So, Hamilton's been keeping back information from the FIA it seems. Although, I should say "keeping back" is a rather harsh word to use as he may have accidentally forgotten.
In summation, the following happened in this particular incident
- Trulli went off at the penultimate corner; Hamilton passes Trulli. - Trulli passes Hamilton at the first corner a lap later(?) under orders from the team.
Now, the incidents both occurred under the safety car and Hamilton said he did "all he could" to slow down and let Trulli back onto the track in third. It's a curious situation, does over taking a car off the circuit count, whilst under a safety car, as illegal and therefore you have to surrender that position back? I say no, because Trulli was able to continue is race after going off and therefore had the right to his position back, surely?
Either way, one of these drivers will have a penalty after the hearing tomorrow apparently...
I have a feeling that the FIA will keep the current ruling, and I'd agree with them. If Trulli went off under the Safety Car, then he should've been more careful, cold tyres or not. I wouldn't mind seeing the ruling repealed, though, given that I'm no fan of Hamilton's.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
[quote="Either way, one of these drivers will have a penalty after the hearing tomorrow apparently... [/quote]
I don't necessarily think either of them will be penalised, I think it rests more on Hamilton's side.
The doubts centre around Hamilton's account of the events which unfolded immediately before Trulli repassed him.
Trulli claimed on Sunday that he had had no choice but to pass Hamilton because the McLaren slowed abruptly and deviated so far from the racing line that he assumed Hamilton had a mechanical problem.
“When the safety car came out towards the end of the race Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road,” he said. “I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do.” (my emphasis)
According to one of the German papers, Hamilton told the stewards that he had slowed because he was distracted by a message on his dashboard display – not because he was instructed by his team to give the place back to Trulli, in the (misplaced) fear that he might be penalised for his earlier pass.
The stewards apparently concluded that Hamilton did not cede the place voluntarily and that Trulli therefore gained an unfair competitive advantage.
However they have since found reasons to question Hamilton’s version of events and have been studying the radio transmissions between him and the McLaren team.
Does this apparent evidence support or refute Hamilton’s claim that he was not told to move over? It would seem the stewards have noted an apparent contradiction between the answers he gave them and the account given to reporters immediately after the race.
If it is determined that Hamilton did, after all, let Trulli by, then Trulli's 3rd place is expected to be reinstated – while Hamilton would, one assumes, face possible sanctions in the event that he is found to have misled the stewards.
There's no denying that both drivers drove excellent races from the back of the grid, and it's a shame that Trulli's efforts were not rewarded with the points he and his car deserve. The FIA courts are going to be very busy up until April 14!!!
"The advantage of jumping the start is that you can get away a lot quicker." - Murray Walker
Editor, Richard's F1 Visit my F1 website at http://richardsf1.com Exclusive news, reviews and interviews for F1, IndyCar, V8 Supercars and the WTCC
The FIA have stripped Lewis Hamilton of third and all his points including the constructors points "for providing evidence deliberately misleading to the stewards at the hearing on 29 March". This was the incident involving Jarno Trulli while the safety car was out at the end of the race. The stewards have re-instated Trulli into third place. This is yet again another incident involving Hamilton. It seems controversy follows him constantly.
Trulli has since the incident protested his innocence "When the safety car came out towards the end of the race, Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road," he said. "I thought he had a problem so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."
Hamilton told Speed TV "I was forced to go by. I slowed down as much as I could. I was told to let him back past, I don't know if that's the regulations, and if it isn't, then I should have really had third."
It would appear now evidence has come to the attention of the FIA and they have informed the race stewards who have then subsequently punished Hamilton and reinstated Trulli. However with the information not being disclosed and no television footage of the incident to view it is hard to make a decision as a fan. The one thing which is known however is that race stewards either have it in for Hamilton or he consistently bends the rules - you be the judge. But I can guarantee this won't be the last time Hamilton gets pulled up like this in front of the stewards.
It would seem to me he let Trulli by under instruction from the team which the stewards have now heard on the radio transmission and that Trulli did not make a 'competitive pass' as Hamilton had suggested. Saying he only slowed down because a message came up on his steering wheel screen.
Personally I think Hamilton lied to the stewards as he thought he'd get into trouble for what went on. Not necessarily to gain third or get Trulli disqualified. Either way it's cheating and imho he's got what he deserves... How long before the british press realise he's not whiter than white and he bends the rules like Schumacher did? Lord knows the british press hated Schumacher for it.
It might have been a trick to let Trulli pass back into 3rd under the safety car after his off, but Trulli would have needed to hand back P3 to Hamilton. Instead, Toyota asked race control (Charlie Whiting) and he said it's OK. It was not OK with the stewards of the meeting. And later, in Malaysia, somebody from the FIA decided to re-open the case and change the stewards' decision.
