McLaren called in by the FIA

[CNR]

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns21356.html


Vodafone McLaren Mercedes has "been invited to appear before an Extraordinary Meeting of the FIA World Motor Sport Council in Paris on Wednesday, April 29, to answer charges that it is in breach of Article 151c of the International Sporting Code.
The FIA says that the team told the FIA Stewards in Melbourne that no instructions were given to Lewis Hamilton to allow Jarno Trulli to pass when both cars were behind the Safety Car. This statement was untrue. The federation says that McLaren "procured its driver" to support and confirm this untrue statement and that as a result of this action Trulli was unfairly penalised and McLaren made no attempt to rectify the situation.
The FIA went on to say that at the second hearing in Malaysia the team continued to maintain that the statement was true, despite being allowed to listen to a recording of the team instructing Hamilton to let Trulli past and despite being given more than one opportunity to correct its false statement. The federation claims that the team again "procured" Hamilton to not tell the truth.

[AJP]

I like it how it says "invited to join" :)

Does that mean McLaren wont go if they don't want to?? ;)

[Valve Bounce]

We really need ioan to get involved in this and adjudicate, pronto!!

[tintop]

It will be interesting to see how far they go against a reigning World champ and his team. Lewis isn't quite Tiger Woods in terms of being essential, and I'm sure he's fallen somewhat in favor, but taking him out of contention in an iffy year would be a bold decision for sure.

[F1boat]

IMO they will fine the team.

[555-04Q2]

Another year, another F1 scandal. Soap operas have got nothing on F1 :(

[F1boat]

Another year, another F1 scandal. Soap operas have got nothing on F1 :(

And the new cars look like the new Clone Wars animation ;)
"Formula 1 Divided! More and more team join the diffuser separatists, while a former hero Lewis Hamilton has fallen into the clutches of the evil Supreme Chancellor Maxpaltine, who prepare his next deadly strike, now, when his dark secret is revealed"...

[wmcot]

The wording of the final paragraph of the statement is a bit confusing:

"...on 2 April, 2009, at the second stewards' hearing, procured its driver Hamilton to continue to assert the truth of the false statement given to the stewards on 29 March, while knowing that what he was saying to the stewards was not true."

"The truth of the false statement?????" Lawyers - you can't live with 'em, but it would sure be a lot nicer! ;)

[W8&C]

There´s a certain amount of risc of Mercedes pulling out of F1 if the team is punished for that stuff. Dunno if the Mop wants a starting grid with 14 only cars, loosing McLaren, BrawnGP and Force India.

The F1 engagement is in discussion within Mercedes against the background of the financial crisis, which i.e. could cause pay cuts for the employees. No more engagement – no more engines.

[Valve Bounce]

The wording of the final paragraph of the statement is a bit confusing:

"...on 2 April, 2009, at the second stewards' hearing, procured its driver Hamilton to continue to assert the truth of the false statement given to the stewards on 29 March, while knowing that what he was saying to the stewards was not true."

"The truth of the false statement?????" Lawyers - you can't live with 'em, but it would sure be a lot nicer! ;)

Hey Max is a lawyer, isn't he?

[Sonic]

And the new cars look like the new Clone Wars animation ;)
"Formula 1 Divided! More and more team join the diffuser separatists, while a former hero Lewis Hamilton has fallen into the clutches of the evil Supreme Chancellor Maxpaltine, who prepare his next deadly strike, now, when his dark secret is revealed"...

Did you just lay the star wars on F1? Sweet :p :

IMO I expect a 2 race ban for the team.

[Dave B]

My guess is it will be a financial punishment. Stripping the team of points would be futile as currently they only have one; and banning them from races would be a threat to "the show".

[ArrowsFA1]

A penalty that hits the team, not the drivers, will be found.

Article 151c is so vague that it can be applied to anything the FIA chooses, and it does not carry any sort of pre-determined penalty so therefore the punishment can be anything the FIA chooses.

[Garry Walker]

2 race ban and a fine of 10 million dollars would suit nicely.

[Knock-on]

2 race ban and a fine of 10 million dollars would suit nicely.

Do you really think that is fair?

Just wondering because a punishment like that will only weaken F1 even more. It seems like Max will only be happy when McLaren go to the wall and if that happens, we will lose one of the stalwarts of F1.

Consider this, if McLaren quit F1 and Mercedes drop out, what would be the impact on the sport?

I think Lewis and Davey were stupid and wrong. They made a huge mistake and Lewis has paid with his points and reputation while Davey has lost his job.

That should be the end of it IMHO because anything more just looks like victimisation and spite which is bad for an already weakened sport.

[Garry Walker]

Do you really think that is fair?


You got me there, it should be 3 race ban instead :D

Consider this, if McLaren quit F1 and Mercedes drop out, what would be the impact on the sport?

There would be less scandal.

[Sonic]

There would be less scandal.

:rotflmao:

We'd still have Ferrari though! :p :

Do you really think that is fair?

Did Mclaren think it was "fair" on Toyota?

After what Mclaren did, and especially if there is any basis to the rumour that Dennis was behind the NOTW story on Max, can they seriously expect to be treated "fairly"?

They have shown no fairness themselves. To you it may seem unfair, but to somebody else, who has recognised that three times they have deliberately misled the FIA and potentially have been responsible for an attack on the FIA President (to be confirmed, I know, but for the purpose of argument included) then a 2 race ban and a $10million fine would be pretty light punishment.

[tintop]

:rotflmao:

We'd still have Ferrari though! :p :

And the next challenger, which will be embroiled in scandal by default.

I think Lewis and Davey were stupid and wrong. They made a huge mistake and Lewis has paid with his points and reputation while Davey has lost his job.

That should be the end of it IMHO because anything more just looks like victimisation and spite which is bad for an already weakened sport.

So, you'd be happy to see a bank robber just have to return the money he stole and nothing else said about it?

Anything else would be victimisation towards the unfortunate bank robber then, presumably?

You know that's not how punishment and justice works.

[Knock-on]

So, you'd be happy to see a bank robber just have to return the money he stole and nothing else said about it?

Anything else would be victimisation towards the unfortunate bank robber then, presumably?

You know that's not how punishment and justice works.

Come on Tamb, 3rd place was rightfully his and they were so worried about having it taken away, they relinquished it when they didn't need to.

If they had of been honest and not come up with this bull, then 4th or even 3rd would have been theirs.

What they did was wrong and they have been punished. They haven't robbed any banks, crashed into anyone, deliberatly closed a qualification to scupper their oponant or anything like that. They were in the wrong. They got what was coming to them and that should be that.

151c is smaoke and mirrors. There was no disrepute and if Max gets all draconian, that will change and the sport will be damaged.

[donKey jote]

Consider this, if McLaren quit F1 and Mercedes drop out, what would be the impact on the sport?


not much... we got Brawn now :p : :dozey:

[Tazio]

Consider this, if McLaren quit F1 and Mercedes drop out, what would be the impact on the sport?
Fred would get the last laugh on his "saboteurs" :laugh:

[markabilly]

Fred would get the last laugh on his "saboteurs" :laugh:

Or maybe Brawn would just become the new mercedes factory team......no doubt very tempting....sell off mac or take some of their assets, and just dump the rest.....

As to Fred, we need a poll as to who was the biggest MacRat.....there are those who say Fred "ratted out" the team after RD called max and told Max that Fred was going to rat out team and so Max said rat out or be banned....

...but LH ratted out at Monaco that year, contributed greatly to the rat-out at Hungary, and now this peculiar deal where Ham "rats out" himself....Yes I was lieing but only cause my chief mechanic told me too,....and "I am honest" and "I might quit"....(while privately thinking DAmmmmmmit, i should never have said anything to that reporter without checking with the team first or none of this would be happening....)

So in the "rat race" looks to me like: Fred is (maybe) 1 rat-out while Hamilton is at least 2, perhaps 2.5 or 3 "rat-outs"---hence Ham is leading by a solid margin.....


Pretty good, tell the lies to make it all happen, rat out himself (only because of the prior slip of tongue) and then end up a hero because he "apologized" and said the team made me lie, while the team throws someone else under the bus........

So how much longer is Merceds going to tolerate this behavior???

Funny, while some anti-mac fans not appreciate it, I can see Ryan (based on radio traffic ) asking Ham exactly when did Trulli pass and having ham "think" about it, and Ham say after team told me to hold my position and I did not move over to let him pass, and Ryan would not have much to dispute that...at the time of the first investigation... :confused: .

EXCEPT Ryan probably had NO idea about the prior press radio interview of Hamilton.....tis a tangled web we weave when we first practice to decieve.. :eek:

As to those who want to compare MS to LH, well, when did MS ever rat out his team??
When did he ever say, Jerez was not my fault, I was told to do it by Todt or whoever...or the same at Monaco?? Never....

There was no disrepute

Well, on that we have to disagree.

Lying to officials, not once but twice, and knowing that the lie would result in the unfair punishment of a fellow competitor is as good a definition of bringing the sport into disrepute as there is.

[PSfan]

151c is smaoke and mirrors. There was no disrepute and if Max gets all draconian, that will change and the sport will be damaged.


Shall we look at 151c again?

from the fia sporting regs:

151. Breach of rules
Any of the following offences in addition to any offences
specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach
of these rules :
a) All bribery or attempt, directly or indirectly, to bribe any
person having official duties in relation to a competition or
being employed in any manner in connection with a
competition and the acceptance of, or offer to accept, any
bribe by such an official or employee.
b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation
in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible
therefor.
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the
interests of any competition or to the interests of motor
sport generally.

Any fraudulent conduct eh...Smoke and mirrors it is not. Repeat offenders says I... Make em walk the plank...

[ioan]

Shall we look at 151c again?

from the fia sporting regs:

151. Breach of rules
Any of the following offences in addition to any offences
specifically referred to previously, shall be deemed to be a breach
of these rules :
a) All bribery or attempt, directly or indirectly, to bribe any
person having official duties in relation to a competition or
being employed in any manner in connection with a
competition and the acceptance of, or offer to accept, any
bribe by such an official or employee.
b) Any action having as its object the entry or participation
in a competition of an automobile known to be ineligible
therefor.
c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the
interests of any competition or to the interests of motor
sport generally.

Any fraudulent conduct eh...Smoke and mirrors it is not. Repeat offenders says I... Make em walk the plank...

:up:

[wmcot]

Consider this, if McLaren quit F1 and Mercedes drop out, what would be the impact on the sport?

How about - Mercedes drop McLaren and back BrawnGP as the "factory" team? They have another option besides leaving F1 now.

(Never mind...I should read all the posts before stating the obvious. Sorry)

[PolePosition_1]

Well, on that we have to disagree.

Lying to officials, not once but twice, and knowing that the lie would result in the unfair punishment of a fellow competitor is as good a definition of bringing the sport into disrepute as there is.

See, as a tifosi, I thought you would applaud that? Its looking after number 1.

You stated recently that you'd rather see F1 in tatters with Ferrari succeeding and winning, than a healthy F1 but Ferrari not winning.

So how come you criticise McLaren for looking after number 1?

Or are you such a strong Tifosi, you acknowledge its double standards, but you don't care because you'll support Ferrari no matter what?

[PolePosition_1]

Regarding the topic itself.

You'd have to imagine that McLaren will get further sanctions, they're guilty on all counts of what they're being brought there for.

Though you can argue that it was the action of two individuals who acted out of sync of McLaren, and that they've dealt with the matter themselves in the sacking of Ryan, and the penalty of Hamilton handed by the Stewards, so that no further action is needed.

But taking into account this is the second time in 3 years they've been caught out by employees, you'd have to think a punishment will be handed out, as there are obviously problems within the communication of the team within the floor and senior management.

Though I do feel because this is McLaren, there seems to be more of a fuss.

Whilst not wishing to bring a whole Ferrari v McLaren v Stewards argument on. Whats the difference between Ryan and Lewis lying in Australia, and the Stewards in Monaco 2006, where Schumacher insisted he locked a wheel and stalled it, when the telementary showed he didn't? Surely both are lies?

But never mind, lets wait and see what happens.

[AndyRAC]

Personally, I think people are going OTT - McLaren/Ryan/Hamilton were wrong, and behaved like prats. You can't tell the stewards porkies, however, I'm sure others have done so before. Just give them a 10 place penalty and be done with it. Talk of kicking them out the Championship is extreme (although TTE were kicked out in 1995 for blatant cheating), and would just prove watch a bunch of idiots the WMSC are - though I know they are already.

You stated recently that you'd rather see F1 in tatters with Ferrari succeeding and winning, than a healthy F1 but Ferrari not winning.

Yes, but the difference is that "F1 in tatters" in that scenario we were discussing was a lack of agreement between the teams on technical, budget and future directions of the Formula One World Championship. Which I don't give a monkey's about as it's not Ferrari's job to help others.

Not being in favour of having a unified paddock in order to protect your competitive edge, which is the policy Todt championed, is not the same as constantly decieving the FIA in order to gain one point.



So how come you criticise McLaren for looking after number 1?

Because they are shyte at it.

[PolePosition_1]

Yes, but the difference is that "F1 in tatters" in that scenario we were discussing was a lack of agreement between the teams on technical, budget and future directions of the Formula One World Championship. Which I don't give a monkey's about as it's not Ferrari's job to help others.

