So for them to say it wasn’t quick enough would mean there is a threshold which was passed, so what was the threshold? Instantaneously? How is discovering fraud, and taking only a week or so to prepare a case not timely?
They claim that they had ample time to present an injury in June (4 months until Nov). Problem is, there were a number or races that went into runoffs, so there was a number of races with no immediate injury for those parties to speak of while investigations were pending. In addition, there might not have been clear evidence of faults and a non-tangible injury then as compared to now.
For an impartial person looking in, this is inconvenient timing while trying to remain an impartial appearance, but it is still VERY timely and should still proceed. The fact that this is being written off as "too late" is a denial of justice on incredibly weak grounds.
So for them to say it wasn’t quick enough would mean there is a threshold which was passed, so what was the threshold? Instantaneously? How is discovering fraud, and taking only a week or so to prepare a case not timely?
They claim that they had ample time to present an injury in June (4 months until Nov). Problem is, there were a number or races that went into runoffs, so there was a number of races with no immediate injury for those parties to speak of while investigations were pending. In addition, there might not have been clear evidence of faults and a non-tangible injury then as compared to now.
For an impartial person looking in, this is inconvenient timing while trying to remain an impartial appearance, but it is still VERY timely and should still proceed. The fact that this is being written off as "too late" is a denial of justice on incredibly weak grounds.