I'd say the FIA clearly hasn't got their act together. It's like they run 3 different championships, one that's governed by Race Control, one that's governed by the Stewards Of the Meeting, and one that's governed by the FIA Court Of Appeal.
It's arbitrary decisions like these that are bringing the sport into disrepute. On another board, I read that one of the stewards of Belgium 2008, the one guy from India, the spelling of whose name has escaped me, has interrogated Lewis Hamilton in the re-investigation of the event at Malaysia.
Btw, how likely is it that some FIA bigwhigs are trying to make money by influencing official results? There have been numerous betting scandals in football / soccer. Aren't all these ludicrous decisions of the FIA from recent years a bit too suspicious to not have some kind of truth in them.
So now everybody can derive their own championship standings from unofficial race results. My championship standings are as follows: Button 10, Barrichello 6, Hamilton 4, Glock 3, Alonso 2, Rosberg 1.
------ edit: 4.33 p.m CET+1 hours: On having read the transcript of McLaren's pit communication, I've decided to reinstate Trulli in the my-championship standings in 3rd place. Hence the my-points score from Melbourne now goes like this: Button 10, Barrichello 6, Trulli 4, Hamilton 3, Glock 2, Alonso 1.
Last edited by Yannick on 02 Apr 2009, 14:32, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't think we should be used to finance (the manufacturers') R&D because they will produce that engine anyway" said Monisha Kaltenborn. "You will never see a Mercedes using a Ferrari engine or the other way round."
UberOwnage wrote:I think the ruling came really late. I wasn't able to watch the race, but the FIA should have stood its ground on its earlier ruling.
Actually, they started investigating as soon as they had the new information. They just didn't have it for a few days after the race, so they can hardly be blamed for not ruling on something when they didn't have anything to rule on.
Besides, the original ruling - penalising Jarno Trulli - was fallacious. Lewis Hamilton was ordered to move over and let him back through by McLaren, so Trulli never did anything wrong. Why should he be punished if he was the one in the right, while McLaren and Hamilton get away with a result they don't deserve?
mario wrote:I'm wondering what the hell has been going on in this thread [...] it's turned into a bizarre detour into mythical flying horses and the sort of search engine results that CoopsII is going to have a very hard time explaining ...
The McLaren team has been disqualfied from the Australian Grand Prix following a detailed stewards' investigation into the incident involving the Englishman and Jarno Trulli on Sunday; the World Champion passed the Toyota under safety car conditions as the Italian ran off the circuit, before then slowing to allow Trulli to retake his position.
For repassing the McLaren, the Toyota driver was handed with a 25-second time penalty which resulted in him losing both his podium position and indeed any chance of points, as the tightly packed field finished the race under the safety car. As Toyota withdrew what would be a seemingly hopeless appeal this week, Trulli reminded onlookers of his version of events: "When the safety car came out towards the end of the race, Lewis Hamilton passed me but soon after he suddenly slowed down and pulled over to the side of the road. I thought he had a problem, so I overtook him as there was nothing else I could do."
Hamilton admitted to passing the Toyota as it ran across the grass at Turn 15, subsequently explaining that his team then instructed him to yield to Trulli. "I was behind Trulli under the safety car, and clearly you're not allowed to overtake under the safety car but he went off in the second to last corner," he explained to SpeedTV on Sunday. "He went wide and onto the grass, I guess his tyres were cold. I slowed down as much as I could, but was forced to go by. I was then told to let him back past, but I don't know if that's in the regulations and, if it isn't, I should really have had third."
Despite those comments, however, the stewards claim that Hamilton made no mention of this during their post-race investigation into the incident just minutes later, stating that he infact did not slow down to allow the Toyota to retake the place. Having received a recording of McLaren's radio broadcast during the race, the FIA has removed entire team from the final results of the race for providing 'deliberately misleading' information. This includes the second driver, Heikki Kovalainen, who will effectively not suffer the consequences having retired at the end of the first lap.
The governing body has also lifted Trulli's penalty, which places the Toyota driver back into the third position he originally achieved in Australia.
To make it CRYSTAL CLEAR.............FIA Release Radio Transcripts FIA have release steward's notes and radio transcripts for the public.
At the first hearing following the Australian Grand Prix the Stewards did not have the benefit of the radio exchanges between driver No 1 Lewis Hamilton and his Team Vodafone McLaren Mercedes nor did they have access to the comments to the Media given by Lewis Hamilton immediately after the end of the race.
From the video recordings available to the Stewards during the hearing it appeared that Jarno Trulli’s car left the track and car No 1 moved into third place. It then appeared that Trulli overtook Hamilton to regain third place, which at the time was prohibited as it was during the Safety Car period.
During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.
