to send a written request to the ICA for a hearing.

advise for competitors: politick like hell and keep a good legal team if you want to become champs. also get your friendly FIA officials wined, dined and 69ned!


http://grandprix.com/gpe/rr783.html

race report Fuji 2007 by GP.com Encyclopedia

The final point went to Tonio Liuzzi - the first of the year for Scuderia Toro Rosso - and a book could be written of Tonio's race for he started in the pitlane, was a lap down almost immediately but then fought back with much brio and a couple of lurid spins.

Later Tonio would lose his - and Toro Rosso's first points of the year - having failed to see a yellow flag when he was passing Adrian Sutil. So Spyker got the point instead.

So Spyker/Force India lost that point because they forgot to make a request and the FIA did not care about it. they could have shot that thing down if they were as concerned as they are now in the McLaren case. where is the fairness?

[Ciro Pabón]

Now that the tide is going down, I can (finally!) give you my full opinion on this issue. To save some time, I'll copy what I wrote elsewhere, at a smaller forum where I have more leeway, so I apologize if you've already read it (I also have to apologize if you actually read this in its entirety! ):

Well, I'm not as sure as Hamilton fans about who deserves the WDC.

However, I doubt very much that Massa has a clear chance. I'm positive that the self-proclamed "best driver in the world" will win.

If (and that's a long if) Massa wins, I bet Alonso and most spanish "spafiosi" (which are not precisely Hamilton fans) are going to need the same kind of surgery that the old nun of the story needed. The story goes like this:

A very old nun was, ehem, raped. The Mother Superior takes the old nun to a plastic surgeon, explains to him what has happened and asks the surgeon for a "special" plastic surgery to correct the consequences of the raping.

The surgeon replies: "Well, Mother Superior, why on Earth would she need her virginity restored by plastic surgery? After all, Mother Therese is, what? Eighty years old?".

The Mother Superior explains: "No, no, you do not understand. The operation we need is not for restoring her virginity, but to erase the permanent smile of satisfaction from her face!"

All I can think now is that the drama goes on. IMHO, that's what fans love: to bitch about F1.

I know the mood, I'm a Mod, it's my motto.

If people were so offended by Mosley and Ferrari, they wouldn't spend thousands of gigabytes discusing their most intricated intentions: they would go home and watch, I don't know, some sport with more action, like soccer (yawn) or cricket (double yawn).

Actually, I'm waiting anxiously for more drama and "soap-operish" races. After all, if we simply wanted to know who's the best driver, we would give them the same cars and good tracks (and call it EUSCAR, maybe, instead of NASCAR?). But, where is the emotion in that? And, more important: where is the money in that?. Europeans (and the rest of the world, if I may add) are not fans of the "shoot-from-the-hip" american, simpler system.

However, even the simpler human activities can make themselves a tangle of confusion. I think that the ruling is good, we need to know what the referee says, not if he's right (humans are never right, me excepted). Most people in the world (americans are, again, an exception) agrees that it's better for the referee to make a mistake than to have to wait for some chain of command to decide if the appeal, counter-appeal and constitutional court appeal are resolved.

If we need for lawyers and appeals to be resolved to know the result, then the sport goes down quickly, like cyclism is doing with itself. We, apparently, are delighted with the petty issues, not with the substance: who among us is able to follow a legal logic after the race? (hi, shir0!).

All I expect is for the same guys to declare loudly: "This is the end of the rope for me! I will never watch this phony racing again!". These guys should save the file in their computers, because they're going to use it again and again over the years.

Moreover, if we really start to appeal every decision, we would be depriving petrolheads of arguing for weeks about whose fault was the crash at Jerez, 10 years ago and if the temperature of the tanks was one degree (one degree!) over the mark at Sao Paulo last year. We would be depriving ourselves of enlightening our depressing jobs by cheating at work and of consuming some of their precious work time writing about the irrelevant issues that they love to discuss endlessly.

Finally, you won't be able to read my short, concise, brilliant posts. In my entirely unbiased opinion (hey, it's not only Hamilton who has a good opinion of himself!), if you take away disputes from racing, that'll be the day that a south american would win clearly, as we always do. So, in the end, all I want to say is:

Go, Hamilton! (notice I don't say where to).

