FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[formerformula1fan]

I have registered as former formula 1 fan as I am loosing heart, last year was probably the most exciting year in formula 1 since mansell, prost and senna but not because of Eccleston or the FIA but because of the enthusiam and courage of the new up and coming drivers. Yet, here we are again with the DQ and points taking. I am led to believe that Toyota did not even appeal, but the FIA wanted the matter investigated, regardless of the outcome or the reasoning behind it every one I know who follows the sport gave a heavy sigh and said 'well that's Hamilton DQ'd'. The FIA are so transparent. I am overjoyed that Jenson won this grand prix and I hope Brawn move onwards and upwards as having another team in the mix is good for the sport, however, if Hamilton does indeed work hard, get the car running with pace and catches or looks like he is catching the front runners the FIA will find a way to put him down. Every year my friends and I travel to at least 3 events on the F1 calendar, the company I work for very often networks and entertains at more that 2 grand prix, this year however, we have already decided to not to do so, many of our customers are based in the UK and really are not interested in watching the farce which has become the FIA show not the Formula 1, amazing, exciting, breathtaking show of man and machine. We were at Spa last year and thought it was possibly one of the most exciting races we had seen in 5+ years....why go back, we may see a race that is just as good but are we really seeing the result or will this be decided in the boardroom again. Please..... how can we take the FIA seriously when their head is a man of Max Mosely's stature.

[zurich_allan]

Personally I don't see why the FIA didn't follow the idea of allowing the driver to keep the points but take the points away from the constructor. It seems to me that Hamilton believed he was right to stay ahead (from what I've read), but the team told him to let Trulli back through. Had the team not ordered this, the whole situation with the stewards would never have happened. It is not without precedent to punish in this way, happened twice in 2007 of course.

Both the previous Trulli penalty AND the Hamilton penalty are huge overreactions in my opinion. the sport really is shooting itself in the foot with these ridiculous situations. I much preferred watching the sport 20 years ago when passes in general were legal, racing accidents were racing accidents and whilst there were always debates over major incidents, every race didn't have petty problems like there have been in recent times. It's pathetic.

[Denthúl]

Personally I don't see why the FIA didn't follow the idea of allowing the driver to keep the points but take the points away from the constructor. It seems to me that Hamilton believed he was right to stay ahead (from what I've read), but the team told him to let Trulli back through. Had the team not ordered this, the whole situation with the stewards would never have happened. It is not without precedent to punish in this way, happened twice in 2007 of course.

Both the previous Trulli penalty AND the Hamilton penalty are huge overreactions in my opinion. the sport really is shooting itself in the foot with these ridiculous situations. I much preferred watching the sport 20 years ago when passes in general were legal, racing accidents were racing accidents and whilst there were always debates over major incidents, every race didn't have petty problems like there have been in recent times. It's pathetic.

If Lewis lied, then he would deserve to be punished just as much as the team. The right thing to do, if the team had told him to lie, would have been to ignore that and tell the truth.

[zurich_allan]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that the whole thing is petty! It's pathetic! What does it actually matter if he lied or told the truth? What should matter is what actually happened on the track and that is IT. Schumacher lied in 1994 when he said it was an accident he drove in to Damon Hill. Prost lied when he said he didn't mean to drive into Senna in 1989 at Japan. Senna, whilst stating he was going to go for the corner also said when the accident happened that it wasn't intentional; that was a lie. Every F1 driver, good or bad (perhaps with the exception of Vettel ) has lied at some stage about their tactics or motives. It often made no difference in the past, and I don't think it should make one now. On the track and the rules on the track are what should matter, not what is said before or after. In this case, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton shouldn't have let Trulli past, and likewise Trulli should not have gone past, even if that meant slowing to a crawl and sticking two fingers up at Hamilton to get a move on. BOTH punishments were / are disproportionate, and BOTH severely damage F1's reputation.

[Denthúl]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that the whole thing is petty! It's pathetic! What does it actually matter if he lied or told the truth? What should matter is what actually happened on the track and that is IT. Schumacher lied in 1994 when he said it was an accident he drove in to Damon Hill. Prost lied when he said he didn't mean to drive into Senna in 1989 at Japan. Senna, whilst stating he was going to go for the corner also said when the accident happened that it wasn't intentional; that was a lie. Every F1 driver, good or bad (perhaps with the exception of Vettel ) has lied at some stage about their tactics or motives. It often made no difference in the past, and I don't think it should make one now. On the track and the rules on the track are what should matter, not what is said before or after. In this case, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton shouldn't have let Trulli past, and likewise Trulli should not have gone past, even if that meant slowing to a crawl and sticking two fingers up at Hamilton to get a move on. BOTH punishments were / are disproportionate, and BOTH severely damage F1's reputation.

If I'm accused of murder, but found innocent, I would still be punished if I lied in court. The same should apply here. The kind of lying that allegedly went on here is as bad as some of the things that Schumacher did in the past.

