I've been away a while so haven't commented as this has unfolded, so here is my considered thoughts.
From a purely moral sporting point of view this decision is a
ing load of
. Someone ought to gauge a
into Moseley's head and
some sense into him.
I'm not saying that (just) because I'm sore that Hamilton didn't get his points back. This decision was the ultimate cop-out, as we didn't get any further towards an adjudication on whether the stewards' original decision was correct or not, and as such there is simply no closure on this matter - this episode will now be etched into the long, long list of F1 controversies and will be brought out again and again ad nauseam as evidence of how F1 is somehow corrupt. That this accusation can once again be made can only be damaging for the sport.
Firstly, I had in the past questioned quite how affirmative Whiting's "OK" to McLaren was. Having read some of the evidence presented, I am now satisfied that after speaking to him McLaren were well within their rights to conclude that the matter was closed, and that he then changed his mind. It is his change of mind that is in my view unacceptable. As soon as he gave McLaren the OK he should have stuck to it as a matter of honour. You couldn't have a football referee giving out a yellow card, then ten minutes later thinking the initial judgement wasn't hard enough and sending the player off. To have left McLaren in this situation, when he could quite easily have said either that he did not have the authority to give a definitive answer or else erred on the side of caution and told them to let Raikkonen back past, undermines the working relationship between him and the teams and casts him in a very unprofessional light.
Secondly, it is my OPINION that the stewards, having been told to investigate by Whiting, reached the wrong conclusion about the incident. I have already explained why I think this so I won't repeat myself. Had the appeal been admitted and the original judgement upheld, I could have lived with that, as opinions on whether the judgement was right or not are just that - opinions.
Thirdly, to be fair to the stewards the rules on which they had to adjudicate are comical in their inadequacy. Until the teams arrived in Monza there was no clear official guidance on what to do in these situations, to the point at which even a race director with twenty years experience seemed to get confused... The rules not only need to be fully clarified, they also need to distinguish between a driver who has a) gone off track by mistake, b) taken a shortcut deliberately to gain an advantage, and c) left the track to avoid a collision, especially when forced to do so having been squeezed off track by the car in front.
Fourthly, what on earth Ferrari had to do with the appeal process God alone knows. They contributed nothing to the case, since their submissions mirrored almost exactly those from the FIA. All the have achieved is to appear scheming and Machiavellian, happy to win points in the courtroom, which again does damage to the reputation of the sport in general and of Ferrari in particular. The practice of all competitors being entitled to have an input on such hearings should stop - in future only the Governing body, the stewards involved and those competitors specifically cited in the original Stewards' decision should be able to present their respective cases.
Fifthly, paragraph 27 of the International Court of Appeal's judgement (regarding the case of Liuzzi at the 2007 Japanese GP) is possibly the most incredible load of
I've read in a good long while (and that comes from a guy whose trade is politics...). In fact, in saying that the Liuzzi case does not establish a precedent due to not having been challenged it itself establishes a precedent and will in all likelihood lead to all sorts of minor decisions being formally challenged so as to establish a legally enforceable precedent.
Sixthly, I could understand that prior to the introduction of the 25 second rule following Schumacher's shenanigans at Silverstone in 1998 penalties imposed during a race could not be rescinded, but I fail to see how a drive-through or stop-go penalty served during the race is in practical terms the same as a 25 second time addition imposed two hours after the race has finished. Also, it seems to me that if you can add 25 seconds on for a penalty that should have been served during a race, you could rectify a penalty that SHOULDN'T have been administered by taking 25 seconds OFF, and so make this area subject to appeal on the same basis as technical infringements. However I still think that above all everything should be done to stop a race result being retrospectively amended on anything other than technical infringements, which for obvious reasons cannot be discovered until a race has finished.
Finally, nothing and no-one will convince me that anyone other than Lewis Hamilton deserved to win the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix. The fact that this race has now been awarded once and for all to someone who was comprehensively bested throughout the race both by his team-mate and his main championship rival is nothing short of an abomination.
Jim Clark, Monza, one lap down...
But we're ok , its back to business as usual.