[Sawtooth-spike]

Its almost getting like boxing.

Maybe i should pop max an email next season to find out whos gonna win so i can put some money on them at the bookies.

I think everybody on this forum can agree with the point that they just want to watch the Race. All this BS (both sides) is making Motor sport look like a joke.

Do u think this weekend anybody will check with Charlie if there pass was "ok" as his point of view holds no value anymore.

[Shaddock]

A couple of things stand out from this verdict.

1) Ferrari tried to get the case thrown out by questioning the time scale of the appeal.

"Ferrari raised the question of whether or not the appeal submitted against the
contested decision had been notified within the time limits stipulated in the
Rules of the Court."

2) The FIA will only enforce their own rules when they feel like it or somebody complains and reminds them of what the rules are.

The Toro Rosso case; "the appeal against a decision to impose a 25-second penalty was admissible". The reason, "However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case" =D>

[mcdenife]

Ciro wrote:
we need to know what the referee says, not if he's right (humans are never right, me excepted). Most people in the world (americans are, again, an exception) agrees that it's better for the referee to make a mistake than to have to wait for some chain of command to decide if the appeal, counter-appeal and constitutional court appeal are resolved.

Very good Ciro. That is precisely the point. People are not aggrieved because the ref made a mistake, ie its not really about whether or not LH cut chicane or whether or not he gave the advantage back. But rather the perception that the 'chain of command' decided the outcome necessitating the appeal in the first place.

During the Argentina-England 1986 world cup match, the ref mistakenly but very rightly allowed the hand-of- god goal. Now imaging if 2 hours after the match the 'chain of command' decide not only to reverse the decision but award the match to England, claiming that the first goal gave Argentina a phsycological boost or advantage allowing them to go on and win the match.
I can tell you that not only will there be lawyers, appeals, counter appeals and constitional appeals but also blood in the street.

Ciro again:
If we need for lawyers and appeals to be resolved to know the result, then the sport goes down quickly, like cyclism is doing with itself. We, apparently, are delighted with the petty issues, not with the substance: who among us is able to follow a legal logic after the race? (hi, shir0!).

Quite right but this is what we get foisted with always and perhaps what people are really aggrieved about. But perhaps the sport needs to go down very quickly in order to find which way is up.

[myurr]

Totally agree mcdenife.

I want to watch the sport. I wouldn't mind controversial decisions if I had faith in the impartiality of the judges and regulators. The problem is that they no longer have my trust - there have been too many instances of the FIA creatively interpreting the rules without any semblance of consistency (except, arguably, to the benefit of one particular favoured team). And therefore my default and reasonable assumption is that they are at it again.

I believe that this is a similar stance that many who follow the sport employ - and if Max had one ounce of decency in him (I do not believe that he does) then he would be making it his mission to restore the worlds faith in the organisation that he manages. He could do this by employing a panel of permanent stewards who have the respect of all the teams, by those stewards being contactable by the teams during the race so that they can seek clarifications, and by all decisions by the stewards being followed by publication of their reasoning. The FIA should also change the rules so that technology approved by the FIA at the beginning of the season can only be subsequently banned after that season has been completed.

However this is not going to happen as the man is a complete ass. For example when he won his vote of confidence he stated that he was never planning on, and would not be, seeking re-election when his current term ended. Notice how he has now stated that he might well do just that.

[axle]

My final thoughts on the whole episode.
1. I would prefer to see the return of a single or three full time professional stewards, with a good deal of race/motorsport experience.
2. I believe that with 1. we should see a situation whereby the final classification cannot be changed WITHOUT a hearing, in which the full facts can be explained.
3. The race stewards must make more rapid decisions/punishments. Someone needs to watch the main battles etc and be on hand to make rapid decisions, ie just like how the teams ask Charlie Whiting for his view, but someone with official power.
4. All cars should be painted red, to confuse the FIA <-joke!
5. As per DC's and other comments - chicane cutting must have an immediate penalty, ie driving round bollards...high kerbs...something to make it the penultimate resort (ie short of having a crash), and always slower than taking the corner properly.