Not being in favour of having a unified paddock in order to protect your competitive edge, which is the policy Todt championed, is not the same as constantly decieving the FIA in order to gain one point.



Because they are shyte at it.


So if Ferrari had done the same, but not got caught, would you applaud them?

Whats the difference between Ryan and Lewis lying in Australia, and the Stewards in Monaco 2006, where Schumacher insisted he locked a wheel and stalled it, when the telementary showed he didn't? Surely both are lies?

One wasn't aimed at getting a fellow competitor penalised?

One didn't give a TV interview just before in which he said "Ja, I parked it"?

One had no radio conversation recorded with the words "You've got to park it, Michael....park it now"?

So if Ferrari had done the same, but not got caught, would you applaud them?

If they hadn't got caught it wouldn't have been a shyte idea.

Because it was a shyte idea, nobody should applaud pathetic useless cheating.

Brilliant cunning, however....that is a different issue.

[71minus2]

Regarding the topic itself.

Whilst not wishing to bring a whole Ferrari v McLaren v Stewards argument on. Whats the difference between Ryan and Lewis lying in Australia, and the Stewards in Monaco 2006, where Schumacher insisted he locked a wheel and stalled it, when the telementary showed he didn't? Surely both are lies?

But never mind, lets wait and see what happens.

I drew the very same comparisons on another thread. I would not want to see a team banned for any races, even more so if the team has the current world champ driving for them. It would be commercial suicide to take the punishment that far.

That said, it is a clear breach of the rules and should be punished, I reckon a financial penalty will be imposed.

It is a shame that this incident have overshadowed the start of an intriguing season and 2 highly entertaining races.

[PolePosition_1]

One wasn't aimed at getting a fellow competitor penalised?

One didn't give a TV interview just before in which he said "Ja, I parked it"?

One had no radio conversation recorded with the words "You've got to park it, Michael....park it now"?

But aim of Lewis lying was to get him 3rd place, not to penalise Trulli. Trulli's penality was a by-product.

Aim of Schumacher parking it was for him to secure pole, with by product of stopping others from getting it, therefore penalising a fellow competitor who was heading for quicker lap.

And end result, was the Stewards came to a different conclusion to what the participants said, therefore meaning both lied to the Stewards.

Only difference is Schumacher is not caught lying directly to the stewards. though all the evidence leads conclusively to him lying, hence they punished him and found him guilty. Whilst Hamilton has apologised and even held a PC detailing exactly what happened.

From a sporting point of view, I'd say the '06 scenerio is worse, in terms to refusing to even acknowledge it.

Only difference is Schumacher is not caught lying directly to the stewards.

So didn't directly mislead the stewards. Big difference.

From a sporting point of view, I'd say the '06 scenerio is worse, in terms to refusing to even acknowledge it.

Mclaren didn't exactly rush to right a wrong, did they? They were still denying it after the stewards had decided they had been misled...."nobody at Mclaren has lied" were Whitmarsh's words.

That was after two stewards meetings.

I'd say misleading the stewards in two meetings was worse from a sporting view, in terms of refusing to even acknowledge it, on a score of 2-1.

So what is the difference between these two comparisons then? :confused:

If you can't read, that's not my problem.

[PolePosition_1]

Mclaren didn't exactly rush to right a wrong, did they? They were still denying it after the stewards had decided they had been misled...."nobody at Mclaren has lied" were Whitmarsh's words.

That was after two stewards meetings.

I'd say misleading the stewards in two meetings was worse from a sporting view, in terms of refusing to even acknowledge it, on a score of 2-1.

He said that when he wasn't aware of the situation, after Ryan insisted he had not lied. When he became evident there was a lie, he apologised and held a Q&A explaining his mistake, he (Whitmarsh) didn't deliberately lie, he told what he believed to be the truth, when he found out otherwise, he apologised for his error, and explained it in full.

[PolePosition_1]

So didn't directly mislead the stewards. Big difference.

Well, he told them he didn't do it on purpose, and that he stalled. When telementary showed he didn't stall it, and that it was done on purpose.


Its not misleading, its an outright lie.

[PolePosition_1]

I seem to be reading the same arguement flipped around to support the other point of view. These incidences are almost identical, yet you have repeated what pole position said about Schumacher and said it about Mclaren.. :confused: I'm just struggling to see the point here.

I know, if Tamb would admit to double standards and just justify it by saying its one rule for McLaren and one for Ferrari - fair enough, its a pretty unreasonable approach, but at least honest.

But he's trying to justify it whilst insisting its not double standards.

[aryan]

Honda got a 2 race ban for lying.

So should McLaren.

Consistency in the rules is what I want. I don't care about much else.

[SGWilko]

I know, if Tamb would admit to double standards and just justify it by saying its one rule for McLaren and one for Ferrari - fair enough, its a pretty unreasonable approach, but at least honest.

But he's trying to justify it whilst insisting its not double standards.

Perhaps he is using an untrue truth?

[PolePosition_1]

Honda got a 2 race ban for lying.

So should McLaren.

Consistency in the rules is what I want. I don't care about much else.

And when Schumacher lied nothing. What consistancy shall we go for then? Ferrari consistancy or the Ferrari rival consistancy?

[I am evil Homer]

Honda got a 2 race ban for lying.

So should McLaren.

Consistency in the rules is what I want. I don't care about much else.

Honda's ban was for illegal parts wasn't it? They weren't breaching the same FIA rule as McLaren.

[SGWilko]

And when Schumacher lied nothing. What consistancy shall we go for then? Ferrari consistancy or the Ferrari rival consistancy?

This is getting a bit silly.

OK. Schumacher did lie, don't think anyone is denying that.

He was found by the Stewards to have lied, and he got sent to the back of the class....

But that was it wasn't it. Alonso still started at or near the front.

McLaren's case is a bit different in that they had the opportunity to go over the radio recordings, and see the interview Lewis did.....

But still, they continued the charade. Seriously, that is unforgiveable, an own goal and bloody idiotic.

Now, I support McLaren because they have a Brit in their car with a chance of doing well. But, Button is also a Brit in a British team, so I support them also.

Let's just get this mess cleared up, and let the racing make the headlines, just for a change......

[SGWilko]

Honda's ban was for illegal parts wasn't it? They weren't breaching the same FIA rule as McLaren.

Well, I think a financial penalty would have dealt with the illegal parts, it's the cover-up that earned them a two race ban. I think.

[ioan]

Whilst not wishing to bring a whole Ferrari v McLaren v Stewards argument on. Whats the difference between Ryan and Lewis lying in Australia, and the Stewards in Monaco 2006, where Schumacher insisted he locked a wheel and stalled it, when the telementary showed he didn't? Surely both are lies?


Here we go again. :rolleyes:

[ioan]

OK. Schumacher did lie, don't think anyone is denying that.

He was found by the Stewards to have lied,...

Not really. All the stewards said was that if he would have knocked of his front wing than it would have been obvious that it was an accident.

I'm yet to see anything in that case saying that someone was caught lying. This is only PP1's way of deflecting attention from the liars at hand.

[SGWilko]

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

Could you not just have answered the question from your POV, rather than proving yourself wrong from your earlier comment?


You are completely wrong.

[SGWilko]

Not really. All the stewards said was that if he would have knocked of his front wing than it would have been obvious that it was an accident.

I'm yet to see anything in that case saying that someone was caught lying. This is only PP1's way of deflecting attention from the liars at hand.

Oh, OK. So, errrrr, remind me why he was sent to the back of the grid then, for having an accident where he didn't knock his front wing off.

That's silly.

[Sonic]

Shouldn't this all be in the nostalgia pages now as shumi's a has been :p : ;)

Anyway. Bernie thinks Mac might get a ban http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74360
and as we all know Bernie never talks rubbish! :p :

[ioan]

I know, if Tamb would admit to double standards and just justify it by saying its one rule for McLaren and one for Ferrari...

Why should he? Because you are dreaming up things?

[ioan]

Oh, OK. So, errrrr, remind me why he was sent to the back of the grid then, for having an accident where he didn't knock his front wing off.

That's silly.

Because he did disrupt other drivers qualifying laps, that's why. And because that offense equates with losing your qualifying times he had to start last.

I hate it when people discuss a case without really knowing what are the facts.
Do your homework before making a clown of yourself.

[PSfan]

This is getting a bit silly.

OK. Schumacher did lie, don't think anyone is denying that.

He was found by the Stewards to have lied, and he got sent to the back of the class....

But that was it wasn't it. Alonso still started at or near the front.



No Schumacher has lied. The jury is still out on whether he lied at Monaco. His Penalty wasn't so much the stewards found he had lied, but because his parking job ruined many drivers final qualifying laps, so he was punished as if he had blocked them all...

To suggest Schumacher's penalty was for lying is to also suggest the same for Trulli's 25s penalty in Australia was for lying. Clearly if the stewards initially bought Lewis' "I didn't let him pass" then that must mean that the stewards thought Trulli was lying...

The only parallels I see coming up with regards to Schumacher would be perhaps his "bump" with Villeneuve in 97, that Schumacher originally claimed no intention, and then changed his tune years later. Or in 94 Schumacher received a 2 race vacation for "accidentally" passing during the formation lap, protested a stop and go, ignored the blackflag, and also protested then 2 race penalty afterwards...

[SGWilko]

Because he did disrupt other drivers qualifying laps, that's why. And because that offense equates with losing your qualifying times he had to start last.

I hate it when people discuss a case without really knowing what are the facts.
Do your homework before making a clown of yourself.

I don't think discussing and questioning different viewpoints makes me a clown.

Beep Beep.

[PolePosition_1]

Because he did disrupt other drivers qualifying laps, that's why. And because that offense equates with losing your qualifying times he had to start last.

I hate it when people discuss a case without really knowing what are the facts.
Do your homework before making a clown of yourself.

Erm, I've never in my time of Formula 1 seen a driver penalised for a mistake in qualifying therefore bringing out a yellow flag, and forcing others to take it easy. Can you name me one?

He was penalised because it was deliberate, and foul play, and therefore meaning he lied to the Stewards.

I know, if Tamb would admit to double standards and just justify it by saying its one rule for McLaren and one for Ferrari - fair enough, its a pretty unreasonable approach, but at least honest.

But he's trying to justify it whilst insisting its not double standards.


This is getting a bit silly.

OK. Schumacher did lie, don't think anyone is denying that.

He was found by the Stewards to have lied, and he got sent to the back of the class....

But that was it wasn't it. Alonso still started at or near the front.

McLaren's case is a bit different in that they had the opportunity to go over the radio recordings, and see the interview Lewis did.....

But still, they continued the charade. Seriously, that is unforgiveable, an own goal and bloody idiotic.

Thank you Wilko for explaining the vital difference and hence why the two are not directly comparable.

For the record, I've said before on this forum that, in my opinion, Ferrari (or, more to the point, Schumi) should have been punished beyond a grid penalty for Monaco 06.

But just because the stewards/governing body didn't do what perhaps they should have done in the past doesn't mean they have to repeat such errors again.

People claiming they want consistency is ok if the initial punishment was a good one. If an initial punishment was under-valued compared to the misdeed, then consistency should be thrown out of any thought process.

We want good decisions and penalties to match, not a constant continuation of crap decisions and crap penalties. That's not consistency that can be applauded or approved of.

[Bagwan]

Norbert has this to say :
"This situation is absolutely not positive for Mercedes.”

"I report directly to Daimler Chairman Dr Dieter Zetsche. If the situation should become intolerable, we will get together in Stuttgart and make a decision."

When does the situation become intolerable ?

Is Ross on the other line to Dieter ?

[tintop]

Thank you Wilko for explaining the vital difference and hence why the two are not directly comparable.

For the record, I've said before on this forum that, in my opinion, Ferrari (or, more to the point, Schumi) should have been punished beyond a grid penalty for Monaco 06.

But just because the stewards/governing body didn't do what perhaps they should have done in the past doesn't mean they have to repeat such errors again.

People claiming they want consistency is ok if the initial punishment was a good one. If an initial punishment was under-valued compared to the misdeed, then consistency should be thrown out of any thought process.

We want good decisions and penalties to match, not a constant continuation of crap decisions and crap penalties. That's not consistency that can be applauded or approved of.

Doesn't work that way. Precedent is established over time and current infractions should be dealt with in a manner consistent with with previous actions.

If the rules are changed and or clarified with new warnings issued, that would be different. I agree that deliberate and verifiable misleading of officials should have minimum penalties including bans going forward, but the investigations also need to be consistent i.e. Michael should have been forced to declare that he did not intentionally ruin the testing session to the Stewards.

Also, the race stewards caused this mess by again not clarifying and rectifying the in-race situation when they had ample means to determine the correct grid order prior to the re-start, rather than applying the gotcha to Truli at the end of the race that ultimately turned into fib gate.

[Bagwan]

Doesn't work that way. Precedent is established over time and current infractions should be dealt with in a manner consistent with with previous actions.

If the rules are changed and or clarified with new warnings issued, that would be different. I agree that deliberate and verifiable misleading of officials should have minimum penalties including bans going forward, but the investigations also need to be consistent i.e. Michael should have been forced to declare that he did not intentionally ruin the testing session to the Stewards.

