FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[przemo]

All of the parties involved had to meet at some point in time to present their views and at that meeting first thing was to be decided whether McLaren can even appeal against the penalty. After hearing all statements it was decided that they can't appeal (who would've thought otherwise ), simple as that, so there was no point in discussing the penalty further with the FIA, but the meeting had to be done. Since McLaren decided to appeal, would you rather wait until the end of the season for this to happen (and possibly decide the championship) or was it better to have the meeting as soon as possible? Some of you are looking for a conspiracy everywhere.

[racechick]

All of the parties involved had to meet at some point in time to present their views and at that meeting first thing was to be decided whether McLaren can even appeal against the penalty. After hearing all statements it was decided that they can't appeal (who would've thought otherwise ), simple as that, so there was no point in discussing the penalty further with the FIA, but the meeting had to be done. Since McLaren decided to appeal, would you rather wait until the end of the season for this to happen (and possibly decide the championship) or was it better to have the meeting as soon as possible? Some of you are looking for a conspiracy everywhere.

Would have been better if consistency was shown. Kimmi also penalised for gaining places by chicane cutting(and not giving them back ) Also if Suthil was allowed to appeal a retrospective drive through successfully , why not lewis? Ah silly me, silver car

[bud]

Some of you are looking for a conspiracy everywhere.

heres what i wrote on the mclaren forum about the appeal case

i find some aspects of this case absolutely shocking,

1. Why was Ferrari allowed to attend the appeal? Ok it affected their race win but the "beef" was between the FIA stewards and McLaren/Lewis

2. it was Ferrari's influence that the ICA threw out the 2007 Luizzi Japanese GP case as a precedent insinuating that no one contested the appeal in that case!

3. The letter the FIA sent to McLaren about the Luizzi case which had Scott Andrews( was used as chief steward at the 07 Japanese GP) grossly misquoted to suggest he admitted to making a mistake on the 25 second penalty imposed on Luizzi and thus was admissable to the court of appeal, infact misquote isnt the word, they falsified an official statement as he said that is not what he had said at all.

4. Go Lewis go McLaren stick it right up em this year!

[przemo]

I only meant that the date of the meeting was not deliberately set to hinder Lewis' preparations for the race.

[darwin dali]

#1 The rules make it unappealable. Why? Why would you have any rule that isn't allowed to be appealed?

How would you appeal (and possibly remedy) a drive-through penalty? The damage has already been done by calling a driver into the pits. Would you give him a 25 second deduction of his race time???
Or, e.g., a black flag, i.e., disqualification. How could you appeal and fix such a penalty?

[Rivelution]

Yes its a disgrace that the appeal was rejected, but honestly were any of you surprised?? I'm reading some the comments here and its like a lot of people expected McLaren to win. You guys should still be grateful that the FIA didnt disqualified Hamilton.

[bud]

#1 The rules make it unappealable. Why? Why would you have any rule that isn't allowed to be appealed?

How would you appeal (and possibly remedy) a drive-through penalty? The damage has already been done by calling a driver into the pits. Would you give him a 25 second deduction of his race time???
Or, e.g., a black flag, i.e., disqualification. How could you appeal and fix such a penalty?

you cant DD, unless they can reverse time! but you can adjust added on time! just as they did with Luizzi !

[przemo]

#1 The rules make it unappealable. Why? Why would you have any rule that isn't allowed to be appealed?

How would you appeal (and possibly remedy) a drive-through penalty? The damage has already been done by calling a driver into the pits. Would you give him a 25 second deduction of his race time???
Or, e.g., a black flag, i.e., disqualification. How could you appeal and fix such a penalty?

In this case actually, they added 25 seconds after the race, so it could have easily been taken back.

[darwin dali]

The thing is that it was in lieu of a drive-through penalty according to the rules (issued within the last 5 race laps). Had it happened any time before the last 5 laps, it would have been a drive-through penalty that can't be appealed because you can't undo such a drive-through and its consequences for the race outcome.
Having said that, how in the world could you justify a different treatment in terms of appealability (not a word, but you know what I mean) for the exact same incident simply based on whether or not there was enough time to actually enforce the penalty during the race (which would make the penalty irreversible) and NOT having the time and in lieu add a punitive 25 seconds to the race time?
In other words, any similar offense committed during the last laps would be open to appeal while before the cut-off time it would not. No way Jose!

[przemo]

Because penalty in form of added time is reversible, it has no direct consequences on the race itself, you only shuffle the drivers positions after the race. By logic such penalty can be nullified. If there's a statement in the rules saying no drive-through penalty can be appealed against, regardless of the form (actual drive-through or 25 seconds), then the appeal was correctly rejected on this basis. But still, it would be technically possible to fix this penalty if it were really needed.

[darwin dali]

Because penalty in form of added time is reversible, it has no direct consequences on the race itself, you only shuffle the drivers positions after the race. By logic such penalty can be nullified. If there's a statement in the rules saying no drive-through penalty can be appealed against, regardless of the form (actual drive-through or 25 seconds), then the appeal was correctly rejected on this basis. But still, it would be technically possible to fix this penalty if it were really needed.

You completely missed my point! Why treat an incident differently depending on WHEN it happened during the race? Had this happened before the 5 last laps, we wouldn't be here to discuss this appeal.

[przemo]

As I understand, it wasn't treated differently - the appeal was rejected, wasn't it? If you're asking why did McLaren even bother with the appeal then I have no idea. Maybe they thought they could reverse the stewards' verdict, having Liuzzi's case as an example.

The incident though is treated differently by the rules in means of penalty. As you said, with 5 laps or less there is a different penalty than with more than 5 laps. So,

Why treat an incident differently depending on WHEN it happened during the race?

Why give different penalty for the same incident? Of course the answer is obvious, but the result is that - technically - one penalty can be reversed while the other can't. Maybe that gives some the idea that the 25 second penalty could be appealed against.

[bud]

understand what you're saying d d drivers can take extra risks at the latter stages of the race knowingthey won't get a drive through and ontop know they can appeal it! Only problem is they allowed an appeal the precadent has already been set!

[FLAT_OUT]

What a waste of time, money, and energy. McLaren knew it all along that they have very little chances of winning their appeal. Imagine spending 100 thousand euros for nothing! Instead, they should've let go of the decision and put their money on research and development, or somewhere else like in a charity foundation or to the dying children in Africa due to starvation. It just makes me sad, so sad.

[FerrariFan63]

If this thing about the lie in the email is true, then it shows how arrogant the FIA has become. They can do whatever they damn well please, and nobody can stop them. The sooner we get a proper racer as president of the FIA the sooner.