Roll on Singapore.

[Project Four]

Totally agree Axle, with all of your points.

Personally, I really did not think that the appeal would have been overturned and I can not argue that it wasn’t, based on the FIA rule book.

However, the ruling is only that the appeal is inadmissible not that Hamilton should have been penalised.

This is really crap that the top echelon of a world-wide sport is so poor administrated and run. At the race McLaren asked a FIA appointed official ‘Hamilton gave the place back was that OK’ and was told yes that is okay, only for after the race retrospectively to be punished. If FIA guidance had been clearer and accurate at the time McLaren asked for guidance, Hamilton could have again ceded the place to Raikkonen.

Hamilton could therefore end up losing the WDC because of the poor management of the FIA.

With regards to the Luizzi incident at last years Japanese GP, during the appeal FIA officials misrepresented the views of Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at last years Japanese GP. FIA claimed that Scott Andrews had admitted he had been wrong to impose a time penalty on Tony Liuzzi and that Scott Andrews had confirmed as much in a telephone conversation with Charlie Whiting. This issue was crucial to McLaren’s case as they were relying on this decision setting a precedent. The court was told that McLaren were not content with FIA word (I wonder why ?) on the matter and sent senior officials to track down Scott Andrews. Scott Andrews was asked by McLaren if he agreed he had made a mistake, he was adamant that he had not and offered to put his views in writing to the court. He also stated that ‘he was extremely surprised by the content of the FIA email and that it was grossly inaccurate and misleading’. Scott Andrews went on to state that at no time during his conversation with Whiting had he been asked if he had made a mistake in imposing a time penalty on Liuzzi, ‘Had he [Whiting] done so, the answer would have been no’, he wrote.

Lastly, I would like to further highlight FIA inconstancies and poor stewardship, Raikkonen broke the law that Hamilton was punished for three times during the Belgium GP. On the first lap he was pushed wide at La Source and was off the track and got a better run at and overtook Massa, on the second lap Hamilton spun and Raikkonen ran wide again at La Source and again got a better run at Hamilton and then after the Hamilton incident Raikkonen again gained advantage by going off track and getting a better run. But, was never once investigated or punished.

So, ‘Who police’s the police’

[shir0]

Actually, I'm waiting anxiously for more drama and "soap-operish" races. After all, if we simply wanted to know who's the best driver, we would give them the same cars and good tracks (and call it EUSCAR, maybe, instead of NASCAR?). But, where is the emotion in that? And, more important: where is the money in that?. Europeans (and the rest of the world, if I may add) are not fans of the "shoot-from-the-hip" american, simpler system.

My sentiments exactly. I want to watch the race in it's entirety...drama, confusion and movie-ish twists/turns of events!!

And I'm definitely not an American...

...even the simpler human activities can make themselves a tangle of confusion. I think that the ruling is good, we need to know what the referee says, not if he's right(humans are never right, me excepted -oookkkaayy... i'll grant you that -shir0). Most people in the world (americans are, again, an exception) agrees that it's better for the referee to make a mistake than to have to wait for some chain of command to decide if the appeal, counter-appeal and constitutional court appeal are resolved.

...If we need for lawyers and appeals to be resolved to know the result, then the sport goes down quickly, like cyclism is doing with itself. We, apparently, are delighted with the petty issues, not with the substance:

I'm agreeable to this. But then put it in the rules that no steward decision (whatever it may be, right or wrong, controversial or not, made after the race or not, if it changes the final classification or not) NOT APPEALABLE AND ALWAYS FINAL. Just make sure we have a third party panel of unbiased and permanent stewards. Should be comprised of people NOT CONNECTED to the sport in any way, but have been given sufficient exposure/knowledge OF the sport.