Also, the race stewards caused this mess by again not clarifying and rectifying the in-race situation when they had ample means to determine the correct grid order prior to the re-start, rather than applying the gotcha to Truli at the end of the race that ultimately turned into fib gate.

So , in your world , 2 wrongs make a right ?

Sorry , but Jarno knew what to do , as he had been in the situation before , and knew he had passed Lewis rightly , just as he had known that Lewis's pass on him was also right .
That a driver knew what to do in the situation , and a rival team didn't , should not result in the driver being penalized for doing the right thing .

It is nobody's fault but McLaren's , that they didn't know the rules .

Doesn't work that way. Precedent is established over time and current infractions should be dealt with in a manner consistent with with previous actions.

If the rules are changed and or clarified with new warnings issued, that would be different. I agree that deliberate and verifiable misleading of officials should have minimum penalties including bans going forward, but the investigations also need to be consistent i.e. Michael should have been forced to declare that he did not intentionally ruin the testing session to the Stewards.


Maybe it was my error in not being clear enough, but since the two offences
were not charged in the same way (Schumi was never found guilty of misleading officials, he was found guilty of deliberately ruining another drivers lap, whereas Hamilton wasn't initially charged with anything, he lied in an interview) then precedent does not apply.

You cannot have a precedent about the penalty of a seperate type of incident and investigation finding affecting the outcome of a different, albeit in some ways comparable, incident and it's different charge.

[tintop]

So , in your world , 2 wrongs make a right ?

Sorry , but Jarno knew what to do , as he had been in the situation before , and knew he had passed Lewis rightly , just as he had known that Lewis's pass on him was also right .
That a driver knew what to do in the situation , and a rival team didn't , should not result in the driver being penalized for doing the right thing .

It is nobody's fault but McLaren's , that they didn't know the rules .

Either you fail to comprehend my previous post or you are willfully engaging in some form of obfuscation here.

As for your new and unrelated statements above, Trulli was initially deemed to make an illegal pass - so no, "he didn't know what to do". It was only deemed legal because Hamilton was told to slow down by his team who were awaiting a clarification by race control. They were artificially slowing down to wait for further instruction. Had they proceeded at speed and not let Trulli pass, all would have been well according to the logic of the penalty against Trulli.

Not knowing the rules is a laugh given the strange nature of Trulli's off during the safety car run, it sure fooled the stewards.

[tintop]

Maybe it was my error in not being clear enough, but since the two offences
were not charged in the same way (Schumi was never found guilty of misleading officials)

Are you intimating that he was never asked by the officials how he managed to strategically lodge his car in the middle of track during a qualifying session?

[ioan]

Erm, I've never in my time of Formula 1 seen a driver penalised for a mistake in qualifying therefore bringing out a yellow flag, and forcing others to take it easy. Can you name me one?

That's because you watch F1 only to hate MS and Ferrari, I suggest you take off your blinkers.



He was penalised because it was deliberate, and foul play, and therefore meaning he lied to the Stewards.

Bla bla bla! Where's the proof? Show me the proof! If it exists it will be written somewhere on one of the FIA press releases that MS lied or deliberately mislead the stewards.
Go search it, but till you don't find it, your are only petty accusations of a hater.

[ioan]

Are you intimating that he was never asked by the officials how he managed to strategically lodge his car in the middle of track during a qualifying session?

Probably!
Can you prove otherwise?!

Wishfull thinking and supposition are nothing but a creation of your imagination, which doesn't makes them fact.

[PolePosition_1]

That's because you watch F1 only to hate MS and Ferrari, I suggest you take off your blinkers.



Bla bla bla! Where's the proof? Show me the proof! If it exists it will be written somewhere on one of the FIA press releases that MS lied or deliberately mislead the stewards.
Go search it, but till you don't find it, your are only petty accusations of a hater.


Yes Ioan, I watch F1 to hate Ferrari (who I wanted to win the title last year), and to hate Schumacher (who has not raced in F1 for 3 years now!).

Tell me when a driver was penalised for making a mistake and therefore bringing out a yellow flag? Where's the proof? Show me the proof! If it ecists it will be written somewhere on one of the FIA press releases.

Regarding Schumacher Monaco 2006, they penalised him for deliberately stopping out on track, he said he didn't. And in interviews said he didn't. Its called common sense Ioan.

[Bagwan]

Either you fail to comprehend my previous post or you are willfully engaging in some form of obfuscation here.

As for your new and unrelated statements above, Trulli was initially deemed to make an illegal pass - so no, "he didn't know what to do". It was only deemed legal because Hamilton was told to slow down by his team who were awaiting a clarification by race control. They were artificially slowing down to wait for further instruction. Had they proceeded at speed and not let Trulli pass, all would have been well according to the logic of the penalty against Trulli.

Not knowing the rules is a laugh given the strange nature of Trulli's off during the safety car run, it sure fooled the stewards.

I understand exactly what you said , and I meant no obfuscation .

Jarno was deemed to have made an illegal pass because Hamilton and Ryan lied .
So , yes , Jarno knew exactly what was the correct thing to do in all 3 cases .
Firstly , he knew Lewis had passed him , and was prepared to hold station as a result .
Secondly , he knew that it was legal to pass a competitor who slowed and pulled to the side .
And , thirdly , and perhaps most importantly , he knew also to give a correct and accurate account of what happened , from his own perspective .

You told me I didn't understand , or that I was trying to obscure the reality .
False .
You told me my statements were new and unrelated .
False .
You told me that Jarno didn't know the rules .
False .
You told me "It was only deemed legal because Hamilton was told to slow down by his team who were awaiting a clarification by race control." It was deemed illegal for exactly the opposite reason , as Lewis and Dave said that they didn't say to slow for the pass .
False , once again .

This is what you got right : "Had they proceeded at speed and not let Trulli pass, all would have been well according to the logic of the penalty against Trulli. "

That much is true . That's not much .

[SGWilko]

That's because you watch F1 only to hate MS and Ferrari, I suggest you take off your blinkers.

Calm down ioan. Sometimes you alienate yourself so much in your 'everyone hats MS' stance. All that is happening here is a paralell is being drawn between the two events.

There are differences, but - BUT there are similarities also.




Bla bla bla! Where's the proof? Show me the proof! If it exists it will be written somewhere on one of the FIA press releases that MS lied or deliberately mislead the stewards.
Go search it, but till you don't find it, your are only petty accusations of a hater.

No one is out to get you, but you are clearly paranoid. Just chill baby.

[ioan]

Yes Ioan, I watch F1 to hate Ferrari (who I wanted to win the title last year), and to hate Schumacher (who has not raced in F1 for 3 years now!).

Thanks for acknowledging that. Now I know that ignoring you won't lose me anything worth of notice. :p :

[ioan]

Calm down ioan. Sometimes you alienate yourself so much in your 'everyone hats MS' stance. All that is happening here is a paralell is being drawn between the two events.

There are differences, but - BUT there are similarities also.

Well if there are differences than you can't draw parallels, only make assumptions that in one's mind look like parallels.

Sorry mate but I prefer facts to anyone's biased and hate fueled assumptions.



No one is out to get you, but you are clearly paranoid.

I'm not sure since when you got your psychology diploma, but you're not deserving it! :p :

All I do is question PP1's lies.

[SGWilko]

Well if there are differences than you can't draw parallels, only make assumptions that in one's mind look like parallels.

Sorry mate but I prefer facts to anyone's biased and hate fueled assumptions.

Indeed, but as I stated above, there are similarities too. It's not everyone against you or MS or Ferrari - I can assure you.

I think it was Knockie who pointed out that, when you are not spitting your venom, you post very inciteful info on here. Where has that knowledgable and inciteful ioan gone? I much prefer him to the venom spitting ioan.....

Don't take what others write personally. Forum posting is very impersonal....

Are you intimating that he was never asked by the officials how he managed to strategically lodge his car in the middle of track during a qualifying session?

No. He gave a version of events which they didn't believe, if I recall.

But he wasn't charged with giving a false statement.

He should have been, but just because he wasn't doesn't mean that when somebody is shown to have lied to stewards they should not be held to account for it.

Just because somebody else wasn't charged with an offence doesn't make it any less of an offence.

[tintop]

Hamilton, Ryan refused to change story


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74368

To me this is the most damaging part. Carrying on a lie raises the offense, especially when confronted with evidence. Now to be fair, for example, had the stewards asked MS if he had deliberately parked his car and he denied it (a lie) and then came back to him with the damning telemetry and the footage of that little correction in the wheel and he had lied again, then we'd be on equal footing here. A lack of consistent enforcement/investigation.

In the end, Mclaren seem to be as stupid as they are dishonest here, which is ultimately what might get them banned.

[tintop]

No. He gave a version of events which they didn't believe, if I recall.

But he wasn't charged with giving a false statement.

He should have been, but just because he wasn't doesn't mean that when somebody is shown to have lied to stewards they should not be held to account for it.

Just because somebody else wasn't charged with an offence doesn't make it any less of an offence.

I agree, they are both deceiving officials and should be punished equally for the initial offense.

However, Mclaren, caught in a simple mousetrap of their own making, was given an opportunity to compound the initial offense by furthering the deception. Ferrari wasn't pursued after Michael's initial deception to the same degree, at least publicly, so we'll never know.

Of course, a big difference here is the complicity of the team. I'm sure nobody at Ferrari instructed MJ to park the car, whereas Mclaren is ultimately culpable in this instance.

[Bagwan]

Nobody at McLaren knew the rules , so they tried to get back what they had stupidly lost , and got caught trying to screw another competitor out of his rightful position in the process , due to the star driver talking to the press before memorizing the official stance from the team .

All quite simple , stupid , and reprehensible .

[ioan]

Indeed, but as I stated above, there are similarities too. It's not everyone against you or MS or Ferrari - I can assure you.


I never said that either.



I think it was Knockie who pointed out that, when you are not spitting your venom, you post very inciteful info on here. Where has that knowledgable and inciteful ioan gone? I much prefer him to the venom spitting ioan.....

I'm the same as always, it's just that...



Don't take what others write personally. Forum posting is very impersonal....

I can't stand lies and liars (unless they are trying to save their life from an unfair and dangerous situation).

Anything can be twisted, construed and presented as being a lie if the assumptions made create a false environment that is considered as being true. However facts are needed in order to support the verdict.
As far as PP1's SF claims go I asked him to come with some facts, not his own view of a situation he obviously didn't understand back than. I even told him where he would have probably found it if it ever existed.

I know that I am not easy to deal with, but if anyone comes with serious proof to support what they say than I'll take it.
I did call McLaren and Lewis liars, but not based on my assumption, it was based on facts. I expect the same conduit from others too.

[tintop]

Nobody at McLaren knew the rules , so they tried to get back what they had stupidly lost , and got caught trying to screw another competitor out of his rightful position in the process , due to the star driver talking to the press before memorizing the official stance from the team .

All quite simple , stupid , and reprehensible .

It wasn't a question of knowing the rules, it was a judgment on how to qualify a car that had severely departed the track during a full course yellow. Did the car that exited the track have an "obvious problem" i.e. was it OK to be ahead of Trulli when he returned to the track. A very legitimate clarification to request from race control. The stewards were obviously confused because they penalized Trulli, had they assumed that Trulli had the absolute right to be infront of Hamilton from the get-go they woulkd have never penalized him for re-taking his justified grid position. Sorry, your conclusions are contradicted by the evidence.

Been personally involved with similar situations in Touring Cars. Similar situations arise from running cars trying to carefully extricate themselves from crash sites - even though they are slowed down and often passed by succeding cars their positions are often returned by the stewards or fellow racers so as to not encourage reckless re-entry after accidents. But it's a legitimate judgement call by race control.

[christophulus]

I can't understand why McLaren are up for punishment when Hamilton is apparently innocent. Hamilton lied to the FIA as well, but an apology makes it all better apparently.

Dave Ryan lied and was fired. Hamilton was not. I can believe the idea that these two made up their own story without the rest of the team having any input - there's no evidence but it's just as possible as there being some great big conspiracy.


FIA race director Charlie Whiting has also revealed that Hamilton denied more than once in the original hearing in Australia that he had let Trulli pass him.


Whiting said: "When asked very clearly, 'Did you consciously let him past, did you pull over to let him past', he [Hamilton] said, 'No'. The question was asked more than once. He was adamant that he hadn't slowed down and hadn't let Trulli past."
I just can't figure out why the team might get punished but not the driver.

[Bagwan]

It wasn't a question of knowing the rules, it was a judgment on how to qualify a car that had severely departed the track during a full course yellow. Did the car that exited the track have an "obvious problem" i.e. was it OK to be ahead of Trulli when he returned to the track. A very legitimate clarification to request from race control. The stewards were obviously confused because they penalized Trulli, had they assumed that Trulli had the absolute right to be infront of Hamilton from the get-go they woulkd have never penalized him for re-taking his justified grid position. Sorry, your conclusions are contradicted by the evidence.

Been personally involved with similar situations in Touring Cars. Similar situations arise from running cars trying to carefully extricate themselves from crash sites - even though they are slowed down and often passed by succeding cars their positions are often returned by the stewards or fellow racers so as to not encourage reckless re-entry after accidents. But it's a legitimate judgement call by race control.

