Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

The F1A should thank him for his efforts and put him out to grass

---

Actually, that would be put him out to tarmac since grass is rarely used anymore! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstillhere

No, I am referring to Hamilton cheating. He passed Massa in the same way he passed Kimi: taking a short cut after he was passed at the start like in Spa.

---

Does that mean Schumacher cheated in Hungary 2006? Who done exactly the same, but unlike Hamilton who was forced to cut the chicane, he took the chicane to save his place without being forced onto it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

Once again - that's why F1 needs permanent, professional stewards that travel to all the races in order to give consistent rulings...

---

Preferably ones with a motorsport background relevant to the racing that they are making the decisions on.

What exactly is an 'Advantage'??

As there are countless arguments on here - it would seem nobody knows!

Another instance of ambiguous rules. What a F1A inspired mess. Again!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wmcot

That's what I have been posting for several years! Stewards are different at each race. They are similar to jurors in a legal trial. That's why sometimes a murderer will get life in prison and sometimes he will get 5 years.

The FIA needs to have the same stewards at each race in order for all rulings to be consistent! Bernie could probably pay for a group of "professional traveling stewards" out of his loose pocket change if he wanted to, but controversy is good for the sport and fattening his wallet!

---

Yeah, well we had one permanent Steward in 2006 and 2007, which had the aim of improving consistancy, but this year for some reason it was reverted back to different stewards.

While on paper this means no biased stewards can be at every event, it means we lack consistancy. And even then, its the FIA (in particular Alan Donnelly) who chooses 2 of the 3, who has strong links with Ferrari, so biasism can still continue.

So in effect, we lack consistancy and still have a reason for fear of biased stewarding.

Personally, I think the fact that the FIA and Stewards both judged the Hamilton situation differently, just shows the framework of the rulebook is too open and flexible and can be interpretted in many different ways.

I think the rules have got to lose the flexibility and gain some non-negiotable circumstances. Sure racing is not black and white, but at least then it would be the same for everyone.

And then have 2 permanent stewards at each event, with racing experience, and ones that ALL teams approve of.

The argument that having a permanent steward in 2006&7 didn't work was because it wasn't done correctly, by just having one, he is easily out voted in most instances.

I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.

The weakness I see from permanent stewards they can have strong tendency to produce decision according to result give them more benefit than any other options. I'd rather to retain current system, none of stewards have their right of veto, all decisions are formulated and released based on the same responsibility among the stewards, probably it might need stronger perception on agreement that they need to supervise the race vigilantly. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

Does that mean Schumacher cheated in Hungary 2006? Who done exactly the same, but unlike Hamilton who was forced to cut the chicane, he took the chicane to save his place without being forced onto it.

---

Actually MS and PDLR had a contact that sent MS over the 2nd part of the chicane.

Care to show me where was there contact between LH and KR?

Also, what should have MS done, if it would have been an unfair move? Give up his position to a driver who never earned it?

Stop comparing apples and bananas, try oranges or tomatoes, they look more alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

I'd like to think there is no such thing as 'biased' stewarding. However, the F1A don't help themselves when coming to some decisions - the general public think that Sunday's decision was a 'carve up' - in favour of a certain team. Unless a really serious offense has taken place (whatever that is), a fine would surely have sufficed. Sometimes the greater good of the sport has to come first.

---

I don't agree with the fine when this leaves unfair moves unpunished in a sport.
A sport should be fair first of all.
Giving hyper reach sport teams the chance to buy out their cheating would be a bad move.

Taking away a win after the checkered flag is the wrong punishment for not so clear infractions. The 10 places grid penalty would have been the fairer punishment, for such a late punishment, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tonieke

c) coming out of the chicane....he gave back position and was back under Kimi's rear spoiler (same situation as before the chicane )..but this time even goin slower than the Ferrari...seems the car data have been publised to other teams..so yes they showed prove of that....

---

Which is fine if you don't take into account the concertina effect which Mickey T feels is less relevant than occums shaver even though occums beard trimmer isn't an accepted motorsport rule.