Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

The teams have not always directed communication with the Race Director with regards to incidents that the Stewards look into.

The Stewards are well above the Race Director when it comes to deciding if they are going to investigate an incident and do not need the Race Director to forward it to them. They can decide to investigate if the matter is referred or not.

In laymans terms, the Stewards are the referee, the Race Director merely a Linesman.

---

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

---

Have you any evidence that the stewards didn't refer the matter to Charlie? Because I remember that it was shown that Lewis was being investigated during the race.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

It was after the race that Charlie referred it to the Stewards.

Those are the facts. Can we stick to them and not opinion and what you think should have happened.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Do you have a link for that?

---

I found the official release....

"To: The team manager, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

The stewards, having received a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor and impose the penalty referred to."

That doesn't say that Whiting "referred" it to the Stewards, merely that he gave them "a report".

A report is often requested. If the official release stated it was "reported by Charlie Whiting", then what you claim is true.

But it doesn't, so what you claim isn't fact at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

*sigh*

yeah guys can we stick to knock on's version of the truth and his assumptions rather than what we see as the facts and what we see as logical? :p

From what I can remember the issue of Lewis cutting the chicane was shown as being investigated by the stewards BEFORE the end of the race. So please can we stick to the facts old bean?

Like I said the race director is not responsible for the judgement so why ask him? When this sort of thing happens the drivers needs to concede the advantage quickly so as to avoid being penalised and not when the team has done the wrong thing and gone chatting to the person who isn't even in charge of making the decision to see if it's OK.

---

Daniel, if you disagree with the facts, they can easily be referenced.

As for whether this was referred before the end of the race, I don't remember seeing it.

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

Did it come up on screen before the end of the race as if it was being investigated, it should do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Actually, the Director referrs or the Stewards inform the director that they will investigare.

Usually, it is the former.

---

Which they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Daniel, if you disagree with the facts, they can easily be referenced.

As for whether this was referred before the end of the race, I don't remember seeing it.

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

Did it come up on screen before the end of the race as if it was being investigated, it should do.

---

From what I can remember it did. Sadly the Sky+ recording screwed up :p

I'll be honest and say I'm not 100 sure but neither are you so no one has the facts now do they? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

I found the official release....

"To: The team manager, Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

The stewards, having received a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor and impose the penalty referred to."

That doesn't say that Whiting "referred" it to the Stewards, merely that he gave them "a report".

A report is often requested. If the official release stated it was "reported by Charlie Whiting", then what you claim is true.

But it doesn't, so what you claim isn't fact at all.

---

A race report is always submitted.

I will have a little dig around and try and find where it was that said CW referred it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

However, I also cannot remember where I saw that Charlie referred it after the race. It will come up in the appeal though.

---

You mean you hope it does?

Until it does, sorry, but it isn't as factual as you claim.

There is this report from the Guardian - "The race director, Charlie Whiting, had reported Hamilton to the three stewards employed by the FIA", (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008...d=networkfront) but since it isn't citing an official FIA release as its source, it doesn't make it a fact.

After all, Mosley has already showed that Newspapers don't always use reliable sources, would you not agree?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

You mean you hope it does?

Until it does, sorry, but it isn't as factual as you claim.

There is this report from the Guardian - "The race director, Charlie Whiting, had reported Hamilton to the three stewards employed by the FIA", (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008...d=networkfront) but since it isn't citing an official FIA release as its source, it doesn't make it a fact.

After all, Mosley has already showed that Newspapers don't always use reliable sources, would you not agree?

---

Well, seeing as the FIA have been like a closed shop regarding all this, then you will never accept anything.

So, whatever you want to believe is up to you.

The Swedish commentators said the incident between Lewis and Kimi would be investigated after the race, before the race was finished. I am also quite sure I saw one of those on-screen information things.

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereIam

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

---

I think you may have missed the idea of what racing is all about :D

Anyone that didn't enjoy that scap is no racing fan.

We're tired of seeing safe processions where nobody risks a pass. I applaud Lewis for what he did. It was great racing and that's what the rules should be there to promote.

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I think you may have missed the idea of what racing is all about :D

Anyone that didn't enjoy that scap is no racing fan.

We're tired of seeing safe processions where nobody risks a pass. I applaud Lewis for what he did. It was great racing and that's what the rules should be there to promote.

