"I think the worst part of the camera ruling is the fact that the scrutes won't accept the footage in a protest/appeal unless it is under their control... its a load of rubbish. "
You possibly haven't considered why they insist.
The footage is expected to be 'evidence', and as such it has to be traceable and accountable. If the footage can have been downloaded and altered, then it is just no use in a judicial enquiry, because if it should go all the way to the National tribunal, then a high priced lawyer will simply ask " Was there a possibility that this was tampered with, was it out of the CoC or Stewards control for any time at all?" If the answer is "yes", then the footage is not admissable as evidence.
Yes, this is karting and it's only a sport and you cannot believe or understand why anyone would go to those lengths....just as many people cannot understand why people will modify their equipment to be non-compliant and then claim to have won events; but we know that they do.
The issue is not whether immediately a camera might show a particular view of an incident, but whether that would stand up in two years time when the case came to the MSA for adjudication.
After all, if you were accused of loading someone and the entire case rested on their camera footage, on even a couple of frames that showed you made contact but the camera had been in their possession for the half hour until the complaint was made, would you feel happy that the evidence could not have been tampered with?
Not 'had not been tampered with" but "could not have been tampered with" because that is what a lawyer will be looking for.
So the MSA rules have to state that only material under constant MSA control, having an intact chain of evidence, can be used in an MSA hearing, even at the club/ CoC level.
|
|