![[CC]Lab](http://cclab.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Logo-CC_ita.png){kind=logo}
To further clarify CC Lab’s position regarding the painful – but unavoidable – decision to cancel the Tennis on the Racetrack Imola 2023 event, we deem it appropriate to share with the media the position of the players who should have been protagonists of the event itself.
Premise: Formula Imola has continued to support the (truly impossible) coexistence of two events: the Formula 1 Grand Prix of Imola (scheduled for 21 May) and Tennis on the Racetrack Imola 2023 (scheduled for 23 May, the last available day before the departure of the athletes for Paris), proposing the construction of a tennis court totally different from the one initially envisaged by the organisers, and not suitable for the needs of the event.
Event: It should be re-iterated once again, this was designed for professional players of the highest level in the world, specifically in the period between the tournaments in Rome (conclusion on May 21st) and Roland Garros (beginning on May 28th). To meet the needs of the athletes, the court, initially designed by CC Lab, would have been set up with exactly the same criteria and with the same characteristics as those in Rome and Paris. Any alternatives, in this precise sector of the organisation, are just not possible, as the report below demonstrates.
Immediately after sending the players the new proposal for the construction of the court suggested by Formula Imola, CC Lab was contacted by Corrado Tschabuschnig, manager of Lorenzo Sonego (current number 4 in Italy, holder of the Davis Cup in Italy), as well as several other professional tennis players. The following is an official statement from the manager himself, reflecting the player’s position and clarifying the main point of the whole situation.
‘With reference to the recent news reported in the media concerning the Tennis on the Racetrack event […] and to the vision of the preventive document […] attached below, we would like to make some clarifications. Assuming that our client Lorenzo Sonego is contractually bound to Tennis on the Racetrack as a participant in the event, we would like to draw your attention to the inadequacy of the proposed surface for the event to take place […]. The premise was clear – alongside an economic compensation, established by contract, the tennis players would also have had the opportunity to train and compete on a surface similar to that of the upcoming 2023 French Open. From the preventive document sent to us, however, this premise is not respected, with the company […], proposing a surface quite different from the traditional red clay used in the racetrack. This aspect represents a risk for our client – as it
is a rare surface that no professional tournament in the ATP calendar uses – as well as violation of the contractual terms […]. We also specify that no other client of ours will consider joining the event without the due guarantee of compliance of the courts with those of the 2023 French Open.’
Obvious considerations can be deduced from this paper.
The first: there are no possible alternatives to the drafting of the clay court requested by CC Lab from the beginning, in the planning phase of the Tennis on the Racetrack event. And, for this, technical times are needed that go far beyond those that Formula Imola would make available after the Imola Grand Prix on 21 May. It is not a coincidence, nor a whim of the organisation, that the date indicated for making the racetrack available was scheduled for May 17th. This period – from 17 to 22 May – would have been the one necessary to create the playing conditions suitable for the performance of professional tennis players.
The second: CC Lab has always operated and is continuing to operate in the interest of the project and the safety of the professional athletes with whom it has stipulated a contract, on which obligations depend. All other considerations or insinuations are groundless, not serious and misleading, with respect to the real nature of the problem: the overlapping of two events that cannot in any way coexist in these terms.
We hope that this further clarification will definitively clarify the various positions expressed (and commented on for various reasons) in the press currently.