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

---

I enjoyed the scrap very much, but Lewis will never be a world champion if he doesn't start using his brain... and BTW, Lewis never forced anybody off track? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

What a load of rubbish. If you serve the penalty at the next race then you send the message that drivers can just do this thing and come up with a good pit strategy for the next race and get away with it. If you penalise a driver for the current race then you should.

---

Its not rubbish.

There comes a point when in-race penalties are not sufficient and may be unintentionally influenced by hindisight ie. would the stewards decision have been different if Hamilton had won by 26 seconds? No matter which way you look at it, in-race penalties after the chequered flag expose the stewards to accusations of race fixing or team bias and I don't think that the facility can be left as it is.

There are millions being wagered on every race and that money is traded in good faith. The terms of the sports betting market will read something like 'payouts will be based on the official FIA result'. When a decision is made that directly affects the result of a race, and it becomes protracted legally, it could mean that those millions are tied up in limbo until the FIA result is confirmed. This is a ridiculous situation and one that will only change through recognising the sport's shortcomings and fixing them.

If too many decisions like this occur then we could see a situation where betting markets stop recognising the FIA result and settle in favour of a driver or team that is contrary to the FIA view of its own competition. Would we then have a betting market endorsed drivers champion and an FIA endorsed drivers champion?

Quote:

---

Ferrari were not beaten on the day. Ferrari played by the rules on that day and finished 2nd to a driver who was deemed to have gained an advantage by cuttin the chicane and they were then given the win. Ferrari or Massa giving back trophies would be hilariously silly.

---

Ferrari WERE beaten on the day as the only driver that had any legitimate claim on the race was Raikonnen and he kissed a wall.

I think that Massa swapping trophies with Hamilton would be a very sporting gesture and far from silly as you put it. Massa and Hamilton are hopefully destined to be one of those great rivalries that we see in F1 from time to time. With all the other non-racing BS that goes on it would be good to see something positive in amongst the dross. As a citizen of a great cricketing nation I'm sure you can appreciate that. ;)

Quote:

---

If there is any natural justice eh? You totally miss the point that the article makes in regards to natural justice my friend. Natural justice doesn't take into account the rules and as they say rules are rules and must be adhered to.

---

Huh? Natural justice is sans rules or other influences. That's what makes it natural.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereIam

I enjoyed the scrap very much, but Lewis will never be a world champion if he doesn't start using his brain... and BTW, Lewis never forced anybody off track? :rolleyes:

---

Don't waste your time with that. This thread is not about logic and rules it's about winning. So any mean to achieve that is justified. I kind of like that, if it were to go both ways. But it does not. It only goes one way. In McLarea and Hamilton's favor and therefore unacceptable. So is the arguing end in sight? Not even close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

watch it Whyzars....views on things other than what certain people on here think are not tolerated...before you know....they will call on people to ignore you....or what you say or think is rubbish..a term I rather find disrespectfull.....

---

Whyzars by name, Whyzars by nature so I'm really not too worried.

I don't think the few times that I've posted over the years have caused too much grief to anyone. If people choose to ignore me then that is a pity because they miss out on my unique insight. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

There comes a point when in-race penalties are not sufficient and may be unintentionally influenced by hindisight ie. would the stewards decision have been different if Hamilton had won by 26 seconds?

---

I don't think so, the stewards imposed the penalty that is prescribed in the sporting regulations.

If Hamilton would have won by 25.1 seconds than he would have still been the winner of the race after the 25 seconds penalty was given.

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HereIam

Right, let me see... why do I ask the race director - who is not in charge of the decisions - if my driver has given up the position correctly (not once, but twice)? And why do I believe him if I know that it's not up to him to say that? And why, if I want my driver to win the championship, don't I tell him to calm down and not to take any risks just to pass Kimi at all cost (espcially when his direct contender is miles behind him)? And why do I feel aggrieved afterwards? And why am I so stupid?

---

I am very stupid too. I guess it's contagious :) :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I don't think so, the stewards imposed the penalty that is prescribed in the sporting regulations.

If Hamilton would have won by 25.1 seconds than he would have still been the winner of the race after the 25 seconds penalty was given.

---

Exactly right, or they might also have said to themselves "What's the point." and be done with it, maybe even try to find Hamilton guilty of a slightly different offence that would provide a penalty at the next race.

The stewards imposed a penalty that had an effect on the result whilst presumably being aware of the impact of imposing it. It is a very difficult position to put the stewards in and must be addressed at some point. I think the only reason it hasn't come to light prior to this incident is that normally the leading cars are separated by greater distances at the end of a race and are trying to preserve engines and maintain their car etc..