The new elements presented to the Stewards several days after the 2009 Australian Grand Prix which led to the reconvened Stewards Meeting clearly show that:
a. Immediately after the race and before Lewis Hamilton attended the Stewards Meeting he gave an interview to the Media where he clearly stated that the Team had told him to let Trulli pass.
b. Furthermore, the radio exchanges between the driver and the Team contain two explicit orders from the Team to let the Toyota pass.
The Stewards, having learned about the radio exchanges and the Media interview, felt strongly that they had been misled by the driver and his Team Manager which led to Jarno Trulli being unfairly penalised and Lewis Hamilton gaining third place.
This proves that Mclaren was at fault in 1st place and Hamilton lied to Melbourne Stewards, so Hamilton deserves his punishment, and Trulli got 3rd back truthfully.............
I was wondering if we were going to get that transcript. Thanks for that, it makes it clear. They messed up and, fan of Lewis as I am, this just proves they deserve the penalty.
...now, if both Brawns, the Toyotas, and the Williams's are disqualified...
Alonso wins Buemi second (escapes reject status) Bourdais third (escapes reject status) Sutil fourth (Force India escapes reject status I think) Heidfeld fifth Fisichella sixth Webber seventh Vettel eighth despite crashing
Have a look at that, and then consider which teams are protesting the diffusers, and then look who gains... Red Bull/Toro Rosso? These will (sadly) be the results... (as much as I like Bourdais, he doesn't deserve the third place)
Great, so another season of waiting a week to see what the actual race result was after the stewards have finished messing around with it. I guess it's better then just leaving things as they were but could they really not have gotten hold of the evidence earlier?
LukeB wrote:Great, so another season of waiting a week to see what the actual race result was after the stewards have finished messing around with it. I guess it's better then just leaving things as they were but could they really not have gotten hold of the evidence earlier?
Well, it's bound to get more assistance in the next race. How's that for a conspiracy theory?
Naughty McLaren hiding information. They get what they deserve - if they'd said about the radio at the beginning then they could have just reversed the positions or left them as they were by claiming accidental trouble and seeking assistance from Charlie..
My FSR League team is F1-Reject sponsored!!! BackMarker Brigade - 11GPs, 4DNQ's, 2Pts Finishes!
The thing I don't understand is why they ever suggested to Lewis to give the place back in the first place. If Trulli went off wide under the safety car, then the pass is OK, surely.
Why McLaren told Hamilton first to give the place back before seeking clarification from Charlie is bizarre to me. They gave the place back and THEN asked Charlie. What was Lewis to do then? Overtake Trulli now because he shouldn't have let him through in the first place?
I think part of why McLaren kept quiet in the stewards meeting is simply that from a racing point of view - the had the feeling that the 3rd place was in fact rightfully theirs. Of course, a) once he stuffed up it then belonged to Trulli and b) he should never have lied.
I'm just waiting to see who the first person to shout "CONSPIRACY!" will be. A lot of people seem to think that the FIA has it in for McLaren, or that they're all in Ferrari's pocket, or half a dozen other unsubstantiated claims and wild accusations that not only have no basis in reality, but the "evidence" provided of these conspiracies against McLaren is specious at best and entirely subjective.
Oddly enough, none of these theories considers the idea that McLaren just keep making the kind of mistakes that get them penalised.
mario wrote:I'm wondering what the hell has been going on in this thread [...] it's turned into a bizarre detour into mythical flying horses and the sort of search engine results that CoopsII is going to have a very hard time explaining ...
Kuwashima wrote:The thing I don't understand is why they ever suggested to Lewis to give the place back in the first place. If Trulli went off wide under the safety car, then the pass is OK, surely.
Why McLaren told Hamilton first to give the place back before seeking clarification from Charlie is bizarre to me. They gave the place back and THEN asked Charlie. What was Lewis to do then? Overtake Trulli now because he shouldn't have let him through in the first place?
I think part of why McLaren kept quiet in the stewards meeting is simply that from a racing point of view - the had the feeling that the 3rd place was in fact rightfully theirs. Of course, a) once he stuffed up it then belonged to Trulli and b) he should never have lied.
That's true. If Trulli was off the track, then it should have been fine but they stuffed up by telling Hamilton to let him by and then saying not to but it was too late. Lying to the stewards was a pretty daft thing to do, though. Did they really think that it wouldn't be followed up?
The other bizarre thing is why Toyota didn't appeal. The only plausible reason I can think of is that they couldn't prove Hamilton slowed inordinately. Maybe they didn't have access to that media interview, or maybe they thought it wasn't conclusive enough.
Personally it all seems very odd. Hamilton and McLaren were obviously confused about exactly what the law said, and were probably trying to stay absolutely on the right side of it, considering what has happened in the past couple of years. Then, for some reason (deciding that they wanted to get Trulli relegated? not wanting to appear amateurish?) they told the stewards something different. It's very odd. Sadly we'll never know exactly what happened unless we get a transcript of the stewards' enquiry, which is probably never going to happen.
