But it isn't a statement of fact.  And that is the issue .. No "factual" evidence has been seen or published, therefore the SCB shouldn't have come out saying that the rules were breached as, clearly so far, there is zero evidence to prove that "fact"...  The ref made his decision based on the (inconclusive) evidence that showed that Cook "could" have ridden the white line and not crossed it.. Using the evidence available to him, he made the only decision he could, and should have...  The SCB statement is, apart from how poorly written it is, quite baffling, and subjective, so not factual, and leaves both Pooles' victory, and the ref hanging out to dry somewhat...  

Thanks for that. We are getting somewhere! We both agree that the statement is poorly written (and wasn't well proof read before its initial issue). I have read the regulation a number of times. As the regulations don't include the words 'wholly' or 'completely', or indeed any other similar words, then any interpretation is just that - an interpretation. The relevant regulations also do not include the word 'tyre' (the only part which is contact with the track) nor say which part of the wheel has to cross the inner edge to constitute a disqualification (given that no part of the wheel is in touch with the track or inner edge. As you say - read ONLY the words in the original rule (regulation). The SCB could end this at a stroke, by giving more information and evidence on how it reached its decision. I'll bet the relevant regulations are amended for next season

another one - ffs.

I haven't mention anything about detail. To be honest, the statement is pretty poorly written and could offered more explanation. The original wording even got inadmissible and admissible confused. But having come from the SCB, it is still means it is a 'statement of fact'.  The rule was breached, end of, if the SCB say that it was. But the SCB statement does say something and I think you've missed it: "Having reviewed the regulation as written, this has been breached".  Then read rule 012.1.11 and see what the rule does and doesn't say. And don't add in words such as "wholly" or "completely" when you read it. Read ONLY the words in the original rule and see what is written there. And then you'll see from the wording of the rule why it was breached.

Double post - ignore.

If not will it be Rabbit/replacement.