I think I've seen a third of a race go by at times before stewards hand down a decision on drive-through's and stop-go's and that is just too long in my opinion - especially when we consider that the relevance of the penalty changes the greater the time away from the incident ie. If someone jumps the start and they are served a stop-go on the 10th lap that is a far different impact then if it was served on the 4th lap.

In my opinion, if steward's can't make a decision within 10 minutes of an incident then any penalty they hand down should probably be served at the next race.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstillhere

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.

---

"they don't have the balls either, that's their problem,"

From Webber: "
"You don't get penalised for overtaking people. Lewis did not get penalised for the move itself. He got penalised for taking an advantage from the previous corner." http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70490

From hamilton:
"Webber don't have the balls, that his problem"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

From what I can remember the issue of Lewis cutting the chicane was shown as being investigated by the stewards BEFORE the end of the race. So please can we stick to the facts old bean?

---

I remember seeing the notice for the investigation on my TV screen just before I turned off my TV, which was after the podium ceremony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstillhere

Here is what a group of HIGHLY specialized and F1 experts said about the Spa incident. Of course McLaren and Ferrari fans (and everybody else of course) can say whatever they want but we all have to have the honesty and modesty to admit our limitations and to give credit to what the professionals who live - not just talk - F1 every day have to say:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/moto...ne/7611152.stm
Read it. You might learn something.

---

Not a surprise for me, anyone with a little racing-experience can see that what Lewis did was wrong and deserved a penalty :p :

yeah not a surprise for me either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

For those of you obsessed with justifying the stewards and applauding their anal application of the rules, would you also be happy if they applied the rules against Kimi for his off track antics on lap 1 or his forcing Lewis off track?

No, I thought not.

---

Sure. Give Kimi a 25 second penalty, too! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pino

Not a surprise for me, anyone with a little racing-experience can see that what Lewis did was wrong and deserved a penalty :p :

---

well it still is the very first time in a situation like this..they use "gained an advantage" as a way to give someone a penalty...while there's still nowhere described what exactly "an advantge" means...I keep finding it weird a penalty is based on something that's not clearly described in a rulesbook !

anyway..now they say..the driver cutting a chicane has to give back position and has to wait at least one corner before he can make another pass attempt correct ? so let's go back to Spa..same situation..but a 3th car involved (let's call him Robert for the occasion)...a car....that's also goin way faster than the leadcar and is close behind the 2 fighting for position...so what Lewis should have donne is...give back his position and not make a move on Kimi at La Source...in order to take away the advantage he gained correct ?

Now because of Kimi being slower than lewis and lewis being forced to stay behind the ferrari..and keeping in mind Robert is also goin a lot faster than Kimi..he gets behind lewis and makes a pass on him and eventualy also on the leadcar at la Source...Now I don't know..but would that not mean the rule FIA imposed on lewis disadvantage him towards Robert as he was not allowed to defend his position...because not allowed to pass Kimi himself ?

this is not easy to explain I know..But I hope you somehow get the point on what I am trying to show here ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whyzars

I think that Massa swapping trophies with Hamilton would be a very sporting gesture and far from silly as you put it.

---

Because you know, if the situation was reversed, Ron would run right over and hand deliver the trophy to Ferrari! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Because you know, if the situation was reversed, Ron would run right over and hand deliver the trophy to Ferrari! :)

---

Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg

---

Sure, but Ron was "only" giving it to Fisi in a Jordan. Imagine if he had to give it to MS and Ferrari! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

anyway..now they say..the driver cutting a chicane has to give back position and has to wait at least one corner before he can make another pass attempt correct ? so let's go back to Spa..same situation..but a 3th car involved (let's call him Robert for the occasion)...a car....that's also goin way faster than the leadcar and is close behind the 2 fighting for position...so what Lewis should have donne is...give back his position and not make a move on Kimi at La Source...in order to take away the advantage he gained correct ?

Now because of Kimi being slower than lewis and lewis being forced to stay behind the ferrari..and keeping in mind Robert is also goin a lot faster than Kimi..he gets behind lewis and makes a pass on him and eventualy also on the leadcar at la Source...Now I don't know..but would that not mean the rule FIA imposed on lewis disadvantage him towards Robert as he was not allowed to defend his position...because not allowed to pass Kimi himself ?