[Gaz]

FIA are not the drivers they don't have a right to choose the result of the race so easily.

utter bullpoo regardless of if he lied or not, which i don't belive he did.

[TheOak]

FIA are not the drivers they don't have a right to choose the result of the race so easily.

utter bullpoo regardless of if he lied or not, which i don't belive he did.

Oh come oon So the FIA press release about the matter is a lie then? You guys crack me up with your denial.

[Denthúl]

FIA are not the drivers they don't have a right to choose the result of the race so easily.

utter bullpoo regardless of if he lied or not, which i don't belive he did.

Oh come oon So the FIA press release about the matter is a lie then? You guys crack me up with your denial.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. The evidence is stacked against Lewis and McLaren. :/

[zurich_allan]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that the whole thing is petty! It's pathetic! What does it actually matter if he lied or told the truth? What should matter is what actually happened on the track and that is IT. Schumacher lied in 1994 when he said it was an accident he drove in to Damon Hill. Prost lied when he said he didn't mean to drive into Senna in 1989 at Japan. Senna, whilst stating he was going to go for the corner also said when the accident happened that it wasn't intentional; that was a lie. Every F1 driver, good or bad (perhaps with the exception of Vettel ) has lied at some stage about their tactics or motives. It often made no difference in the past, and I don't think it should make one now. On the track and the rules on the track are what should matter, not what is said before or after. In this case, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton shouldn't have let Trulli past, and likewise Trulli should not have gone past, even if that meant slowing to a crawl and sticking two fingers up at Hamilton to get a move on. BOTH punishments were / are disproportionate, and BOTH severely damage F1's reputation.

If I'm accused of murder, but found innocent, I would still be punished if I lied in court. The same should apply here. The kind of lying that allegedly went on here is as bad as some of the things that Schumacher did in the past.

Nope, not quite as simple as that - it depends if the perjured evidence would likely have affected the trial (I'm a qualified lawyer, currently lecturing law at university and two years into a PhD in exactly these issues - specifically contempt of court). In other words, if you were on trial for murder and lied in court, so long as the subject of your lie didn't affect the fact that you were innocent of the murder then you wouldn't be re-tried for the murder but tried separately on charges of perjury, prevarication, contempt etc. for supplying false evidence! In this circumstance, there are two completely separate issues. The first is what happened on the track; this is where the WDC / WCC points should be decided. The second and separate issue is the lying to the stewards which, whilst it perhaps should be punished, should be done so in a separate way either with some kind of warning or a suspended penalty or even actual penalty for the following race / 3 races or whatever.

What happened on the track might indeed justify Hamilton / Trulli receiving minor penalties, but for either, the loss of all points is highly disproportionate.

[Tony_sa]

I think hamilton was punished wrongly. I havent been following the whole issue so indepth but it appears the fia feels the the team ( mclaren) has been trying to con them by withholding information and now putting the blame on hamilton. ?? am I also right to assume toyota dropped their appeal cos they knew the fia took up the investigation ??

[8-ball]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that the whole thing is petty! It's pathetic! What does it actually matter if he lied or told the truth? What should matter is what actually happened on the track and that is IT. Schumacher lied in 1994 when he said it was an accident he drove in to Damon Hill. Prost lied when he said he didn't mean to drive into Senna in 1989 at Japan. Senna, whilst stating he was going to go for the corner also said when the accident happened that it wasn't intentional; that was a lie. Every F1 driver, good or bad (perhaps with the exception of Vettel ) has lied at some stage about their tactics or motives. It often made no difference in the past, and I don't think it should make one now. On the track and the rules on the track are what should matter, not what is said before or after. In this case, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton shouldn't have let Trulli past, and likewise Trulli should not have gone past, even if that meant slowing to a crawl and sticking two fingers up at Hamilton to get a move on. BOTH punishments were / are disproportionate, and BOTH severely damage F1's reputation.

If I'm accused of murder, but found innocent, I would still be punished if I lied in court. The same should apply here. The kind of lying that allegedly went on here is as bad as some of the things that Schumacher did in the past.

Nope, not quite as simple as that - it depends if the perjured evidence would likely have affected the trial (I'm a qualified lawyer, currently lecturing law at university and two years into a PhD in exactly these issues - specifically contempt of court). In other words, if you were on trial for murder and lied in court, so long as the subject of your lie didn't affect the fact that you were innocent of the murder then you wouldn't be re-tried for the murder but tried separately on charges of perjury, prevarication, contempt etc. for supplying false evidence! In this circumstance, there are two completely separate issues. The first is what happened on the track; this is where the WDC / WCC points should be decided. The second and separate issue is the lying to the stewards which, whilst it perhaps should be punished, should be done so in a separate way either with some kind of warning or a suspended penalty or even actual penalty for the following race / 3 races or whatever.

What happened on the track might indeed justify Hamilton / Trulli receiving minor penalties, but for either, the loss of all points is highly disproportionate.

