FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Penalties should be applied because a rule has been clearly contavined, Not because the steward doesnt like the way a driver talks.

[Matkins]

So you think Hamilton's gloating effects the decisions the officials make. If there is any truth in that what-so-ever then I am even more shocked at the lack of profesionalism in the current stewarding system.

Of course his gloating will affect decisions. At the end of the day McLaren have got to be clever enough to realise that stewards are massive fans of the sport. And I'm not saying that they delibrately go out of their way to f**k Lewis and McLaren over BUT all the trash that comes out of their mouths cannot help at all. At the start of the Spa weekend, for example, he made a couple of sly (blatent actually) comments about the pace of the Ferrari when Massa said he raced the perfect lap. He didn't take into consideration what actually occured - he was lighter on fuel than Massa was. Even if he is thinking this trash it shouldn't really be coming out of his mouth.

If you look at tennis and golf Federer and woods are his oppisite - they are modest. That is why everyone wants them to win grandslams and opens despite the fact that both of these sportsman are the most successful men in their respective sports. It wouldn't help them if everyone was on their backs.

Again I'm sorry to those I haven't replied too - I will soon.

Personally I couldn't care less about Hamilton's arogance. Or Massa's arogance. Or any comments that McLaren makes about them being "used to it". What is said doesn't come into it for real racing fans, and it certainly shouldn't come into it for a steward. Is there any evidence that the stewards are swayed by what drivers and teams say? If there is then that would be a huge controversy. I should hope their decisions are solely concerned with racing incidents, this is a sport not the big brother house.

[7UpJordan]

What alarmed me most about Hamilton's penalty in Magny-Bores was the fact that the FIA would not even let the McLaren team see the "evidence" that Hamilton cut the chicane. I mean WHY? It's like when once in a Simpsons episode Homer got a scratch card and only 2 of the liberty bells matched and he tried to con Apu by covering up the red cherry.

[McLaren Fan]

What alarmed me most about Hamilton's penalty in Magny-Bores was the fact that the FIA would not even let the McLaren team see the "evidence" that Hamilton cut the chicane. I mean WHY? It's like when once in a Simpsons episode Homer got a scratch card and only 2 of the liberty bells matched and he tried to con Apu by covering up the red cherry.

One of the reasons why conspiracy theories have flourished in Formula One - and I'm not just talking about the present - is because of the secrecy culture certain groups have. As far as I'm concerned, the FIA must have something to hide saying as they refuse to show some pretty basic evidence for reaching their decisions.

[FerrariFan63]

What alarmed me most about Hamilton's penalty in Magny-Bores was the fact that the FIA would not even let the McLaren team see the "evidence" that Hamilton cut the chicane. I mean WHY? It's like when once in a Simpsons episode Homer got a scratch card and only 2 of the liberty bells matched and he tried to con Apu by covering up the red cherry.

It's starting to look like the FIA was out to get Hamilton, rather than it being incompetence. Bernie was saying that "Max would be back" at this race. Perhaps Mosley blames the UK press for some of his problems, and was getting some revenge.

That's why we need someone like Todt in charge.

[Denthúl]

What alarmed me most about Hamilton's penalty in Magny-Bores was the fact that the FIA would not even let the McLaren team see the "evidence" that Hamilton cut the chicane. I mean WHY? It's like when once in a Simpsons episode Homer got a scratch card and only 2 of the liberty bells matched and he tried to con Apu by covering up the red cherry.

It's starting to look like the FIA was out to get Hamilton, rather than it being incompetence. Bernie was saying that "Max would be back" at this race. Perhaps Mosley blames the UK press for some of his problems, and was getting some revenge.

That's why we need someone like Todt in charge.

Jordan, Stoddart, or Stewart would, in my opinion, be better. None of them are afraid to speak their mind, all of them are experience and none have recent ties to teams in Formula 1.

[FerrariFan63]

Jordan, Stoddart, or Stewart would, in my opinion, be better. None of them are afraid to speak their mind, all of them are experience and none have recent ties to teams in Formula 1.

Stewart is too old to start this off. You don't want someone in for a few years. But I appreciate some of the things he's done for the sport. Though he might bring in a regulation saying that all the drivers must take instruction from him and drive the way he says.

Stoddart? History with the FIA. Fair racing heritage though. But not at the level of Todt, winning in multiple disciplines.

