FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[andrew]

I dont know if he was asked to lie, which is why I put the IF in capitol letters.

Within certain paramaters yes you do what you can to help out friends but, you dont do anything to help them out, you dont break the law, you dont hurt other people, you dont compromise your integrity. A friend asking you to do that is not a true friend.

From what I've read, it seems that Sutil may think that Hamilton would have had the best view of what happened so likely he thought his friend would be able to give a pretty accurate account of what happened but if there was enough for the prosecution without Hamiltons account he would probably have made very little difference. It seems that McLaren are wanting to shy away from this as Hamilton was asked about the case during the car launch and a McLaren PR person stepped in beifre Hamilton could answer.

I wonder if Andrew would have this view if it were Vettel in the situation... Scratch that any driver bar Hamilton actually!!

You should copy and paste it over on the that's Vettel thread.

Moderator endorsed trolling.

[bud]

He is endorsing the opposite in fact

[spankyham]

I know I would not expect a mate to lie for me in a court of law ....

Helping a friend out and being there for them is not the same as lying for them...

I completely agree with these comments, and if you read my post I clearly state that Sutil has to man-up for what he did.

As RC put it, "being there for them" was what I was focusing on. And I think Lewis missed the boat on that count. Even simply being in the courtroom or visiting his friend.

Lewis ostensibly chose Sutil as a friend for some positive reasons - he could have made a statement to that effect, he could have said the positive things about Sutil that made him a friend.

Lewis's mitigating circumstance to me is that McLaren had made it clear that they wanted to control this and told Lewis "keep out - say nothing - do nothing".

[Hammer278]

Helping a friend out and being there for them is not the same as lying for them. lewis was called by the prosecution, not the defence. Not going may have been better for Sutil than going and telling the truth. Lewis was asked to lie once before by someone he trusted and he bitterly regrets doing it. We're always hearing lewis should learn from his mistakes, well maybe he has. IF Lewis was asked to lie(or avoid the truth) then Id say Sutil is the abuser of the friendship.

Was he going to have to lie for him? I don't recall reading that anywhere. In my book, you do whatever you can to help out your friends.

[andrew]

Helping a friend out and being there for them is not the same as lying for them. lewis was called by the prosecution, not the defence. Not going may have been better for Sutil than going and telling the truth. Lewis was asked to lie once before by someone he trusted and he bitterly regrets doing it. We're always hearing lewis should learn from his mistakes, well maybe he has. IF Lewis was asked to lie(or avoid the truth) then Id say Sutil is the abuser of the friendship.

Was he going to have to lie for him? I don't recall reading that anywhere. In my book, you do whatever you can to help out your friends.

[f1ea]

Sutil's father:

And Lewis Hamilton, the cause of the discussion, didn't do anything. I think my son chose the wrong friend.

huh??
So what was it that went on?? anybody knows what actually happened??

[andrew]

Sutil's father:

And Lewis Hamilton, the cause of the discussion, didn't do anything. I think my son chose the wrong friend.

huh??
So what was it that went on?? anybody knows what actually happened??

His issue with Hamilton is that he was sitting right next to Sutil so is likely best placed (other than Sutil) to know what exactly happened however he chose or was told to not attempt to be of help to his friend. He also seems to have cut off all contact with Sutil which has caused a bit more anger despite Hamilton Snr keeping in touch with Sutil. From what I've read, the breakdown of the friendship goes beyond the court case and boils down to someone turning their back on someone else with no explanation.

As for in the bar, I think there was a mass rammy and Sutil was attampting crowd control by using a champagne bottle and ended up clunking Lux with a bottle.

[f1ea]

As for in the bar, I think there was a mass rammy and Sutil was attampting crowd control by using a champagne bottle and ended up clunking Lux with a bottle.

Judging from the quote, it seems the "grievous bodily harm" followed a "discussion" which Hamilton "caused"........ this is what I'm asking about (if anyone knows what actually happened). Its kinda obvious Sutil feels betrayed by Lewis, but this is kinda secondary to the whole Hamilton caused the incident thing...... i mean, one thing is to turn your back on a "grievious assaulter" and another is to do it on an innocent guy who fell into something that you caused......

[andrew]

I wasn't aware that Hamilton caused Sutil to lamp Lux with a bottle.

[f1ea]

I wasn't aware that Hamilton caused Sutil to lamp Lux with a bottle.

Me neither. Is that what happened?

[racechick]

As for in the bar, I think there was a mass rammy and Sutil was attampting crowd control by using a champagne bottle and ended up clunking Lux with a bottle.

Judging from the quote, it seems the "grievous bodily harm" followed a "discussion" which Hamilton "caused"........ this is what I'm asking about (if anyone knows what actually happened). Its kinda obvious Sutil feels betrayed by Lewis, but this is kinda secondary to the whole Hamilton caused the incident thing...... i mean, one thing is to turn your back on a "grievious assaulter" and another is to do it on an innocent guy who fell into something that you caused......

Sutil has rightly or wrongly been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, And i feel some sympathy for him, perhaps it was an accident? WE dont know. It sounds as though a near riot was going on. What is indesputable is that the champagne bottle in Sutil's hand went into Lux's neck. Why are we now discussing Lewis as though he were the guilty party? There were lots of drivers there that night. Lewis has said he couldnt really see what happenned.But what if he had information that would be detrimental to Sutil's case? (he was called by prosecution not defence) In that case staying away was the most helpful thing he could have done. We dont know what actually happened but lets not act like Lewis is the guilty party here. And this before the season has even started

[andrew]

Who he was called by is irrelevent. He'd either help prove the prosecution wrong and the defence right or vice versa.

No one is discussing Hamilton as if he is the guilty party. As far as I was aware we were discussing the odd so-called friendship between Sutil and Hamilton and the breakdown of said friendship.

[What's Burning?]

Who he was called by is irrelevent. He'd either help prove the prosecution wrong and the defence right or vice versa.

No one is discussing Hamilton as if he is the guilty party. As far as I was aware we were discussing the odd so-called friendship between Sutil and Hamilton and the breakdown of said friendship.

You sound as if you're very intimate with the entire situation.

[andrew]

Who he was called by is irrelevent. He'd either help prove the prosecution wrong and the defence right or vice versa.

No one is discussing Hamilton as if he is the guilty party. As far as I was aware we were discussing the odd so-called friendship between Sutil and Hamilton and the breakdown of said friendship.

You sound as if you're very intimate with the entire situation.

Do I? Don't think I do. I just take the time to read more than just the headlines.

[What's Burning?]

Who he was called by is irrelevent. He'd either help prove the prosecution wrong and the defence right or vice versa.

No one is discussing Hamilton as if he is the guilty party. As far as I was aware we were discussing the odd so-called friendship between Sutil and Hamilton and the breakdown of said friendship.

You sound as if you're very intimate with the entire situation.

Do I? Don't think I do. I just take the time to read more than just the headlines.

No, it's an opinion of what you think may have been said or not said had Lewis testified, it's all conjecture on your part and no amount of reading other than the headlines will tell you about something that didn't happen. This is something that's being reported because it's ALL ABOUT the headlines because there is nothing of substance to have people interested in it otherwise.