This, may I add however, is very unrealistic and bordering on the impossible. So realistically, just a set of permanent stewards would do but still MAKE THE RULES SAYS THEIR DECISION IS ALWAYS FINAL. Any unruly and out of place persistence to appeal (or even to protest) should result in disqualification for that round in question.

who among us is able to follow a legal logic after the race? (hi, shir0!)

heheheheh...you got me there, Ciro. Although, for the record, I had never read the "sporting" rules in it's entirety until this last couple of weeks

My final thoughts on the whole episode.
1. I would prefer to see the return of a single or three full time professional stewards, with a good deal of race/motorsport experience.
2. I believe that with 1. we should see a situation whereby the final classification cannot be changed WITHOUT a hearing, in which the full facts can be explained.
3. The race stewards must make more rapid decisions/punishments. Someone needs to watch the main battles etc and be on hand to make rapid decisions, ie just like how the teams ask Charlie Whiting for his view, but someone with official power.
4. All cars should be painted red, to confuse the FIA <-joke!
5. As per DC's and other comments - chicane cutting must have an immediate penalty, ie driving round bollards...high kerbs...something to make it the penultimate resort (ie short of having a crash), and always slower than taking the corner properly.

#2 & #3 contradict your #1...it will still amount to the same thing: LOTS AND LOTS OF CONTROVERSY AND DAMAGING APPEALS PROCESS. There should be a permanent panel of stewards whose decison/s are ALWAYS FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE. A REALISTIC/PRACTICAL thing to do is to make it, say 1 person nominated by each team ,which makes a panel of 10 stewards; and decision/s are made by half-plus-one majority voting.

point #4: could never be, as McLaren fans will have a permanent fit.

point #5: make it so that every chicane has a wall about 1.5 meters from the kerbs. That'll make over-zealous overtaking menuvers followed by whining about results athing of the past.

I know...I know... it's unsafe, but as Lewis The Great said: they're race drivers, they know the risks. That way, we can see him perform the same overtaking maneuvers he's so cavalier about, but this time with walls to remove any controversy.

The Toro Rosso case; "the appeal against a decision to impose a 25-second penalty was admissible". The reason, "However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case" =D>

Give the Toro Rosso case a rest. It clearly states in the same ruling for that case that:

"Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case."

That means the FIA deems that case not sufficient as a definitive precedent for any future case of the same nature, which I have to add, this whole current ruckus is all about.

However, the ruling is only that the appeal is inadmissible not that Hamilton should have been penalised.

Not quite so. McLaren's appeal, according to the facts of the hearing, are:

McLaren claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
– annul the contested decision.

The decision to penalise Hamilton has already been made BY THE STEWARDS, who has sole authority to do so. This is why Mclaren is appealing to have the decision to penalise Hamilton, be annulled. THE FIA-ICA cannot penalise Hamilton in this case.

The ICA, deeming that McLaren's appeal to be inadmissible as founded upon the 2008 F1 Sporting Code, also consequently upheld the stewards decision to mete out the drive-though penalty.

Do u think this weekend anybody will check with Charlie if there pass was "ok" as his point of view holds no value anymore.

No. Because most of the chicanes has walls less than a meter's distance from the chicane's kerbs. Therefore, no chicane-cutting-passes. Mind you, there will still be chicane straight-lining although I'm pretty sure it will be it will not be for passing. Just normal, over-the-kerbs turning. Oh, I'm really looking forward to the passing actions at turns 1-3, 7, 10, 14 and 16!!!

[WhiteBlue]

So the FIA unclarified the perfectly unambigous rule about giving back an advantage from cutting the chicane by the Spa scandal.

we got total confusion!!!

And then they clarified it before Monza to be different by creating a new requirement of the "second corner pass"

The beauty in this is that at least the total rules ambiguity hsan't increased but is roughly the same.

We just had a scam to transfer some points to Ferrari and make the championship closer run.

[Project Four]

The Toro Rosso case; "the appeal against a decision to impose a 25-second penalty was admissible". The reason, "However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case" =D>

Give the Toro Rosso case a rest. It clearly states in the same ruling for that case that:

"Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case."

That means the FIA deems that case not sufficient as a definitive precedent for any future case of the same nature, which I have to add, this whole current ruckus is all about.