It was precisely that Jarno left the track surface , that he knew he would have to hold station behind Lewis , and he would have , had Lewis not slowed to intentionally let him by .
I have seen a quote from Jarno that says exactly that .

McLaren said , in the middle of that radio exchange , that they were looking for clarification of the rules .

Therefore , I surmize , Jarno knew what to do , and McLaren didn't .

[gloomyDAY]

Hamilton, Ryan refused to change story


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74368Even Jesus is upset.

http://westrum.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/holy-facepalm.jpg

[tintop]

It was precisely that Jarno left the track surface , that he knew he would have to hold station behind Lewis , and he would have , had Lewis not slowed to intentionally let him by .
I have seen a quote from Jarno that says exactly that .

McLaren said , in the middle of that radio exchange , that they were looking for clarification of the rules .

Therefore , I surmize , Jarno knew what to do , and McLaren didn't .

Jarno ultimately made the right call, but that doesn't mean that the situation wasn't ambiguous and that relying on a race control judgement wasn't the prudent choice. Jarno's postfacto statement doesn't realy clarify the real-time situation. It would be interesting to hear his radio transcript though.

[Bagwan]

Jarno ultimately made the right call, but that doesn't mean that the situation wasn't ambiguous and that relying on a race control judgement wasn't the prudent choice. Jarno's postfacto statement doesn't realy clarify the real-time situation. It would be interesting to hear his radio transcript though.

There was absolutely nothing ambiguous about it .

Jarno said he knew he wasn't able to re-pass Lewis , but then Lewis slowed , so he had no choice .
There's nothing unclear in that . Jarno knew exactly what to do as he had encountered the situation before . I believe he said he had been penalized for exactly the same charge , passing under yellows .
So , Jarno knew what to do . It was clear . It cannot be clearer .

McLaren called for clarification . They didn't know . That is clear as well .

It appears you still don't believe Trulli's account .




If Lewis had pulled over , waiting for the stewards to give them an answer , and all the other drivers went by , would you agree that it was the fault of the stewards , or just stupid for not knowing the rules ?

[tintop]

It appears you still don't believe Trulli's account .

It's neither here nor there, his post race perception and his ultimately correct decision doesn't prove that the situation wasn't ambiguous. His response doesn't "prove" anything. It would be interesting to hear Toyota transcripts, if any. My personal experience as a racer and a crew chief has been that there is often a little radio silence when a driver screws up like Trulli did, so there might not have been any radio traffic, but usually the team gets chatty during a safety car period.



If Lewis had pulled over , waiting for the stewards to give them an answer , and all the other drivers went by , would you agree that it was the fault of the stewards , or just stupid for not knowing the rules ?

Not an analogous situation, the other drivers didn't go offtrack.

[Bagwan]

It's neither here nor there, his post race perception and his ultimately correct decision doesn't prove that the situation wasn't ambiguous. His response doesn't "prove" anything. It would be interesting to hear Toyota transcripts, if any. My personal experience as a racer and a crew chief has been that there is often a little radio silence when a driver screws up like Trulli did, so there might not have been any radio traffic, but usually the team gets chatty during a safety car period.




Not an analogous situation, the other drivers didn't go offtrack.

I am at a loss to understand why you don't understand .
I will try once again .
Jarno's response after the race correlates exactly with what he did .

He went off track , and assumed the position behind Lewis .
He then passed , only when the driver ahead slowed .
He did nothing wrong .

The Toyota transcripts are quite un-necessary , as the question was only if Lewis had let him by , not if Jarno was ordered to do pass .

Sure , Jarno screwed up , but at least he knew what to do when he did .

McLaren screwed up right afterwards , and didn't know if they'd done the right thing .


And , there was nothing ambiguous about my question , either .
Try again , and read carefully .
"If Lewis had pulled over , waiting for the stewards to give them an answer , and all the other drivers went by , would you agree that it was the fault of the stewards , or just stupid for not knowing the rules ?"

[tintop]

I am at a loss to understand why you don't understand .
I will try once again .
Jarno's response after the race correlates exactly with what he did .

He went off track , and assumed the position behind Lewis .
He then passed , only when the driver ahead slowed .
He did nothing wrong .

The Toyota transcripts are quite un-necessary , as the question was only if Lewis had let him by , not if Jarno was ordered to do pass .

Sure , Jarno screwed up , but at least he knew what to do when he did .

McLaren screwed up right afterwards , and didn't know if they'd done the right thing .


And , there was nothing ambiguous about my question , either .
Try again , and read carefully .
"If Lewis had pulled over , waiting for the stewards to give them an answer , and all the other drivers went by , would you agree that it was the fault of the stewards , or just stupid for not knowing the rules ?"

Just because someone chooses option A vs. option B and A turns out to be the right answer, doesn't mean that there wasn't any ambiguity regarding the correct choice at the time of the incident, that's elemental logic. Passed many an exam by guessing right.

Nowhere in the rules does it indicate that a car leaving the track under FCY conditions in part or in whole has or does not have the right to re-gain position. It only mentions a slowed car with an obvious problem - Jarno's car wasn't obviously damaged so should Mclaren have passed him? US sporting regulations aren't identical to F1, but they share the ambiguity of such situations. Mclaren may be guilty of lying after the fact here but their request for clarification from the stewards is entirely legitimate. GSM

[Bagwan]

There was no ambiguity in Jarno's mind , as he had encountered the situation before .
The same situation presented itself , and he had precedent to act accordingly .
I must assume McLaren went to that race as well , and as the penalties are published , I can see no reason that they should have missed it .

In that exam , Jarno knew the answer and McLaren were guessing .

Try answering the question I posed , unless it's beneath you .

[tintop]

There was no ambiguity in Jarno's mind , as he had encountered the situation before .
The same situation presented itself , and he had precedent to act accordingly .
I must assume McLaren went to that race as well , and as the penalties are published , I can see no reason that they should have missed it .

In that exam , Jarno knew the answer and McLaren were guessing .

Try answering the question I posed , unless it's beneath you .

I'd like to see write-up of the parallel incident you are referencing here. If such incidents have resulted in penalties in the past, I'm surprised that they wouldn't have clarified that situation in the SC re-grid procedures. But, I would be interested to see it none-the-less.

[Hondo]

Personally, If I were McLaren, I wouldn't bother to accept the "invitation" of the FIA to appear. The FIA is going to do (and may already know what it intends to do) what it wants to do, regardless of what McLaren tells them.

It doesn't matter what has happened in the past or what may happen in the future, the facts here are simple. Unsure of the legality of Hamilton's pass, Hamilton was instructed to cede the position back to Trulli, which he did. When called for investigation, the two McLaren employees denied giving up the position voluntarily. McLaren has nothing to gain by attending the FIA hearing. I do believe whatever the FIA decides should be applied equaly to Hamilton as well as McLaren. If they ban McLaren for the rest of the season then they should also ban Hamilton.

Like I said, I'd stay home. Max and Bernie can worry and wonder about the financial and popularity damage that may occur with a McLaren and/or Hamilton ban. They may even have to worry about FOTA's reaction.

[Valve Bounce]

If they hadn't got caught it wouldn't have been a shyte idea.

Because it was a shyte idea, nobody should applaud pathetic useless cheating.

Brilliant cunning, however....that is a different issue.

Don't be ridiculous!

[Valve Bounce]

Just because someone chooses option A vs. option B and A turns out to be the right answer, doesn't mean that there wasn't any ambiguity regarding the correct choice at the time of the incident, that's elemental logic. Passed many an exam by guessing right.

Nowhere in the rules does it indicate that a car leaving the track under FCY conditions in part or in whole has or does not have the right to re-gain position. It only mentions a slowed car with an obvious problem - Jarno's car wasn't obviously damaged so should Mclaren have passed him? US sporting regulations aren't identical to F1, but they share the ambiguity of such situations. Mclaren may be guilty of lying after the fact here but their request for clarification from the stewards is entirely legitimate. GSM

You are correct in the first paragraph, and the excerpts from McLaren's radio communications clearly shows this. In fact, they told Lewis NOT to pass Jarno and he said that he'd already passed Jarno as he was off the track. Although that may be ambiguous in McLaren's (cumulative) minds, it is quite clear in the rules that if a car runs off the track during a SC period, then the other car(s) are permitted to pass that car.

Your second paragraph is incorrect (In my view) in that once a car has rejoined the track, and maybe half a dozen cars may have passed him, he is under the overiding SC rules and cannot re-pass any of those cars.

Where the whole thing falls apart for McLaren is that they instructed Lewis to allow Trulli to re-pass, and Lewis slowed down to let him through. Then to put Lewis's neck in the noose, they go and protest Trulli for passing. Now, they had every chance to get clarification of their situation had they simply acknowledged that there was confusion, as clearly shown in their communications, but decided to lie and say that Lewis was not told to let Trulli pass. All to gain 1 lousy point, and regardless of what would happen to Trulli.

Then, as pointed out in this link http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74368 given by tintop, these two stupid persons were given every chance to correct their evidence in the light of undeniable evidence, and they continued the lie.

OK, so some here think that Lewis had already been punished enough while McLaren has not, I personally think that some form of punishment that does not affect future races should be meted out. I think if McLaren's principle like Ron Dennis and Martin Whitmarsh, together with Lewis Hamilton, are made to go out with brooms and sweep the track in front of everyone before final practice, wearing a T-shirt which says I AM STUPID, I would be satisfied and just let the whole thing finish and we can all move on.

[Hawkmoon]

If they ban McLaren then thay also ban Hamilton. If the team can't race then the driver won't have a car to drive, now will he? In this regard McLaren's fate and Hamilton's are inseperable, just as Button's and Honda's were a few seasons ago.

Of course the FIA could merely exclude McLaren from the WCC leaving Hamilton to compete in the WDC, as they did in 2007. In this case Hamilton will have escaped punishment in a sporting sense. His punishment in a commercial sense is a different matter entirely. He's probably already suffering that fate as we speak.

Even though I get a rather perverse pleasure from seeing McLaren beaten about the metaphorical head and neck I think the matter should be put to rest. McLaren's reputation is in tatters (again), Hamilton's reputation is little better, they lost the point they tried to steal, Trulli was re-instated. Let it lie. It's done. Nothing good will come of booting them out of the championship.

[markabilly]

If they ban McLaren then thay also ban Hamilton. If the team can't race then the driver won't have a car to drive, now will he? In this regard McLaren's fate and Hamilton's are inseperable, just as Button's and Honda's were a few seasons ago.

Of course the FIA could merely exclude McLaren from the WCC leaving Hamilton to compete in the WDC, as they did in 2007. In this case Hamilton will have escaped punishment in a sporting sense. His punishment in a commercial sense is a different matter entirely. He's probably already suffering that fate as we speak.

Even though I get a rather perverse pleasure from seeing McLaren beaten about the metaphorical head and neck I think the matter should be put to rest. McLaren's reputation is in tatters (again), Hamilton's reputation is little better, they lost the point they tried to steal, Trulli was re-instated. Let it lie. It's done. Nothing good will come of booting them out of the championship.
The problem is that the key to telling the lie and making it happen was HAmilton

He told one story and then proceeed to tell anothr

From reading about the stewards' second meeting, it was as though Hamilton had completely forgotten about his radio interview (right after he stepped out of the car) where he claimed he let trulli pass....and when confronted at the second meeting, acted quilty but still claimed that he did not let Trulli pass.

Watch the video links in the other thread

[Hawkmoon]

The problem is that the key to telling the lie and making it happen was HAmilton

He told one story and then proceeed to tell anothr

From reading about the stewards' second meeting, it was as though Hamilton had completely forgotten about his radio interview (right after he stepped out of the car) where he claimed he let trulli pass....and when confronted at the second meeting, acted quilty but still claimed that he did not let Trulli pass.

Watch the video links in the other thread

Hey, I don't buy it for a minute that Ryan acted alone and Hamilton was merely following orders. Nor do I believe that Whitmarsh didn't know what was going on in the stewards meeting. I think Hamilton is just as guilty as the team.

My point is that they have been punished with disqualification from the race and their reputations are tarnished, McLaren's for the second time in 3 seasons.

What good, exactly, can come from kicking them out of further races or the championship? In my belief, none. Let the matter rest and get on with what is shaping up to be a very interesting season.

[Valve Bounce]

Hey, I don't buy it for a minute that Ryan acted alone and Hamilton was merely following orders. Nor do I believe that Whitmarsh didn't know what was going on in the stewards meeting. I think Hamilton is just as guilty as the team.

My point is that they have been punished with disqualification from the race and their reputations are tarnished, McLaren's for the second time in 3 seasons.

What good, exactly, can come from kicking them out of further races or the championship? In my belief, none. Let the matter rest and get on with what is shaping up to be a very interesting season.

Agreed! :up:

[markabilly]

What good, exactly, can come from kicking them out of further races or the championship? In my belief, none. Let the matter rest and get on with what is shaping up to be a very interesting season.

Why so narrow minded and short sighted??
None so blind as those who can not see!!

Dude, lawyers and buzzards got to eat (and drink, too) :beer:

of course I could point out as to if Ryan should get fired, then why not the Hamster, since all the credit belongs to Ham as the essential team member whose lies and personal knowledge were the key???

and what is this???