Jordan. Not as experienced or as recently experienced as Todt. Not so politically able as Todt, I'd think.

[McLaren Fan]

Stoddart? History with the FIA. Fair racing heritage though. But not at the level of Todt, winning in multiple disciplines.

Jordan. Not as experienced or as recently experienced as Todt. Not so politically able as Todt, I'd think.

Similar things apply to those people as they do with Alain Prost.

[Denthúl]

Jordan, Stoddart, or Stewart would, in my opinion, be better. None of them are afraid to speak their mind, all of them are experience and none have recent ties to teams in Formula 1.

Stewart is too old to start this off. You don't want someone in for a few years. But I appreciate some of the things he's done for the sport. Though he might bring in a regulation saying that all the drivers must take instruction from him and drive the way he says.

Stoddart? History with the FIA. Fair racing heritage though. But not at the level of Todt, winning in multiple disciplines.

Jordan. Not as experienced or as recently experienced as Todt. Not so politically able as Todt, I'd think.

I just want somebody with a 'cleaner' history and less potential for bias than Jean Todt. To be honest, despite some of the current team principals being potentially excellent choices for the role, the fact that they are tied to teams still competing within the sport should make them an automatic 'no' for such a role.

[texasmr2]

Well Jackie is one year younger than Max and seem's to be the epitome of health and mind and he has no bias. If he was elected I'm hopefull that he would have many year's to get the FIA worked out and once again made a reputable governing body.

Yet I do see and can agree that a younger person could have a much longer and fruitfull tenure with the FIA but the arguement can also be made that there is no substitute for experience

[FerrariFan63]

I just want somebody with a 'cleaner' history and less potential for bias than Jean Todt. To be honest, despite some of the current team principals being potentially excellent choices for the role, the fact that they are tied to teams still competing within the sport should make them an automatic 'no' for such a role.

How much of the need for a 'cleaner' history for Todt, and the "less potential for bias" is opinion, and how much is fact? Decisions concerning who should run the FIA should be down to cold hard facts, not conspiracy theories.

[texasmr2]

The whole arguement FerrariFan63 is that JT's ties with Ferrari could lead to another biased FIA board. We, including myself, want someone not directly related to a team or even the sport so impartial decision's can be made without being deemed as biased toward's or against a team.

[onelapdown]

I just want somebody with a 'cleaner' history and less potential for bias than Jean Todt. To be honest, despite some of the current team principals being potentially excellent choices for the role, the fact that they are tied to teams still competing within the sport should make them an automatic 'no' for such a role.

How much of the need for a 'cleaner' history for Todt, and the "less potential for bias" is opinion, and how much is fact? Decisions concerning who should run the FIA should be down to cold hard facts, not conspiracy theories.

That's not the issue. It's not about whether Todt would be impartial or unbiased, but whether he would be SEEN to be impartial and unbiased. I just don't think you can have someone who obviously has invested so much time and effort in one team alone in that position because there's simply no way that a large section of F1 fans could see him as a truly honest broker. It would be like having Alex Ferguson refereeing a Man U-Liverpool game.

A more sensible suggestion from the point of view of a multi-discipline aspect would be Dave Richards, but even he has issues because of the Prodrive F1 team thing.

[texasmr2]

Exactly and allow me to refer to a statement made by bud earlier today, "the FIA is being run like a local karting association"! The FIA should be run as a business, as it is a billion dollar+ enterprise, and when CEO's of companie's squander away the money let alone the reputation of that company they are FIRED!!! Why is it different with the FIA???

[racechick]

What alarmed me most about Hamilton's penalty in Magny-Bores was the fact that the FIA would not even let the McLaren team see the "evidence" that Hamilton cut the chicane. I mean WHY? It's like when once in a Simpsons episode Homer got a scratch card and only 2 of the liberty bells matched and he tried to con Apu by covering up the red cherry.

It's starting to look like the FIA was out to get Hamilton, rather than it being incompetence. Bernie was saying that "Max would be back" at this race. Perhaps Mosley blames the UK press for some of his problems, and was getting some revenge.

That's why we need someone like Todt in charge.

Todt!!! That Ferrari slimeball!! You MUST be joking!! He's probably the guy who whips max's Arse when he can't get hold of his call girls!!