you really misread all the thing. just check the official statement, the driver himself ammitted his behaviour.
-
Welcome to Motorsport Forums, the ultimate hub for motorsport fans since 2000! Click here to register. It is completely free, takes just a few seconds, and you can sign in instantly with your Google account.
[ERC] Royal Rally of Scandinavia 2026
- Thread starter PLuto
- Start date
you really misread all the thing. just check the official statement, the driver himself ammitted his behaviour.
You really misread my post, particularly paragraphs 1 and 5.
skarderud
Senior member
Skarderud called people of southern Europe 'monkeys' whilst seen to be making a monkey gesture.
Skarderud did not dispute the report, nor did he show an understanding of how his behaviour caused offence.
Skarderud will be banned from the forum for one week. He has a right to appeal, and must indicate the desire to do so within 1 hour of this post. That indication is a legal commitment to pay the €4000 non-refundable appeal fee plus €3000 deposit refundable on success of appeal. We don't care if he had a long day and is already fast asleep in bed. BTW, the appeal will only be looked at after the ban expires, and by which time the entire internet will think he's a racist anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skarderud did not dispute the report, nor did he show an understanding of how his behaviour caused offence.
Skarderud will be banned from the forum for one week. He has a right to appeal, and must indicate the desire to do so within 1 hour of this post. That indication is a legal commitment to pay the €4000 non-refundable appeal fee plus €3000 deposit refundable on success of appeal. We don't care if he had a long day and is already fast asleep in bed. BTW, the appeal will only be looked at after the ban expires, and by which time the entire internet will think he's a racist anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
skarderud
Senior member
Thanks!
I didnt call anyone monkey, my point is we are human beeings, NOT monkeys, so this type of behavior is unacceptal.
Last time i cheched, my colour of skin is eksactly the same as most european.
Im also ekstremely long away to be a racist, its ridicolous to claim me for that. I give jobs to both polish an syrian people, im also a member of amnesty international.
I know some east european people have a rough language, i correct my employees quite hard if something shows up, i also know that some people there thinks "woke" is bs. Ans "woke" is everything they dont like, or if someone corrects theire behaviour.
Please, ban me for 1 week, i dont care,but its quite exaggerated and out of every normal proposion.
Sent fra min SM-S901B via Tapatalk
I didnt call anyone monkey, my point is we are human beeings, NOT monkeys, so this type of behavior is unacceptal.
Last time i cheched, my colour of skin is eksactly the same as most european.
Im also ekstremely long away to be a racist, its ridicolous to claim me for that. I give jobs to both polish an syrian people, im also a member of amnesty international.
I know some east european people have a rough language, i correct my employees quite hard if something shows up, i also know that some people there thinks "woke" is bs. Ans "woke" is everything they dont like, or if someone corrects theire behaviour.
Please, ban me for 1 week, i dont care,but its quite exaggerated and out of every normal proposion.
Sent fra min SM-S901B via Tapatalk
That's the FIA appeals process. Roughly the right € without checking, point is it's easier to destroy people than they can defend it. I've seen many times people in authority use a system to destroy people. If you support Amnesty International maybe you should put a closer consideration on this IMO. You said:
We all know the alleged behaviour is unacceptable, but you don't have any clear proof, comment or reason that the driver did the unacceptable behaviour.
The only thing to go off is the stewards document but here's where I'm sceptical, Kolcak and his team didn't sign it, so for me it's inadmissible as evidence to what he actually allegedly agreed to in the hearing anyway, and he's also not directly quoted. That's pretty irregular.
That was published 2.5hrs after the hearing, which took place 6-8hrs (?) after the incident. Sorry but no humans are this perfect - driver, scrutineers, CoC, stewards. I'm assuming nobody had the benefit of the video, imagine being asked to precisely recall something you passively said/did 6-8 hrs ago. It could easily lead you to apologise for any inadvertent offence caused without fully understanding the circumstances that an apology could turn out to be a full admission of guilt to something else you don't agree to. Had the stewards said "if you agree that this is what happened you will be DSQ and your reputation will be in tatters", do you think he would have agreed to it? If so why the protest? Even the steward who wrote the hearing document might be struggling to remember what was precisely said.
As an example point, you've just accepted your ban when I baselessly said you made a monkey gesture.
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.
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.
Similar theme, comments on this guy have been despicable too: https://nypost.com/2026/05/30/sport...-accused-of-pushing-ball-girl-at-french-open/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That document is a report. is just the history of the audition, made to let people interested know what was declared by the part and decided by the decisor during the audition. that's why the place of disagreement is on the audition, not on the receiving of the report. and that's why is not necessary to the driver to acknowledge it. and that's why the time for appeal is not related to the report.
i ll happily drop this kind of pride discussion. fact is that no appeal and no further legal action was issued, and it's easy to see why.
Steve Boyd
Senior member
The document posted is a report of the findings of a Stewards inquiry. For this to have taken place the scrutineer in question must have reported her distress to either the Clerk of the Course or the Safeguarding Official of the event. If any official of an event feels sufficiently abused by a competitor to make a complaint, then the organisers must make an investigation. The event Stewards will then adjudicate on the evidence presented after interviewing and taking evidence from both sides. If the accused thought that they had video evidence to support their side of the case then they could have requested that it was presented. The fact that the car may have been in parc-fermé is irrelevant - the Stewards have the authority to order the organisers with a team member to enter the parc-fermé and retrieve the video recording.