Agreed! :up:

As to you, Mr.Valve Bump, i say unto you this:

Valve, I am tired of reading stupid and pointless comments by you, stop it right now !
:s mokin:

[Valve Bounce]

As to you Valve, i give you this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pino View Post
Valve, I am tired of reading stupid and pointless comments by you, stop it right now !

:( :bigcry:

[tintop]

Although that may be ambiguous in McLaren's (cumulative) minds, it is quite clear in the rules that if a car runs off the track during a SC period, then the other car(s) are permitted to pass that car.

This is often proffered, but I have yet to find any explicit language regarding cars off track . The intention of the rule is to allow cars to pass obviously compromised cars (if any car slows with an obvious problem) that are otherwise limping back to the pits and are therefore no longer competitive. Cars running off track either completely or partially due to Trulli-like brain farts, to avoid on-track wrecks etc. are not the intention of that rule IMO. That's why both Mclaren and Toyota both sought Whiting's council on the radio.

Maybe it is an unwritten rule that a car that goes of to whatever degree is passable during a SC period, but it's certainly not explicit in the rules (unless I missed it) and both teams seemed to be confused.

BTW, although Trulli says the right things about why he repassed Hamilton, it's pretty clear that he knew that the Mclaren wasn't damaged and that the situation was confused, which is why Jarno slowed down next to Lying Louie and gave him a chance to catch up. He did the right thing by passing Hamilton, by then it was all F'd up.


Where the whole thing falls apart for McLaren is that they instructed Lewis to allow Trulli to re-pass, and Lewis slowed down to let him through. Then to put Lewis's neck in the noose, they go and protest Trulli for passing. Now, they had every chance to get clarification of their situation had they simply acknowledged that there was confusion, as clearly shown in their communications, but decided to lie and say that Lewis was not told to let Trulli pass. All to gain 1 lousy point, and regardless of what would happen to Trulli. Crazy Mclaren conceit.



I think if McLaren's principle like Ron Dennis and Martin Whitmarsh, together with Lewis Hamilton, are made to go out with brooms and sweep the track in front of everyone before final practice, wearing a T-shirt which says I AM STUPID, I would be satisfied and just let the whole thing finish and we can all move on.Yes, stupidity to me is the most amazing aspect of their deception, and should be a feature of their punishment. This is a nice image.

[CNR]

Hamilton, Ryan refused to change story
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74368


Lewis Hamilton and McLaren's former sporting director Dave Ryan refused to change their story about having deliberately let Jarno Trulli through at the Australian Grand Prix, despite being played radio conversations and media interviews that suggested the contrary in their second stewards' hearing at Sepang.



This week's AUTOSPORT reveals that Hamilton and Ryan maintained their stance in that second hearing that Trulli had taken it upon himself to overtake the McLaren in the closing stages of the Melbourne race, even though the stewards presented them with fresh evidence to say they were lying.
In the first detailed account of the stewards' hearings that have resulted in McLaren being called before the FIA's World Motor Sport Council, AUTOSPORT reports that Ryan and Hamilton stuck to their original story when recalled for the second hearing.




FIA race director Charlie Whiting has also revealed that Hamilton denied more than once in the original hearing in Australia that he had let Trulli pass him.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74360

It is about stealing a point and a place but those are worth money so basically it is fraud,

[Bagwan]

This is often proffered, but I have yet to find any explicit language regarding cars off track . The intention of the rule is to allow cars to pass obviously compromised cars (if any car slows with an obvious problem) that are otherwise limping back to the pits and are therefore no longer competitive. Cars running off track either completely or partially due to Trulli-like brain farts, to avoid on-track wrecks etc. are not the intention of that rule IMO. That's why both Mclaren and Toyota both sought Whiting's council on the radio.

Maybe it is an unwritten rule that a car that goes of to whatever degree is passable during a SC period, but it's certainly not explicit in the rules (unless I missed it) and both teams seemed to be confused.

BTW, although Trulli says the right things about why he repassed Hamilton, it's pretty clear that he knew that the Mclaren wasn't damaged and that the situation was confused, which is why Jarno slowed down next to Lying Louie and gave him a chance to catch up. He did the right thing by passing Hamilton, by then it was all F'd up.

Crazy Mclaren conceit.


Yes, stupidity to me is the most amazing aspect of their deception, and should be a feature of their punishment. This is a nice image.

I found the article , where I read Trulli's account .
This is from Autosport :

Q & A with Jarno Trulli

By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 09:32 GMT


Four days after the Australian Grand Prix, Jarno Trulli is a happy man again, having been reinstated into third place after the stewards decided to remove the penalty given to the Italian.

The controversy, however, is still ongoing, with the FIA saying that world champion Lewis Hamilton has misled the stewards in Australian.

AUTOSPORT heard Trulli's version of the events.

Q. What is your reaction to the decision of the stewards to give you third place?

Jarno Trulli: Well, I am happy. I am happy because I just wanted some justice, and I am happy I got it. I am happy for myself, for the team - and I have to thank the FIA because it does not happen very often that they reconsider something. It must have been really hard for them, but they had common sense to really try and understand what was going on. I have been always honest and it has paid off.

Q. So what happened between Australia and now?

JT: Nothing. We did not appeal. We did not do anything, and I did not make any further comments. I think the FIA was clever enough to understand the situation. They had a very busy end of the race, with so many accidents, and they now had a bit more evidence to understand the case. So they wanted to hear us again, and it just confirmed what happened in Australia as I didn't change my statement. That is it. I don't know what made them change their mind.

Q. Are you surprised that Lewis Hamilton has been excluded from the results?

JT: I don't know the evidence or what they investigated on. I cannot comment on it. I am just happy I got my position and what I did on the track. Honestly, it was a controversial end of the race and it was hard for anyone to understand. But again I would like to thank the FIA because they had the strength to reconsider the case, giving new evidence and understanding what was going on. I never lied, I was always honest in my statements and I never changed it.

Q. It was a crazy weekend in Australia.

JT: It was a troubled weekend. We pushed really hard to get the best possible result on track. We were all pleased, and we are still pleased with what we achieved last Sunday. Unfortunately we were left facing a controversial end to the race.

Q. There's a Youtube video of the incident when you went off. Can you talk us through what happened?

JT: It was my mistake when I went off. I was trying to slow down because this year we have a rule that you need to stick with a certain speed which is on the display. And on that particular part of the track I was caught out by a shadow.

We have the safety car line which gives you the exact time you have to do, so I was trying to respect that. I was trying to concentrate on that. I missed the braking point by a little bit with the cold tyres and I went a little bit wide. Obviously Lewis got me. Nothing wrong in that, because I obviously lost a position.

The problem came afterwards when, between turn 4 and turn 5, Lewis suddenly slowed down quite a lot. At this stage I didn't know why but my thought was that he was having trouble because he pulled over to the right side of the track, while he should have been on the left.

And he was slowing down more and more, so I overtook him at 80km/h. So we were basically stopped. And before overtaking him I went next to him to make sure that I was not breaking the rules. So what happened is that I went in front of him and I opened the radio to tell the team what was going on because I didn't want to get a penalty. And that's it. That's all I can say.

Q. The radio conversation is on Youtube now, and the team told you to stay behind him...

JT: I knew because I already had this problem before. I knew that I couldn't get the position, that's pretty clear. But if the car in front of you has a problem, like it looked from me... I didn't know what happened before, I just read what Lewis said to the press. At that stage it looked like he had mechanical troubles.

Q. Did the team tell you to give him his position back?

JT: At that moment, no. I called the team asked what was going on and the team said "Okay, stay there". Because the team has to go back to Charlie (Whiting) to see what is going on. I knew that I should have given the position back, but the rules say that if the car in front of you cannot keep a certain speed to follow the safety car or is in trouble, you can overtake that car.

I didn't know what was his problem. If he wanted he could have overtaken me. I let him by. When I overtook him I moved to the left side and he didn't overtake me.

Q. So you think he was taking some precautions?

JT: I think from what I read on the press, because I cannot say much more than that, was not sure about it and he was told to stay back. That's the only thing I can tell you because I read it. But at that stage I didn't know.

I think the stewards didn't have all the evidence, because they got a bit more evidence now. We gave them our radio communications. They have the McLaren communication. They have the data from the car.

The funny thing is that I was called to go to the stewards just after the press conference, so I didn't know anything about what McLaren and Lewis had said after the race. And my statement matched exactly that statement from McLaren. So that's very clear. I told the truth straight away and it corresponds exactly to what the data log of the car says.

Q. Are you disappointed that perhaps Lewis has not explained the situation clearly?

JT: Yeah, but this is more up to him and not down to me. I knew that I told the truth and all the evidence show that I didn't break the rules. This is very clear. I said the same things twice. I proved it with every kind of evidence and, on top of that, there was evident from the other team, so that just confirms my statement.

Q. Are you surprised the FIA has taken so long to solve the issue?

JT: It's difficult to judge because there was a lot going on for the FIA. I cannot judge what was the problem. For sure they didn't have enough evidence then. It's good that they reconsidered it. It means they really understand that there was something that they missed then. Just after the race things were probably a bit too chaotic for them. That's all I can think.

Q. Are the drivers clear about what you can do behind the safety car if a car goes off the track in front of you?

JT: It has happened to me already. I was warming up the tyres in this heavy rain in Japan and I spun. And I didn't get the position back, I stayed where I was. So for me, it's very clear. It's expressively written in the rules. It says that if the car in front cannot keep a reasonable pace to stay close to the safety car, and slows down too much, then the car behind can overtake.

The thing is not that I want to overtake. I saw Lewis slowing down and pulling apart, that was the other thing. He pulled apart, and I thought he was having a problem. So I went next to him and I was trying to make sure it was right. But obviously when you are there you don't start talking to the other driver. I didn't want to overtake him, but he didn't get the position back.

[Tazio]

Lewis Hamilton may be alone when he faces the World Motor Sport Council in Paris next Tuesday, a source at F1's governing body FIA has suggested.




The Guardian reports that Dave Ryan, the former sporting director who attended the Australia and Malaysia stewards hearings with the reigning world champion, will not be compelled to answer to the inquiry probing McLaren's alleged dishonesty.




This could make a bundle on Pay-Per-View :p :

[tintop]

I found the article , where I read Trulli's account .
This is from Autosport :

Q & A with Jarno Trulli

By Jonathan Noble and Pablo Elizalde Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 09:32 GMT


Four days after the Australian Grand Prix, Jarno Trulli is a happy man again, having been reinstated into third place after the stewards decided to remove the penalty given to the Italian.

The controversy, however, is still ongoing, with the FIA saying that world champion Lewis Hamilton has misled the stewards in Australian.

AUTOSPORT heard Trulli's version of the events.

Q. What is your reaction to the decision of the stewards to give you third place?

Jarno Trulli: Well, I am happy. I am happy because I just wanted some justice, and I am happy I got it. I am happy for myself, for the team - and I have to thank the FIA because it does not happen very often that they reconsider something. It must have been really hard for them, but they had common sense to really try and understand what was going on. I have been always honest and it has paid off.

Q. So what happened between Australia and now?

JT: Nothing. We did not appeal. We did not do anything, and I did not make any further comments. I think the FIA was clever enough to understand the situation. They had a very busy end of the race, with so many accidents, and they now had a bit more evidence to understand the case. So they wanted to hear us again, and it just confirmed what happened in Australia as I didn't change my statement. That is it. I don't know what made them change their mind.

Q. Are you surprised that Lewis Hamilton has been excluded from the results?

JT: I don't know the evidence or what they investigated on. I cannot comment on it. I am just happy I got my position and what I did on the track. Honestly, it was a controversial end of the race and it was hard for anyone to understand. But again I would like to thank the FIA because they had the strength to reconsider the case, giving new evidence and understanding what was going on. I never lied, I was always honest in my statements and I never changed it.

Q. It was a crazy weekend in Australia.

JT: It was a troubled weekend. We pushed really hard to get the best possible result on track. We were all pleased, and we are still pleased with what we achieved last Sunday. Unfortunately we were left facing a controversial end to the race.

Q. There's a Youtube video of the incident when you went off. Can you talk us through what happened?

JT: It was my mistake when I went off. I was trying to slow down because this year we have a rule that you need to stick with a certain speed which is on the display. And on that particular part of the track I was caught out by a shadow.

We have the safety car line which gives you the exact time you have to do, so I was trying to respect that. I was trying to concentrate on that. I missed the braking point by a little bit with the cold tyres and I went a little bit wide. Obviously Lewis got me. Nothing wrong in that, because I obviously lost a position.

The problem came afterwards when, between turn 4 and turn 5, Lewis suddenly slowed down quite a lot. At this stage I didn't know why but my thought was that he was having trouble because he pulled over to the right side of the track, while he should have been on the left.

And he was slowing down more and more, so I overtook him at 80km/h. So we were basically stopped. And before overtaking him I went next to him to make sure that I was not breaking the rules. So what happened is that I went in front of him and I opened the radio to tell the team what was going on because I didn't want to get a penalty. And that's it. That's all I can say.

Q. The radio conversation is on Youtube now, and the team told you to stay behind him...

JT: I knew because I already had this problem before. I knew that I couldn't get the position, that's pretty clear. But if the car in front of you has a problem, like it looked from me... I didn't know what happened before, I just read what Lewis said to the press. At that stage it looked like he had mechanical troubles.

