[ERC] Royal Rally of Scandinavia 2026

[WRCStan]

Let me confirm it's a comparison and I don't actually have evidence to say you're a racist, nor have power to ban you.

But you are keen to clear your name, just like the driver in the days after.

He is not my friend. I've only seen what the rest of the internet saw, except the bit that makes him a guilty man. And I think there is problem with the process.

And somebody who supports AI would question it too.

[WRCStan]

Similar theme, comments on this guy have been despicable too: https://nypost.com/2026/05/30/sports...t-french-open/

[wyler]

You really misread my post, particularly paragraphs 1 and 5.

all your "paragraphs" are based on a partial video, barely audible, when on the opposite side there's an audition report, validated by the signature of the drivers themself that confirms the entirety of the reports, both gesture and wording. no appeal was submitted, nor any further legal action (afak).

i definitely "misread" 'cause i couldn't believe people can fake arguments to justify man's sexual misbehaviour.
sadly, that's probably still a thing.

[WRCStan]

You misread because you didn't read the IF at the start of my post, and you've an assumption that I'm defending him. I'm not going to apologise for applying critical thought.

Please can you link to this signed 'audition' report, it would help as I've not seen it. Thanks.

[wyler]

You misread because you didn't read the IF at the start of my post, and you've an assumption that I'm defending him. I'm not going to apologise for applying critical thought.

Please can you link to this signed 'audition' report, it would help as I've not seen it. Thanks.

https://app-cdn.sportity.com/59b112b...den%202026.pdf

[WRCStan]

https://app-cdn.sportity.com/59b112b...den%202026.pdf

Thanks, but there's no validatory signatures like you said, unless you can point them out? The timeline alone suggests refusal to agree with it but 'Failure of the competitor to acknowledge within reasonable time' after allegedly having been verbally told of the decision tells me that they didn't agree with it. And I'm guessing the exonerating footage was inaccessible in parc ferme.

I think 'well they didn't appeal or take legal action' attitude is deaf to reality. It immediately costs thousands of Euros and an unknown lot more.

[wyler]

Thanks, but there's no validatory signatures like you said, unless you can point them out? The timeline alone suggests refusal to agree with it but 'Failure of the competitor to acknowledge within reasonable time' after allegedly having been verbally told of the decision tells me that they didn't agree with it. And I'm guessing the exonerating footage was inaccessible in parc ferme.

I think 'well they didn't appeal or take legal action' attitude is deaf to reality. It immediately costs thousands of Euros and an unknown lot more.

u can use it as you please, still it is a validated document by the direction of race and fia, with declaration of the drivers in audition quoted inside. ( this means the driver were present at the audition, they could give their version and give the video and anything else to prove their position. that's the palce to disagree, not receiving the document. any quote of disagreement from the drivers would have been quoted as well. but there was none).
the fact that the driver didn't bother to acknowledge the document doesn't affect it's validity or conclusion, just the poor handling of the driver once again.

i think money as nothing to do with the appeal, they know that's correct, it's just easier to comment on social to wash it a bit.

[WRCStan]

they could give their version and give the video and anything else to prove their position.

Not if the video was on an SD card in parc ferme. But it's up to the prosecution to request/provide evidence. Nobody has to prove they did not do something.

that's the palce to disagree, not receiving the document. ... the fact that the driver didn't bother to acknowledge the document doesn't affect it's validity or conclusion

Nonsense.

You can only disagree with the document upon reading the document, not beforehand. The document is supposed to be an accurate summary of the hearing, not the charges. Signing one is not admission of guilt of associated charges for example, depending on the wording of the document. The driver could have refuted the claims in the hearing, which could have been accurately documented, the dsq could still have been applied, and then the driver could have signed it, which may have helped down the appeals line.

So what does the driver/team not signing the document signal to you? There's no logical explanation for any of this. You think he was proud of sex pest behaviour in the hearing, but changed his mind after leaving? Is that realistic/logical?

It's important for if the driver does pursue a defamation case for example like mooted, the document alone cannot be used as any acknowledgement or agreement with accuracy of what was said or happened in the hearing.

i think money as nothing to do with the appeal, they know that's correct, it's just easier to comment on social to wash it a bit.

Once that decision was made, you cannot appeal without paying the unrefundable fee plus the refundable deposit within one hour.

---

I will use it as I please, I've spent my whole life scrutinising and appealing miscarriages of authority and process, defending the unfortunate caught up in a real, imperfect world, and that's all I'm looking out for. You on the other hand have condemned a, possibly, innocent man, with no proof. For 800 years in my country we have had this saying "innocent until proven guilty", the court of public opinion have lynched him.

As I'm repeating myself and you're not reading what you need to read to have anything but a biased argument or possibly arguing for arguing sake, there's nothing more to converse on this.