I 100% agree. It is not for the FIA to decide who wins a race in the days after the event. It makes what we are watching on race day redundant.

Regarding Hamilton's punishment: He lied, there is no question about it as the evidence is clear. Ban him from the next race. The damage to his already beleaguered reputation will be far worse.

[Denthúl]

Yes, I understand that, but my point is that the whole thing is petty! It's pathetic! What does it actually matter if he lied or told the truth? What should matter is what actually happened on the track and that is IT. Schumacher lied in 1994 when he said it was an accident he drove in to Damon Hill. Prost lied when he said he didn't mean to drive into Senna in 1989 at Japan. Senna, whilst stating he was going to go for the corner also said when the accident happened that it wasn't intentional; that was a lie. Every F1 driver, good or bad (perhaps with the exception of Vettel ) has lied at some stage about their tactics or motives. It often made no difference in the past, and I don't think it should make one now. On the track and the rules on the track are what should matter, not what is said before or after. In this case, the fact of the matter is that Hamilton shouldn't have let Trulli past, and likewise Trulli should not have gone past, even if that meant slowing to a crawl and sticking two fingers up at Hamilton to get a move on. BOTH punishments were / are disproportionate, and BOTH severely damage F1's reputation.

If I'm accused of murder, but found innocent, I would still be punished if I lied in court. The same should apply here. The kind of lying that allegedly went on here is as bad as some of the things that Schumacher did in the past.

Nope, not quite as simple as that - it depends if the perjured evidence would likely have affected the trial (I'm a qualified lawyer, currently lecturing law at university and two years into a PhD in exactly these issues - specifically contempt of court). In other words, if you were on trial for murder and lied in court, so long as the subject of your lie didn't affect the fact that you were innocent of the murder then you wouldn't be re-tried for the murder but tried separately on charges of perjury, prevarication, contempt etc. for supplying false evidence! In this circumstance, there are two completely separate issues. The first is what happened on the track; this is where the WDC / WCC points should be decided. The second and separate issue is the lying to the stewards which, whilst it perhaps should be punished, should be done so in a separate way either with some kind of warning or a suspended penalty or even actual penalty for the following race / 3 races or whatever.

What happened on the track might indeed justify Hamilton / Trulli receiving minor penalties, but for either, the loss of all points is highly disproportionate.

The circumstances here are different to those that you mention, though. The lie did affect the decision of the stewards. Had they been given the correct information at the time, they would not have penalised Trulli, as evidenced by the fact that today they threw it out. The punishment was given because he gave incorrect information that directly affected the results of the race. The two are more tied together than those in your example. I agree that penalising him for that race wasn't the right one, but on the other hand you could argue that he wasn't exactly bothered by the fact that by lying he had knocked a competitor completely out of the points.

A one-race ban would have been, by far, the more suitable punishment, leaving Trulli 3rd and Hamilton 4th in the race results. However, I imagine the outrage at that would have been far worse than it is.

I think hamilton was punished wrongly. I havent been following the whole issue so indepth but it appears the fia feels the the team ( mclaren) has been trying to con them by withholding information and now putting the blame on hamilton. ?? am I also right to assume toyota dropped their appeal cos they knew the fia took up the investigation ??

If Lewis didn't supply the correct information then he is just as guilty, I'm afraid. If you were to do something wrong because your boss told you to do something wrong, you'd still be in the wrong.

[Kish]

Hello all.

I got bent enough to register someplace (F1) else last year but didn't post there (only 2 races left). But the treatment Hamilton and McLaren was recieving was the reason. And here we are again.

I wasn't there, and neither was 99.9% of the people judging Hamilton.

If he (or McLaren) did lie, then he deserves the full weight of any applicable penalties and FIA judgments against him.

But here's the thing, why would Hamilton tell Steward's one thing and the Media another? It doesn't make any sense. He knows full well that anything he say’s to the Media the Steward’s hear. The only way this makes sense is if Hamilton had lied to the Media too. He didn't.

There's something more to this story. And considering what I perceive (as a 40 year American F1 fan) as an ingrained prejudice in the F1 community. Which I have seen demonstrated over the last few years.

I will hold my judgment against Hamilton until enough time has passed, and the complete truth comes out.

As an American I want the best to win, no matter race, creed or color. If you are the best in word, thought and deed, your nationality or color means little to me. Because all nations are a part of America.

Hamilton I feel, has demonstrated in the past what is the best qualities in any champion we could ask for.

Maybe I'm biased, but I don't think so.

[Malibu327]

I assume everyone has seen the radio transmission transcriptions on F1.com...

Fernando Alonso can tell you first hand what happens to drivers that don't tow the line at McLaren. Perhaps Lewis was just trying to keep his job...

[Gilles 27]

i think McLaren have a bit of a strange and oppressive way of managing drivers and i think it can cloud the drivers' judgment sometimes as they are not encouraged to think for themselves. Hamilton snr. can't be helping there either. Maybe Lewis just isn't that smart when it comes to this stuff...