Q. Did the team tell you to give him his position back?

JT: At that moment, no. I called the team asked what was going on and the team said "Okay, stay there". Because the team has to go back to Charlie (Whiting) to see what is going on. I knew that I should have given the position back, but the rules say that if the car in front of you cannot keep a certain speed to follow the safety car or is in trouble, you can overtake that car.

I didn't know what was his problem. If he wanted he could have overtaken me. I let him by. When I overtook him I moved to the left side and he didn't overtake me.

Q. So you think he was taking some precautions?

JT: I think from what I read on the press, because I cannot say much more than that, was not sure about it and he was told to stay back. That's the only thing I can tell you because I read it. But at that stage I didn't know.

I think the stewards didn't have all the evidence, because they got a bit more evidence now. We gave them our radio communications. They have the McLaren communication. They have the data from the car.

The funny thing is that I was called to go to the stewards just after the press conference, so I didn't know anything about what McLaren and Lewis had said after the race. And my statement matched exactly that statement from McLaren. So that's very clear. I told the truth straight away and it corresponds exactly to what the data log of the car says.

Q. Are you disappointed that perhaps Lewis has not explained the situation clearly?

JT: Yeah, but this is more up to him and not down to me. I knew that I told the truth and all the evidence show that I didn't break the rules. This is very clear. I said the same things twice. I proved it with every kind of evidence and, on top of that, there was evident from the other team, so that just confirms my statement.

Q. Are you surprised the FIA has taken so long to solve the issue?

JT: It's difficult to judge because there was a lot going on for the FIA. I cannot judge what was the problem. For sure they didn't have enough evidence then. It's good that they reconsidered it. It means they really understand that there was something that they missed then. Just after the race things were probably a bit too chaotic for them. That's all I can think.

Q. Are the drivers clear about what you can do behind the safety car if a car goes off the track in front of you?

JT: It has happened to me already. I was warming up the tyres in this heavy rain in Japan and I spun. And I didn't get the position back, I stayed where I was. So for me, it's very clear. It's expressively written in the rules. It says that if the car in front cannot keep a reasonable pace to stay close to the safety car, and slows down too much, then the car behind can overtake.

The thing is not that I want to overtake. I saw Lewis slowing down and pulling apart, that was the other thing. He pulled apart, and I thought he was having a problem. So I went next to him and I was trying to make sure it was right. But obviously when you are there you don't start talking to the other driver. I didn't want to overtake him, but he didn't get the position back.


So Toyota were confused as well, as evidenced by looking for a radio clarification from Whitty. I see here that Jarno gave up positions in a similar incident in Japan, but not whether there was a ruling that he had to, or that that was the correct course of action. It might well have been and perhaps in drivers meetings, racers are told to yield positions if they go farming, but I still can't find it explicitly laid out in the rules (can you?) and both teams seemed to be unsure enough to call RC for a clarification.

[huxleypiguk]

So say the FIA ban them for a couple of months meaning that they have no chance of winning the championship.

1) That allows them to develop next years car giving Lewis a good bash at the title again
2) Lewis is then free to do something else. Any other races take place during "the month of May" ? That would really hack off Bernie !

[Tazio]

Lewis Hamilton may be alone when he faces the World Motor Sport Council in Paris next Tuesday, a source at F1's governing body FIA has suggested.


This could make a bundle on Pay-Per-View :p :
I think it's Anthony's call :dozey:

The 'Half-Wit' is at it again....

'Vettel's actions were worse than McLaren's'
Friday 10th April 2009

Sir Jackie Stewart believes that if anyone needs to be called before the World Motor Sport Council for their Aussie GP incidents it's Seb Vettel and not McLaren.

Stewart, who has a long history of complaining about the FIA, reckons Vettel's decision to continue after his accident despite having a loose wheel hanging off his car could have caused more damage than McLaren's attempts to mislead the stewards.

As it is, though, Stewart is expecting further sanctions to be handed down to McLaren by the World Motor Sport Council while Vettel received "no more than a strong slap on the wrist."

"We now have a potentially serious state of affairs for McLaren," Stewart told the Scottish Herald. "It is hard to see how they can escape stringent sanctions when Lewis has already apologised publicly and the team has admitted that it got things wrong, which leaves them at the mercy of the FIA.

"I am surprised that McLaren have been caught up in something like this, and if there were lies told, they will have to suffer the consequences and it is difficult to believe they will get off with simply a financial penalty, considering that the World Council fined them $100m £68m, for their role in an alleged spy scandal involving Ferrari as recently as 2007.

"But we have to put things in perspective. Yes, this episode has reminded us that Hamilton is still an inexperienced driver in the grand scheme of things and there is no excuse for telling fibs, if that is what happened.

"In my opinion, what Vettel did in Melbourne was potentially more serious than what McLaren have been accused of, because that wheel could have flown into the crowd and killed somebody. Yet he was only penalised 10 places on the grid at the next race, which is no more than a strong slap on the wrist."
http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_5169392,00.html

I've highlighted one bit, because it really does show what a tit the bloke is. Jackie, it is not "alleged" anymore, it's confirmed.

Not that any of the rest of it doesn't confirm what a tit he is either.

[Bagwan]

Jackie seems to have worse problems than dyslexia .

"if there were lies told" , might indicate deafness(no doubt listened to the tape of radio transmissions) , blindness(to the reams of print media no doubt exposed to) , or perhaps his tam is too tight , Tam .

[Tazio]

I was distinctly uncomfortable about Lewis's demeanour on Sunday [in Australia], and on Thursday [in Malaysia] I would say he was just doing what he was told to do," said Whiting. "On Sunday it was completely clear that he was telling lies.

"The fact that he came and apologised to me in Sepang sums it up pretty much. He came to me and wanted to talk to me privately, and just said he wanted to apologise for everything he'd done, and he wouldn't do it again, that sort of thing." :bigcry: :mark: :( :laugh:


Whiting also said that he had never had any previous reason to question the behaviour of Ryan prior to that hearing in Australia, where he and Hamilton lied about not having let Trulli past.

"I've always found Dave to be very easy guy to deal with," said Whiting, "I've never thought that he was lying to me. There's no reason for me to suppose that he's like that all the time. But I do believe that he attempted to mislead the stewards, I don't think there's any doubt about that in my mind."

Ryan= Freain' Fall Guy :down:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74394

[Bagwan]

Hey , here's a couple of questions for you all .

The FIA has just stated that , since Patsy doesn't work for McLaren any more , they can't press him to appear at the hearing .

So , should he appear at the WMSC hearings , on behalf of McLaren ?

And , will he ?



I say he should , but only to drop them in it , like they dropped him .

I would like to think he will , but I suspect he won't want to jeopardize the retirement package .

[woody2goody]

I've lost quite a bit of respect for Sir Jackie after what he just said.

Is he trying to say he never caused an accident all the way through his career?

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

"In my opinion, what Vettel did in Melbourne was potentially more serious than what McLaren have been accused of, because that wheel could have flown into the crowd and killed somebody. Yet he was only penalised 10 places on the grid at the next race, which is no more than a strong slap on the wrist."

Except, Jackie, Red Bull were fined $50,000 for it by the stewards, Vettel wasn't punished for that but for "causing an avoidable accident"

Get your facts straight for once!

[ioan]

So say the FIA ban them for a couple of months meaning that they have no chance of winning the championship.

Like if they would have a chance to win anything this season, with that pig of a car! :rotflmao:

They should thank the FIA that it gives them time for development while it spares them the public disgrace of trundling around with Force India!

[ShiftingGears]

Like if they would have a chance to win anything this season, with that pig of a car! :rotflmao:


Presumably you thought that about Renault after the '08 Malaysian grand prix as well?

[Tazio]

"Thou shalt not bear false witness....Exodus 20:16

By the Almighty

[CNR]

i told the truth the video and team radio lied
what Wackie stewart dose not get is after the evidence of the radio transmission they stuck to the original story.


Transcript of the radio transmission between Lewis Hamilton and his team:

Team: OK Lewis, you should need to make sure your delta is positive over the safety car line. After the safety car line the delta doesn’t matter but no overtaking. No overtaking.

Lewis Hamilton: The Toyota went off in a line at the second corner, ..., is this OK?

Team: Understood, Lewis. We’ll confirm and get back to you.

LH: He was off the track. He went wide.

Team: Lewis, you need to allow the Toyota through. Allow the Toyota through now.

LH: OK.

LH: He’s slowed right down in front of me.

Team: OK, Lewis. Stay ahead for the time being. Stay ahead. We will get back to you. We are talking to Charlie.

LH: I let him past already.

Team: OK, Lewis. That’s fine. That’s fine. Hold position. Hold position.

LH: Tell Charlie I already overtook him. I just let him past.

Team: I understand Lewis. We are checking. Now can we go to yellow G 5, yellow Golf 5.

LH: I don’t have to let him past I should be able to take that position back, if he made a mistake.

Team: Yes, we understand Lewis. Let’s just do it by the book. We are asking Charlie now. You are in P4. If you hold this position. Just keep it together.

Team: OK Lewis, your KERS is full, your KERS is full. Just be aware. You can go back to black F2, black Foxtrott 2.

LH: Any news from Charlie whether I can take it back or not.

Team: Still waiting on a response Lewis, still waiting.

Team: Lewis, work on your brakes please. Front brakes are cold.

Team: If we are able to use one KERS that would be good. If you deploy KERS please do so now.

Team: OK, Lewis, this is the last lap of the race. At the end of the lap the safety car will come in, you just proceed over the line without overtaking, without overtaking. We are looking into the Trulli thing, but just hold position

[Valve Bounce]

"Thou shalt not bear false witness....Exodus 20:16

By the Almighty

Oh! for God's sake, post something from Ezekiel!! we have Aliens and flying Saucers there. :p :



P.S. pino!! I swear to God this is true, and not one of my stupid ramblings!! :(

[markabilly]

P.S. pino!! I swear to God this is true, and not one of my stupid ramblings!! :(
Seems to me that you and hamilton both got guilty consciences, next you will be holding a press conference and saying my boss made me do it and you are thinking about switching computers.......

[gloomyDAY]

If I can't get away with cheating on my girlfriend and then lying about it, then neither should McLaren or Lewis Hamilton get away without being castigated by the FIA. There should be a punishment, but how heavy should it be? The evil-doers (Bush reference) were already disqualified from Australia, so the matter on the track is resolved. Another cruel and unusual fine is probably in order. :p

In all honesty I'd like to see this matter get dropped so we can get back to, ummm, what's that called?, racing! Unfortunately, that will never happen since the sharks smell blood in the water.

[wmcot]

For those who argue that there is no consistency in the rulings by comparing Hamilton/McLaren in Oz 2009 to Schumacher in Monaco 2006 and Honda's fuel tank fiasco, I would only like to remind them that it's hard to be consistent when you have 19 (or so) sets of judges (stewards) in a single season, much less over 3 years!

When you compare the rulings of different stewards, you're comparing apples to oranges.

F1 will never have consistency until it has a permanent set of stewards that travel to all the races!

[markabilly]

For those who argue that there is no consistency in the rulings by comparing Hamilton/McLaren in Oz 2009 to Schumacher in Monaco 2006 and Honda's fuel tank fiasco, I would only like to remind them that it's hard to be consistent when you have 19 (or so) sets of judges (stewards) in a single season, much less over 3 years!

When you compare the rulings of different stewards, you're comparing apples to oranges.

F1 will never have consistency until it has a permanent set of stewards that travel to all the races!
Dumb idea. First, it would cost too much money for salaries and travel expenses maybe as much as 150,000 dollars, especially if they got unionized and bernie nor Max would not like that as it would cut into the party time funds.
Second, it would remove much of the drama and interest about a race, drama and interest that extends sometimes for months...as well as the mystery as to what will happen next.
fourth it removes the opportunity for drivers to show their real skills, since it takes a great driver to win by passing for the lead on the last lap at the last corner, but even greater driving skill to win several days or months after the engines have gone cold.
fifth, lawyers need to eat too.

[Marbles]

I'm always surprised that the biggest motorsport circus on the planet lacks such fundamental things that most others have. A proper safety crew for one and a proper "person in charge" with regards to penalties is another. We all know how efficient committees are.

Finding out a car is "under investigation" for some incident that happened 20 or 30 laps previous is maddening enough but this post race crap is pure amateur hour. A proper race control should have had the facilities to deal with this within a lap or two or immediately after the race. This post race melodrama is pure garbage.

[Dr. Krogshöj]

Hey Max is a lawyer, isn't he?

Yes, among other things. He also has a physics degree from Oxford in mechanics and dynamics.

[SGWilko]

Oh! for God's sake, post something from Ezekiel!! we have Aliens and flying Saucers there. :p :



P.S. pino!! I swear to God this is true, and not one of my stupid ramblings!! :(

Ha! My FD's surname is Ezekiel. He's Jewish (surprisingly). A Jewish FD called Ezekiel - the 'prophet (or profit!!)

If only he spoke with a Scots accent.

Bloody nice chap - tighter than a duck's jacksy mind you.....

[wmcot]

fifth, lawyers need to eat too.

Which brings to mind the old question:

"What's the difference between a lawyer and a carp?"

Answer:

"One is a scum sucking, bottom dweller and the other is a fish!"