I do no think you can give the Toro Rosso case a rest, however what is the issue is not the 25 second penalty it is that FIA misrepresented the views of its chief steward and if McLaren had not sought him out this would have been taken as fact during the court of appeal.

However, the ruling is only that the appeal is inadmissible not that Hamilton should have been penalised.

Not quite so. McLaren's appeal, according to the facts of the hearing, are:

McLaren claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
– annul the contested decision.

The decision to penalise Hamilton has already been made BY THE STEWARDS, who has sole authority to do so. This is why Mclaren is appealing to have the decision to penalise Hamilton, be annulled. THE FIA-ICA cannot penalise Hamilton in this case.

The ICA, deeming that McLaren's appeal to be inadmissible as founded upon the 2008 F1 Sporting Code, also consequently upheld the stewards decision to mete out the drive-though penalty.

I can't see anywhere in the decision where FIA upheld the stewards decision, but will beg to differ if wrong.

The last page of the decision states:

On the substance

28. in view of the foregoing, it follows that there is no need to examine the substance of the appeal submitted by McLaren

On these grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

2. Orders the Appellant to pay costs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal

[/quote][/quote]

[gcdugas]

I will exercise the ultimate poor taste and quote myself....

The FIA are not too shy to blatantly heist the WDC title and give it to a Ferrari driver. Does anyone remember 2003 and Michelin-gate? There the FIA had to contradict its own tire measuring system employed since 1998 when the grooved tires were introduced. To further guarantee the title heist of 2003 they dubiously DQ'd Monty at Indy and shut down the biggest threat to Ferrari. So making up the rules as you go along is standard fare for the FIA. And contradicting its previous positions such as the Liuzzi case or a tried and true tire measuring method is no problem for the ever creative lawyers at the FIA.

They can do as they please. Where are the fans going to go? Where are the sponsors going to go? Where did they go after the heist of 2003?

And for the record the FIA can even retroactively take away WDC points from races long afterward. In 1997 Schumacher and Ferrari were stripped of ALL their season's points retroactively, but only when it didn't matter. The point being that even after Brazil this year the FIA can transfer the title to Ferrari should it serve their purposes.

The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn anything from history. The FIA are not impartial, they are not concerned about the image of the sport, and they are not ashamed to be blatant about it. They will manipulate everything and anything they can to deliver the title to Ferrari and they manifestly did so as recently as 2003. They will reverse their previous rulings, they will contradict themselves and do anything it takes and they will do so without shame. Charlie Whiting is just another shill in the Max and Bernie Maranello show. Charlie now has zero stature because his rulings, his word is disposable.

I want to know why CVC and Bernie are so silent when public perception of race rigging by the officials certainly can't help the image of their investment. Are they simple content to live with open corruption or are they thinking that there is money to be made by a closer points race? Maybe they are modeling their business after Don King!

[timbo]

Does anyone remember 2003 and Michelin-gate? There the FIA had to contradict its own tire measuring system employed since 1998 when the grooved tires were introduced. To further guarantee the title heist of 2003 they dubiously DQ'd Monty at Indy and shut down the biggest threat to Ferrari.

Yep, it was the same championship when MS won with 6 victories and only 2 points more than KR who won 1 (one) race. You think new points system (imposed by FIA) helped him?
And what about last year when they DQ'd McLaren team but no the drivers?

[shir0]

Give the Toro Rosso case a rest. It clearly states in the same ruling for that case that:

"Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case."

That means the FIA deems that case not sufficient as a definitive precedent for any future case of the same nature, which I have to add, this whole current ruckus is all about.

I do no think you can give the Toro Rosso case a rest, however what is the issue is not the 25 second penalty it is that FIA misrepresented the views of its chief steward and if McLaren had not sought him out this would have been taken as fact during the court of appeal.

About giving the OLD STR case a rest: we can. That quote I've posted above was taken from the decision itself. The ICA's decision for this Mclaren/LH case just restated the same quote above, from the decision of the OLD STR case. It was a done deal LOOOONNGG BEFORE this McL/LH case.

