Hamilton Stripped of Win - Official

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.....

---

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.

---

Weel if this was any driver and the track conditions were wet, I would agree, even initially did so agree as to LH.

But then I listened to his post race interview, and then the later comments about his superior braking and kimi's lack of balls, so applying the LH own standard to his own driving, then you can not say there is anyone else or another incident that you can compare Hamilton to, as clearly his driving talent is beyond being comparable to any other driver. Just so much better.

At least that is the gospel according to Saint Hamster.

So based on that, then the penalty should stand (and Easy Drifter has so carefully pointed out the justification). Besides just cause many people get away with murder, does not justify one person going forth and doing some killing on somebody else......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

But the fact that there were precedents to doing exactly what Hamilton did and not being punished — even you must agree that the similarity with the Alonso/Klien one shown on ITV was striking — is an equally powerful argument in the other direction.

---

I'm sorry but they didn't show all that much of the Alonso Klien incident. I sky+'ed qualifying so I'll watch it again though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I'm sorry but they didn't show all that much of the Alonso Klien incident. I sky+'ed qualifying so I'll watch it again though :)

---

I thought they showed all of it. Anyway, do watch it again. The one difference, of course, was the track conditions (I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

(I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)

---

What about gandpa, is he wrong also? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markabilly

At least that is the gospel according to Saint Hamster.

---

No, that's the Gospel according to those who look for any opportunity to pick at, criticise and bash one of the best young talents to come into F1 for many years. It's a very thick book, which has a number of contributors, and it's very repetitive.

Still, for a throwaway airport paperback it's quite entertaining :p :

More from the English media referring to the LH case:
"Were the stewards right in investigating Hamilton’s move? Absolutely. Most of the drivers agree that he gained an advantage by taking the escape road rather than fully negotiating the corner. Hamilton is a bit too fast and talkative to garner much support from his envious rivals, although they mostly thought the penalty was harsh."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle4738521.ece

So, here you ahev an other article published by the TIMES. And after reading this srticle, it looks like that the majority of F1 specialists (except for Lauda but including James Allen - go figure) agrees in admitting Hamilton's wrongdoing. They feel the punishment was too harsh but that's a different story. The "only" ones who stubburnely negate the evidence are the McLAren's fans. That say it all, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I thought they showed all of it. Anyway, do watch it again. The one difference, of course, was the track conditions (I'm sure my grammar is wrong there.)

---

Upon that I would agree, for all but the master since his balls are very large, so it is not necessary to be making allowances for wet conditions on track or off...... so there. But there are times when wet is more fun.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

No, that's the Gospel according to those who look for any opportunity to pick at, criticise and bash one of the best young talents to come into F1 for many years. It's a very thick book, which has a number of contributors, and it's very repetitive.

Still, for a throwaway airport paperback it's quite entertaining :p :

---

If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing (unless the pay is much deniro dollars, the kool aid good, and you get get your chicks for free)

"and it's very repetitive" Well, Sorry dude, Really. I am doing the best I can, but sometimes the Hamster does get a little bit repetitive. I promise to work harder and listen closer. I do. Every year I am getting stronger and stronger. I'll just do the best job I can.......you work on your approach and you work on yourself. I'm comfortable where I am.......so I can't really complain. It's just part of the way it goes. It's just one of those days, I'm taking it on the chin, keep your head high and keep pushing.......... :arrows:

Besides it ain't costing nothing, but i wish I was getting money for nothing and my chicks for free :love:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.....

---

Are you suggesting that Ron make a timely decision during a race whilst there is no apparent onus on the stewards to do the same? Even if that thought crossed Ron's mind who was Lewis going to yield to? Kimi was already packing his bags for Monza a short time after the incident.

If Lewis drove slower when it started raining couldn't that be considered an attempt to yield to an absent driver? ;)

I don't believe that the stewards HAD to make a decision ie. They could've simply ignored Lewis' indiscretion and got on with the after-race party.

OK, I just watched the intro to qualifying at Monza and heard what has to be the stupidest quote on this whole situation. Steve Rider was summing up all the interviews and said that the decision was, "quite possibly correct, but was it for the good of the sport?"

Can you imagine a situation in ANY sport where the correct decision is made by the officials, but the decision to carry out the rules/penalty are not taken "for the good of the sport?" Imagine in baseball, for example, if a long ball is hit out of the park but passes just outside the foul marking pole, but the officials declare it a home run "for the good of the sport."

So now, our governing rules must be politically correct?

Of course it was on the ITV coverage who will soon be changing their name to the ILL (I Love Lewis) network! ;)