[ioan]

Which brings to mind the old question:

"What's the difference between a lawyer and a carp?"

Answer:

"One is a scum sucking, bottom dweller and the other is a fish!"

:rotflmao: Good one! :up:

[CNR]

http://fakeferrarinews.wordpress.com/


You really do have to hand it to F1 team Vodaphone McLaren Mercedes. No other team in the history of the sport have managed to repeatedly get themselves into quite so much hot water as the Woking based squad, without actually employing the nefarious talents of one Michael Schumacher (Scandalmeister) and that is quite an accomplishment in itself.
At least not in all the years I have been watching the sport, and since I’m told I have the memory of a goldfish perhaps that doesn’t really count for a whole lot.
This week McLaren have managed to embroil themselves in yet another FIA related saga, this time as a result of telling a few innocent fibs to the race stewards about events that transpired towards the end of the season opener in Melbourne.
http://fakeferrarinews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/dave-ryan-and-lewis-hamil-001.jpg?w=368&h=221If we are to believe recent media reports, McLaren’s Sporting Director Dave Ryan took it upon himself to embellish events somewhat in the Steward’s presence forcing World Champion Lewis Hamilton to corroborate his version of events against his will and better judgement, and all for the sake of one measly championship point and a peanut bowl platter. (Although we suspect half of Ferrari might sell their respective grandmothers right now for aforementioned measly point not to mention the peanuts of course).
As a result Toyota’s Jarno Trulli was demoted to fourth place with a post race 25 second penalty, handing the shiny platter to McLaren’s World Champion.
Unfortunately, it would seem McLaren didn’t reckon on the old farts of the Federation Idiots and Amateurs actually listening to any post race media interviews, let alone having a good old earwig into McLaren’s radio communications with their ear trumpets.
Evidently the governing body discovered (after plowing through hours of Happy Heikki warbling Abba’s Greatest Hits) evidence that contradicted the statements made by Lucky Linda (I mean Lewis) and his Sporting Director Dave Ryan (although we feel perhaps ‘unsporting’ is probably a more applicable job title all things considered).
Sufficed to say the hapless duo were called back before the Stewards at Malaysia and asked to account for themselves, even after listening to the contradictory evidence we are to understand they continued to pull the chain of the FIA race stewards, if recent media reports are to be believed.
McLaren Team Principal Martin Whitmarsh immediately leapt to the defence of his driver and team, declaring to anyone who would listen that no-one at McLaren had told any pork-pies and he really hadn’t got the foggiest what the FIA were whittering on about. No Honestly. Deja vu anyone?
http://fakeferrarinews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lucky-linda-squirming.jpg?w=368&h=23024 hours later, Lucky Linda (I mean Lewis) was squirming like a maggot on a fish hook in front of the world’s media admitting to lying, but we are to understand it doesn’t count because his Sporting Director Dave Ryan made him do it, presumably under threat of stealing his penny sweets and pocket money.
Of course being the caring, sharing, no-blame culture that the modern McLaren is (as we were informed just a few short weeks ago) the team summarily sent their Sporting Director packing, although under the new caring culture they continued to happily employ 3 ex-spygate scandalists, so there is still hope for poor misunderstood Dave yet.
Yesterday events took a more serious turn, when the FIA announced it was cordially inviting Vodaphone McLaren Mercedes to a soiree in Paris on the 29th April, to enjoy a buffet lunch, some bottled fizzy water and a friendly get together for a frank and polite exchange of opinions regarding the meaning of article 151(c) of the international sporting code. RSVP.
http://fakeferrarinews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/rsvp2.jpg?w=238&h=319For those of you (unlikely I know given recent events) wanting to know what this article 151(c) is all about, let us explain.
In a nutshell it is a catch-all clause in the governing bodies regulations, that should anyone do anything to compromise the illusion that all is fair in love and F1 (barring the odd controversial race stewards decision or three and a few illegal/legal/illegal diffusors), then they shall be invited to Paris for a day or two and made to grovel cap in hand to the WMSC for a lenient punishment and pay for the pleasure.
Anyone found not to be grovelling quite as much as deemed necessary, we understand are duty bound to receive 30 lashes with a cat-o-nine-tails and whatever else the FIA hand out for punishment these days.
Some newspapers are suggesting that McLaren may at worst be excluded altogether from the world championship for 2009 for bringing the sport into disrepute, or at least receive a few race bans and even possibly a huge financial fine (as the FIA has already spent the last one on road safety campaigns, icecreams and day trips to the seaside).
Rumours have begun to emerge that Lewis and his Manager/Father/Principal Cheerleader are not best happy with how things are going at McLaren, particularly the damage done to Lewis’s reputation as a result of the ‘Liegate Scandal’ and his subsequent fall from grace in the eyes of the fickle British ‘Love Button’ Media.
http://fakeferrarinews.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/hamilton-snr.jpg?w=260&h=324Although personally we felt floating about like a PR fairy on a highwire is as damaging as it can ever get for one’s reputation when it comes to grown men.
It is rumoured the Brit may be intent on leaving the team that has supported, financed and developed his career since he was 13, some skeptics have suggested that the latest turn or events might serve as a smokescreen to hide the fact Lewis is already bored of driving the MP4-slowathon and is hankering after a drive at BrawnGP (presumably over Rubens Barrichello’s dead body).
Good to see team loyalty is alive and thriving in Woking, but then we wouldn’t want to hang around Woking for too long either…..and not just for fear of an imminent P45 (marching orders).
At least this latest scandal to rock the sport, makes a change from the 20 times-a-yearly stories of Alonso going to Ferrari that seem to have been bandied about since the Jurassic period began, and probably still rumbling on long after I’m dead, buried and been eaten by a few garden worms.
What we really want to know is what do ‘gates’ have to do with anything? Have you ever noticed that anytime the sport is engulfed in a storm in a teacup, immediately a ‘gate’ is brought into the equation?
First we had ‘Spygate’ although we don’t actually recall any missing ‘gates’ being reported in the immediate vicinity of Maranello when Nigel Stepney was a very naughty boy, and for that matter we don’t remember anyone spying through one either.
Now we have ‘Liegate’…and not a wooden strutt, fence or beam in sight. You can see why we are somewhat baffled and bemused here at FFN.

[Knock-on]

Jackie makes a valid point that the potential repercussions of Vettel driving that wreck around could have been very serious.

However, it's a little like comparing apples and oranges. One is a stupid driving / team decision to salvage some points and the other is an outright lie to secure a 3rd place that would have been rightfully his had the team not cocked up and told Lewis to relinquish it.

Jackie sometimes comes out with some good stuff, and fundementally he is correct in his premise (although innacurate in a few facts) that SV's continuing was potentially more damaging, it really isn't comparably to a deliberate deception.

[gloomyDAY]

stating, "i am sho showy." :(

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74748
Yeah, well that's not going to fix the problem.

I just hope that McLaren have dealt with this sufficiently to get that monkey off their back. Got rid of Davey, Ron stepped away (probably incited this whole scandal), and now Whitmarsh is genuinely being apologetic over their retar.... lapse of judgment.

One more thing, is Whitmarsh going to be another Ron?
They seem to operate differently. Martin seems willing to smile and give an interview, even after Australia. I just hope he can manage McLaren as well as he has coped with Lie-gate.

One more thing, is Whitmarsh going to be another Ron?
They seem to operate differently. Martin seems willing to smile and give an interview, even after Australia. I just hope he can manage McLaren as well as he has coped with Lie-gate.

He's managed "lie-gate" well?

How about managing his team so they don't fecking cheat in the first place?

Whitmarsh is Ron's puppet. Only the kind of people who believe Mclaren propaganda can seriously believe that Dennis is 'stepping away'....and the only people who believe Mclaren propaganda are Whitmarsh, Dennis and apparently this forums ArrowsFA1!

Talking of Mclaren propaganda.....Whitmarsh shouldn't be called a Team Principal....I think "Minister of Information" is a better moniker.

[ArrowsFA1]

...the only people who believe Mclaren propaganda are Whitmarsh, Dennis and apparently this forums ArrowsFA1!
Distortions like this and terms such as "a weasels argument", "lsd washouts", and introducing mass murderers where it comes to anyone who dares hold a different opinion to yours and the FIA Ministry of Information have become all too familiar. It's typical flamebait fare.

[Bagwan]

Mom , he said I was a weasel !

Maybe you could counter the point that it was a weasel's argument ?
I am assuming that you got the point .

[Tumbo]

nice to know that ppl here have such long yet selective memories - McLaren in possession of data 'weasels' Renault in possession of data..........to think McLaren are the only team in the paddock looking out for themselves........but no we can't bring up other incidents in this matter can we to put everything in perspective because we must punish the evil-dooers

nice to know that ppl here have such long yet selective memories - McLaren in possession of data 'weasels' Renault in possession of data..........to think McLaren are the only team in the paddock looking out for themselves........but no we can't bring up other incidents in this matter can we to put everything in perspective because we must punish the evil-dooers

Renault recieved the same punishment as Mclaren intially did over 'Spygate".

Seems you too have a selective memory. A selective memory that is wilfully distorting the facts, to boot.

It was only when it became evident that Mclaren had been less than open with the FIA that they were punished further.

Anyone with half a memory should remember that.

So, please, have that for perspective.

Maybe you could counter the point that it was a weasel's argument ?
I am assuming that you got the point .

Thanks for pointing that out.

Although I fear it's a notion beyond some peoples thought capacity.

[Tumbo]

At the end of the day what McLaren did was wrong simple enough, they sought to benefit themselves and were caught out - fair chop - yet ppl constantly talk about 'spygate' and how there was a culture of coverup (i'm yet to see anything more than CONJECTURE that RD had actual knowledge of the date) as true evidence that the team is corrupt and that everything out of their mouth since then has to be lies...........yet sofar what we have seen since spygate is 1 incident that being Australia this yr where McLaren have not been truthful..........Renault who commited the same offence as McLaren seem to be completely ignored yet THEY broke the rules too........bit like when the whole MS qualifying incident is brought up re: Hamilton and the stewards - he said one thing and the stewards believed another and punished him; if they said his version wasn't correct then ipsofacto he was lying yet no further penalty even tho he didn't backdown - something which Hamilton has been willing to do and further to apologise. End of the day to argue that McLaren are the only 'weasels' in the field shows true bias - and no i'm not a McLaren fan, like Hamilton as a driver but I support Red Bull

Renault who commited the same offence as McLaren seem to be completely ignored yet THEY broke the rules too

And recieved exactly the same punishment as did Mclaren.

The difference between the two occurred after the initial hearing....when it was found that Mclaren hadn't been as cooperative or as open as they should have been.

Renault cooperated fully with the FIA. Mclaren did not. If you cannot see the difference, then you need an eye test.

Oh, and Mclaren had to apologise at the Renault hearing for deliberately misleading the inquiry and for releasing wholly unfactual press releases.....so there is another example of them being "weasels" for you.

[Tumbo]

ok fine - btw nice to see that you veil ur abuse thinly "anyone with half a brain" since you obviously have your opinion and I have mine I can't see this going any further so i'll just back out.........not worth either of our times

[ArrowsFA1]

Maybe you could counter the point...

Claiming that a lack of cheating before 2007 means there isn't a culture of deceit within the team is a weasels argument.....especially when the evidence is there for all to listen too that there is such a culture.
I do question whether there is such a "culture", and whether events at McLaren are so different to other events that have occured in F1 over the years. Of course it's very neat and convenient to wrap up everything that has happened into such a label because it's far easier to digest as a soundbite. If it's shouted often enough, and loud enough, it can become an unquestioned part of all of this, but it is just an opinion among many.

If we accept there is such a culture then how do we explain it suddenly appearing when there was no hint of such a culture before 2007? It is not a "weasel's argument" to ask that question, particularly as there is no apparent or obvious explanation.

But why bother with that when "McLaren are cheats" is so much easier to digest. And it's so much easier to dismiss those who hold a different opinion to yours with "If you cannot see the difference, then you need an eye test" or "Anyone with half a memory should remember that" among many others.

It's clearly a waste of everyone's time.

[Hondo]

Nice to know Hamilton won't "walk away" from McLaren over it's current problems, especially since he was a major player in helping to cause that problem. What a guy.

If we accept there is such a culture then how do we explain it suddenly appearing when there was no hint of such a culture before 2007? It is not a "weasel's argument" to ask that question, particularly as there is no apparent or obvious explanation.

There is a perfectly obvious explanation.....pressure.

The same sort of pressure that provoked Schumachers infamous Jerez 1997 actions......the fear of defeat.

Mclaren hadn't won a title since 1999....they had just seen Renault win two back-to-back titles....I have no doubt that there would have been a significant increase in the demands for victory from the boardroom of Daimler-Benz. Ron had just sold his controlling stake to the Bahrain investment group....he was no longer his own boss, as such...that is a lot of pressure that had appeared that previously wasn't there. Vodafone had just come in as main sponsors, having had massive success with Ferrari...more pressure.

In 2007, they had the current World champion driver....so no excuses could be placed on the driver....he was the first World Champion Mclaren had signed since Niki Lauda....and then they were presented, by Nigel Stepney, with an opportunity which, due to the pressure of the fear of failure they stupidly took.