---

No, because defending your position doesn't mean you have to overtake the car in front! You can simply take the inside line and cut off the following car.
A good race driver has to know how to defend by going the slowest possible, see Alonso in Imola 2005. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Anyone remember this:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030419/sp1.jpg

---

I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

No, because defending your position doesn't mean you have to overtake the car in front! You can simply take the inside line and cut off the following car.
A good race driver has to know how to defend by going the slowest possible, see Alonso in Imola 2005. ;)

---

you mean take the inside like Kimi should have donne at la Source ? ;-)

and that's not realy the situation I was trying to explain..I said what If Robert was also a lot faster than the leading car..that fast he would be able to pass both the leading car and the car who is supposed to stay behind the leading car due to the new ruling ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)

---

exactly....it was not Kimi But Ron giving it away..like been said from the start...

Well, having just seen the Alonso/Klien 'incident' at Suzuka in 2005 being replayed on ITV, there is no doubt that there is a deep inconsistency in the Spa decision. OK, the matter has been 'clarified' for Monza, but does anyone seriously believe that we won't see the same thing happening again? If you do, I'd think again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

you mean take the inside like Kimi should have donne at la Source ? ;-)

and that's not realy the situation I was trying to explain..I said what If Robert was also a lot faster than the leading car..that fast he would be able to pass both the leading car and the car who is supposed to stay behind the leading car due to the new ruling ?

---

I like the way your head works .
It's a good example to cite .

In my opinion , Lewis , in that scenario , would be obligated to stay behind Kimi , as he would still have to show he was not advantaged by the chicane cut .
If your Robert had stayed on track during the episode , it is possible he would have also been given the position , as Lewis would also have the advantage over him as well .
This , indeed where it would get sticky .
If Robert had gone the same route as Lewis , he would not be allowed to pass either , in the same way Lewis was not allowed to do so .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Yes, and "before" the corner Michael was in front at the Hungaroring.

But, like I said, the difference is that Michael had been in front for several laps and was therefore leading.

Michael was still leading when he cut the chicane.

He therefore held the advantage before and during the Hungaroring chicane.

So, I ask again, any chance of anyone explaining how you can gain what you already have?

---

so, if i have your theory correct, then the race leader (or positional leader in a dice) can simply ignore all corners and drive a straight line behind the kerbs because he gains no positional advantage?

what a lot of rot. he gains an obvious advantage by retaining a position he would otherwise have lost.

he was leading before the chicane and would have lost that lead had he not cut the chicane.

to everybody else watching F1, that is gaining an advantage.

the leader doesn't have to drive the racetrack like everybody else? please...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

I did not know Ron ever had so much hair

(and the reason Kimi is smiling is because at Mac the drivers do not get to keep the trophies, they go into the Mac official trophy case, [unless LH now gets to keep his after crying about it last year,] so he was thinking, I am not giving away my trophy......)

---

:rotflmao:

The ITV coverage was hilarious. The first 10 or 15 minutes was devoted to showing Lewis gaining and advantage and showing current drivers agreeing that an offence was commited and then they have their armchair men disagreeing with it all :rotflmao: Got to see the event on a proper sized TV for the first time since I saw it on Saturday and it really is clear that Lewis gained an advantage and there is no way the penalty will be reversed. Is there somewhere I can make a bet on the penalty not being reversed because I want to make some serious money :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

:rotflmao:

The ITV coverage was hilarious. The first 10 or 15 minutes was devoted to showing Lewis gaining and advantage and showing current drivers agreeing that an offence was commited and then they have their armchair men disagreeing with it all :rotflmao: Got to see the event on a proper sized TV for the first time since I saw it on Saturday and it really is clear that Lewis gained an advantage and there is no way the penalty will be reversed. Is there somewhere I can make a bet on the penalty not being reversed because I want to make some serious money :laugh:

---

On the contrary, to me it made it even more clear that the penalty was unfair and deeply inconsistent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

On the contrary, to me it made it even more clear that the penalty was unfair and deeply inconsistent.

---

Perhaps the penalty was a bit heavy handed as I said but at the end of the day rules is rules and if you don't like the rules go and play in your sandpit on your own and you're guaranteed to win every time :)

Even Ron said that Charlie wasn't the man who was making the decisions so Ron should have put his thinking cap on and told Lewis to do something about the advantage he might have been perceived to have gained and make it soooo obvious that there was no advantage gained that the stewards couldn't penalise him. He would have won the race or at least got 2nd.....