About your view that "if McLaren had not sought him (the chief steward in the OLD STR case) out this would have been taken as fact during the court of appeal; uhhmm...we'd never know now, that's for sure. And since it wasn't taken for a fact in the CURRENT decision, the point is now just, as lawyers would say, "moot and academic".

... McLaren's appeal, according to the facts of the hearing, are:

McLaren claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
– annul the contested decision.

The decision to penalise Hamilton has already been made BY THE STEWARDS, who has sole authority to do so. This is why Mclaren is appealing to have the decision to penalise Hamilton, be annulled. THE FIA-ICA cannot penalise Hamilton in this case.

The ICA, deeming that McLaren's appeal to be inadmissible as founded upon the 2008 F1 Sporting Code, also consequently upheld the stewards decision to mete out the drive-though penalty.

I can't see anywhere in the decision where FIA upheld the stewards decision, but will beg to differ if wrong.

The last page of the decision states:

On the substance

28. in view of the foregoing, it follows that there is no need to examine the substance of the appeal submitted by McLaren

On these grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

2. Orders the Appellant to pay costs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal

Let me restate what I've mentioned above:
"The ICA, deeming that McLaren's appeal to be inadmissible as founded upon the 2008 F1 Sporting Code, also consequently upheld the stewards decision to mete out the drive-though penalty."

The logic goes like this.
1) STEWARDS > Penalise Hamilton BUT names Vodafone-Mclaren Mercedes as well in the decision. Documents it and makes it FINAL. Take note that as of this point, as the rules prescribe, this decision is not appealable.

2) MCLAREN > Being named in the decision for the penalty, they (as a COMPETITOR) lodge an appeal by making proper documentation in the prescribed amount of time after the decision for the penalty was made. Submits the documentation for the appeal to the ICA. The goals of the appeal were, as I have mentioned above: i) have the ICA deem the appeal admissible AND, if the appeal is admissible, ii) hear the facts then ANNUL/INVALIDATE/VOID the Stewards' decision.

Mind you, even in the courts of law, lodging an appeal does not mean the ruling of the lower court has already been overturned/reversed. It is still final until the time comes that the Appellate Court has already made a DECISION TO INVALIDATE the lower-courts ruling. SO...the stewards ruling to penalize LH is still held as final and executory, even at this point. There are no provisions for Temporary Restraining Orders set in the F1 Sporting Code. It would be hilarious if it does have it.

Now we come to...

3) ICA > heard all arguments of all affected parties. Makes a decision on the first part of the appeal's goal. Which is, for the appeal to be considered "admissible" by the ICA. The ruling however, was to deem the appeal inadmissible as founded upon the Sporting Code. Thus, ICA found no more need to make a decision on the second point of McLaren's appeal, which was asking the ICA to invalidate the stewards' ruling.

SO...

First, what was the stewards' decision again?: Drive-through penalty for LH, which turned into a 25-sec penalty since the "incident" happend within the final 5 laps of the race. This decision is founded upon the rules saying IT IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO APPEAL.

What was the ruling: APPEAL IS INADMISSIBLE. The Rule upon which the decision was based, and thus the decision for the penalty itself, is upheld.

There is no ICA ruling to invalidate the initial stewards decision to penalize Hamilton. Thus, by context of all the facts in the ICA's decision, the original decision of the stewards to penalize Hamilton, stands at this point.

Now it brings us back to the fact that THERE WAS ALREADY A DECISION TO PENALIZE HAMILTON by the stewards on the day of the Belgian Grand Prix. And during the day of the Gran Prix, ONLY THE STEWARDS CAN HAND OUT PENALTIES and not the ICA.

As a side note, when I was composing this reply, I kept on typing C-I-A instead of I-C-A. I'd like to blame it on my partial dyslexia but i'm not so sure....i'm sensing there's a different reason for this

[axle]

Project Four said the ICA decision didn't uphold the stewards decision. This is correct. By not talking about, saying any appeal is inadmissable, they have neither agreed nor disagreed. Therefore you can't say it's upheld.

As for my points being critisised, I think they are a damn sight better than the current system. I don't see what was so contradictory, maybe I didn't explain it well enough for you.