The pressure of that, the fear of failure, is really quite obvious when you bother to consider it.

Nobody is saying that Mclaren were corrupt before 2007, so the sudden appearance of decisions which are undoubtedly dubious (such as not fully cooperating with the FIA, a ridiculous decision given that the FIA were apparently perceived by Mclaren to be 'after them') would appear to be caused by that lack of success combined with demands on the management for success.

Once that culture was allowed, and by not cooperating with the FIA the management sent a clear signal within its organisation that it didn't deem underhand and dubious tactics to be off-limits, then it is no surprise that the culture continued.

Amazing, isn't it, when you actually bother to think about it and add things up?

[Bagwan]

I do question whether there is such a "culture", and whether events at McLaren are so different to other events that have occured in F1 over the years. Of course it's very neat and convenient to wrap up everything that has happened into such a label because it's far easier to digest as a soundbite. If it's shouted often enough, and loud enough, it can become an unquestioned part of all of this, but it is just an opinion among many.

If we accept there is such a culture then how do we explain it suddenly appearing when there was no hint of such a culture before 2007? It is not a "weasel's argument" to ask that question, particularly as there is no apparent or obvious explanation.

But why bother with that when "McLaren are cheats" is so much easier to digest. And it's so much easier to dismiss those who hold a different opinion to yours with "If you cannot see the difference, then you need an eye test" or "Anyone with half a memory should remember that" among many others.

It's clearly a waste of everyone's time.

In my local municipality , I was quoted in one of the newspapers as having described local government as falling into a "culture of deceit" .

This was after the building inspector had been shown to have lied blatantly to the press about having not been the person to have called the health inspector about my restaurant .
It was shown to be reprisal for having one of my employees question one of his highly questionable moves , shown to be a product of another lie , and , part of a vicious campaign against a friend of mine .

Some people still stand on that side , and the council starts now to fragment , as more truths are now , 2 years later , coming out in an audit of the building official's paper .
Some paper is missing , and the police , not just a government auditor , are on the scene .

Soon , we should have some justice .

It will be shown that they all lied . They knew what was going on .
The rogue employee was , and is representing them .
That they did nothing to stop him , when they knew , will make them more culpable in the end .

Long before we had the health inspector visit(which , by the way , finished in a flourish , with a "no recommendations" , don't change a thing) , I could see who this guy was , and knew he was a liar .
I waited until it was proven , to proclaim a culture of deceit .


To relate this to McLaren , I would suggest asking about how Alonso felt about his team-mate that year .
He felt insensed at being treated unfairly in the team , and his reactions showed he was at odds with Ron over the issue .
He already felt that Ron was lying to him that they got equal cars and strategy .

That's initially why he used that data to get Ron to comply with his wishes of equality .

So , there is evidence of favouritism according to Fernando , and he's fast enough to know .

And , just like that building inspector , we might make the "massive jump" required to think that he might not have been all that truthful before that , as his particular brand of ethics had lead him to justify somehow , a blatant lie to the press , just like Lewis and fall-guy Ryan had lied to the stewards .

They took the press coverage into the steward's room now , and will they find anything that links McLaren , Whitmarsh , or Dennis that links them to the fired rogue ?

We here , all expect the audit of the building official to come up with enough for charges , and perhaps dismissal of the whole council .


Ask Coulthard if he ever felt that Ron favoured someone else , whilst saying that it wasn't true .

Lies are lies , no matter who tells them .
Rons been telling them before '07 .

There is a perfectly obvious explanation.....pressure.

The same sort of pressure that provoked Schumachers infamous Jerez 1997 actions......the fear of defeat.

Mclaren hadn't won a title since 1999....they had just seen Renault win two back-to-back titles....I have no doubt that there would have been a significant increase in the demands for victory from the boardroom of Daimler-Benz. Ron had just sold his controlling stake to the Bahrain investment group....he was no longer his own boss, as such...that is a lot of pressure that had appeared that previously wasn't there. Vodafone had just come in as main sponsors, having had massive success with Ferrari...more pressure.

In 2007, they had the current World champion driver....so no excuses could be placed on the driver....he was the first World Champion Mclaren had signed since Niki Lauda....and then they were presented, by Nigel Stepney, with an opportunity which, due to the pressure of the fear of failure they stupidly took.

The pressure of that, the fear of failure, is really quite obvious when you bother to consider it.

Nobody is saying that Mclaren were corrupt before 2007, so the sudden appearance of decisions which are undoubtedly dubious (such as not fully cooperating with the FIA, a ridiculous decision given that the FIA were apparently perceived by Mclaren to be 'after them') would appear to be caused by that lack of success combined with demands on the management for success.

Once that culture was allowed, and by not cooperating with the FIA the management sent a clear signal within its organisation that it didn't deem underhand and dubious tactics to be off-limits, then it is no surprise that the culture continued.

Amazing, isn't it, when you actually bother to think about it and add things up?

Ok, Arrows, I've brought this to the front because it seems that you have missed it...

[CNR]

Renault who commited the same offence as McLaren seem to be completely ignored yet THEY broke the rules too
yes and no it is true that Renault had McLaren data that was taken from McLaren when the employees changed teams to Renault but as soon as Renault found out they reported it to the fia.

[ArrowsFA1]

...as soon as Renault found out they reported it to the fia.
Phil Mackereth joined Renault from McLaren in September 2006, bringing McLaren data with him. Renault admitted that he had the information transferred to his computer at Renault, and showed scale drawings to 'some engineers'.

None of this was brought to the attention of the FIA until McLaren's hearing in September 2007, which prompted an investigation by the FIA. (link (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63853))

Renault did not report the matter to the FIA "as soon as they found out".

Renault did not report the matter to the FIA "as soon as they found out".

No, but they did cooperate fully with the FIA investigation, unlike certain other teams you could mention...

Hence the difference, and hence why Renault were not called back for a second hearing.

But obviously pointing that out is a "waste of time" as some folk don't want to deal with facts.

Apparently some people need their memories refreshing.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6910369.stm

"The official statement from the FIA read: "The world council is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of Article 151c of the international sporting code.

However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One world championship. We therefore impose no penalty."

&

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7129049.stm

"The International Automobile Federation (FIA) found Renault guilty of breaching F1 regulations by having rival team McLaren data in their possession.

But the sport's governing body, who will publish their detailed decision on Friday, opted to impose no penalty on former world champions Renault."

[SGWilko]

Apparently some people need their memories refreshing.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6910369.stm

"The official statement from the FIA read: "The world council is satisfied that Vodafone McLaren Mercedes was in possession of confidential Ferrari information and is therefore in breach of Article 151c of the international sporting code.

However, there is insufficient evidence that this information was used in such a way as to interfere improperly with the FIA Formula One world championship. We therefore impose no penalty."

&

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7129049.stm

"The International Automobile Federation (FIA) found Renault guilty of breaching F1 regulations by having rival team McLaren data in their possession.

But the sport's governing body, who will publish their detailed decision on Friday, opted to impose no penalty on former world champions Renault."

Tamb, my memory is rubbish.

Remind me, with a link if poss, what was I doing at 17.45 on 19th June 1979.....


Cheers mate! :laugh:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article6175840.ece

Bernie thinks that
“I am absolutely positive that Mercedes would like to look upon this as fair for everybody and, if there is any punishment to be meted out, it will be fair and I am sure they would support that..........

........I don't think they would decide to leave Formula One because somebody had done something wrong and been punished. I think they will be very fair.”

[Knock-on]

Lets not beat about the bush on this.

McLaren were in the wrong and got punished. End of.

Renault had information stolen by Phil and used it on the car. On top of that, the project Phil worked on at Renault was one that he had no expertise in and it appears the only reason he was qualified to work on that area of development was that he had plans stolen from McLaren relating to their designs.

Yet, Charlie popped along to Renault, interviewed a few people, accepted at face value that their version of events was genuine and the FIA swept the whole thing under the carpet.

WHY WERE THE ARCHIVED BACKUP TAPES NEVER EXAMINED!!

Because they didn't want to find the proof or examine the audit trail.

I have no problem with mcLaren being in the wrong and saying so when they are. However, lets be honest about Renault and accept they did the same but were let off rather than investigated properly.

WHY WERE THE ARCHIVED BACKUP TAPES NEVER EXAMINED!!

I don't know Knockie....you'd have to ask the IT specialists Mclaren sent to examine Renaults system.

"5.4. Independent IT experts (Kroll OnTrack) were appointed by McLaren and, with Renault’s agreement, were given wide-ranging access to Renault’s IT systems and have conducted in depth analysis of IT equipment used by Mackereth in particular.

5.5. With Mackereth’s agreement, McLaren’s IT experts have also searched Mackereth’s home computer for confidential McLaren information"

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2007/12/07/the-full-verdict-on-the-renault-mclaren-spying-case/

As can be seen, Renault fully cooperated....hence why they were never called back for a second hearing.

Unlike Mclaren, who never cooperated but instead bullsxxted.

I do have a theory on the latest scandal. Lets paint the scene. Ron Dennis has just stepped down as team principal and handed over the reigns to someone (Whitmarsh) who has been with the team for 20 or so years. In the background is someone (Ryan) who has been with the team alot longer and may have been dissappointed he was over looked for the position. The first big decision the team needs to make has just occured in Australia and Ryan wants a piece of the action. He decides to take abit of the light away from Whitmarsh. It all goes tits up and furious that Ryan acted without consultation, Whitmarsh sacks Ryan taking pressure off the team.


You should be Mclaren's lawyer as that is how I expect them to play it.

There is a perfectly obvious explanation.....pressure.

The same sort of pressure that provoked Schumachers infamous Jerez 1997 actions......the fear of defeat.

Mclaren hadn't won a title since 1999....they had just seen Renault win two back-to-back titles....I have no doubt that there would have been a significant increase in the demands for victory from the boardroom of Daimler-Benz. Ron had just sold his controlling stake to the Bahrain investment group....he was no longer his own boss, as such...that is a lot of pressure that had appeared that previously wasn't there. Vodafone had just come in as main sponsors, having had massive success with Ferrari...more pressure.

In 2007, they had the current World champion driver....so no excuses could be placed on the driver....he was the first World Champion Mclaren had signed since Niki Lauda....and then they were presented, by Nigel Stepney, with an opportunity which, due to the pressure of the fear of failure they stupidly took.

The pressure of that, the fear of failure, is really quite obvious when you bother to consider it.

Nobody is saying that Mclaren were corrupt before 2007, so the sudden appearance of decisions which are undoubtedly dubious (such as not fully cooperating with the FIA, a ridiculous decision given that the FIA were apparently perceived by Mclaren to be 'after them') would appear to be caused by that lack of success combined with demands on the management for success.

Once that culture was allowed, and by not cooperating with the FIA the management sent a clear signal within its organisation that it didn't deem underhand and dubious tactics to be off-limits, then it is no surprise that the culture continued.

Amazing, isn't it, when you actually bother to think about it and add things up?

Third time to the front.

Anyone would think that some people don't have a worthy response.

[pino]

Third time to the front.

Anyone would think that some people don't have a worthy response.

Please give it a rest, thanks !

[ArrowsFA1]

I do have a theory on the latest scandal. Lets paint the scene...
No idea if that may have been they way things happened recently but it does remind me of Dave Ryan's reaction to Jo Ramirez's appointment to McLaren in 1983. According to Jo it was not entirely welcoming at first!! Still, these things happen.

[Knock-on]

I don't know Knockie....you'd have to ask the IT specialists Mclaren sent to examine Renaults system.



I said at the time that data can be removed but not from the backup tapes which weren't availiable.

That is where the audit trail was lost.

Anyway, old story. Best let it go but don't paint them as being whiter than white. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny and they did get off scot free for using the data for a year.

[Sonic]

Martin Whitmarsh is slowly earning my respect. Autosport are reporting that he may attend the WMSC alone without a team of legalist. If he does indeed stand alone and put his hands up and accept the teams punishment he will have gone some way to making me believe that Mclaren will be a changed team in the future. It will be a long time before I respect the team again (and I doubt I'll ever respect hamilton again) but its a good first step.

[F1boat]

Hopefully the punishment will be light and will hit only the WCC.

[rabf1]

I think they should just kick Maclaren out. They were warned. And this release seems to indicate that they have already decided that Hamilton isn't to blame because his support was "procured." Thats bs. He lied and knew he was lying. Kick him out too.

[gloomyDAY]

I wish this matter was dealt with already.

McLaren isn't going anywhere because it is in F1's best interest to keep as many teams alive and viable as possible. Sad really, Vettel could have fought Jenson for the podium if Hamilton didn't get in the way. :p

[BDunnell]

There is a perfectly obvious explanation.....pressure.

The same sort of pressure that provoked Schumachers infamous Jerez 1997 actions......the fear of defeat.

May I say a bit belatedly, I think that's a very fair, reasonable, and probably true, comment.

[CNR]

think back to spygate it was the lies that got them then.
so what will happen if they lose the points again will the drivers get the points and cars in 9th and 10 th constructors points

I do question whether there is such a "culture"

"Having regard to the open and honest way in which McLaren Team Principal, Mr Martin Whitmarsh, addressed the WMSC and the change in culture which he made clear has taken place in his organisation"

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74937

Do you question it now?

[pino]

http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132947