BB01 wrote:The other bizarre thing is why Toyota didn't appeal. The only plausible reason I can think of is that they couldn't prove Hamilton slowed inordinately. Maybe they didn't have access to that media interview, or maybe they thought it wasn't conclusive enough.
Toyota did initially announce an intent to appeal, but then decided to withdraw it because it was likely to be ruled inadmissible. Drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal after the race (as at Spa 2008).
McLaren seem to have pretty much admitted that they lied to the stewards now. Dave Ryan has been suspended and Lewis has 'apologised', claiming that he was instructed to say what he said by Ryan. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, the "I was just following orders" defence is pretty weak. He made several claims to be a 'team player' during his 'apology'. Except, that is, when asked to let Alonso through in qualifying (Hungary 2007), when he felt it appropriate to ignore the team and do his own thing. When asked to lie, however, he does whatever the team tells him. What a marvellous role-model.
Just heard on a news program that Hamilton admitted "misleading the stewards, but insists he's not a liar". Now, you probably don't need to be Phoenix Wright ([/Random Nintendo Game Reference]) to spot the contradiction here.
Autosport's forum is just full of conspiracy theories, tbh. One topic goes along the lines of "can this radio transmission actually be legit?"...The lengths the followers of Lewis-Steria will go to, eh?
Chilled Phill wrote:Just heard on a news program that Hamilton admitted "misleading the stewards, but insists he's not a liar". Now, you probably don't need to be Phoenix Wright ([/Random Nintendo Game Reference]) to spot the contradiction here.
OBJECTION! Lewis, if you were Pinocchio, your nose would be so long it'd be jabbing you in the back of the head by now! What utter crap from Lewis!
Chilled Phill wrote:Autosport's forum is just full of conspiracy theories, tbh. One topic goes along the lines of "can this radio transmission actually be legit?"...The lengths the followers of Lewis-Steria will go to, eh?
Lewisteria suffers might have a cure incoming. Personally I think he should be forced to wear #0 instead of #1 -- because his antics are not fitting for those of a World Champion and he is behaving like a complete zero!...
... nevermind, I just reminded myself of some of the stuff Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso did....
McLaren are guilty of nothing more than stupidity-I think they were foolish rather than being liars. Nonetheless all its done is made me even more sick of Hamilton's stupid face and more fed up of F1's off track shenanigans.Can't F1 get a grip?
Kuwashima wrote:The thing I don't understand is why they ever suggested to Lewis to give the place back in the first place. If Trulli went off wide under the safety car, then the pass is OK, surely.
Why McLaren told Hamilton first to give the place back before seeking clarification from Charlie is bizarre to me. They gave the place back and THEN asked Charlie. What was Lewis to do then? Overtake Trulli now because he shouldn't have let him through in the first place?
I think part of why McLaren kept quiet in the stewards meeting is simply that from a racing point of view - the had the feeling that the 3rd place was in fact rightfully theirs. Of course, a) once he stuffed up it then belonged to Trulli and b) he should never have lied.
The whole thing makes even less sense when you consider that FIA almost certainly would've given Hamilton 3rd place and relegated Trulli to 4th post facto if McLaren had just said they weren't sure what to do and wanted to wait for a Charlie call on it.
It beggars belief that they fibbed to the FIA when asked had the ordered Hamilton to let Trulli by. There was absolutely no reason for it.
Chilled Phill wrote:Just heard on a news program that Hamilton admitted "misleading the stewards, but insists he's not a liar". Now, you probably don't need to be Phoenix Wright ([/Random Nintendo Game Reference]) to spot the contradiction here.
I suspect what happened was that when Hamilton provided his version of events to the stewards, he gave an abridged version that didn't mention the orders. The transcript shows they told him to let Trulli through, but too late, they told him not to yield, and for the purposes of what they thought was simplicity, left it out of their account.
Chilled Phill wrote:Autosport's forum is just full of conspiracy theories, tbh. One topic goes along the lines of "can this radio transmission actually be legit?"...The lengths the followers of Lewis-Steria will go to, eh?
The GTP Forums are the same. I posted that Hamilton had been caught lying to the stewards, and one user countered that unless I knew exactly what had been said between Hamilton and the Powers That Be, I couldn't claim that he was lying. Of course, without the transcript of that conversation, he couldn't prove that Hamilton hadn't been lying.
See, the thing is that Lewis Hamilton is nearly two years older than me - he was born in January '85, I was in November '86 - and I know from experience that twenty-three year olds screw up. And despite what James Allen and ITV have been ramming down our throats for the past two years, Hamilton is by no means a God Among Men. If people like Barrichello can screw up by duffing the start, Hamilton sure as hell can screw up, too. But people seem to ignore that; instead, they have an elaborate conspiracy that says the FIA has it in for Hamilton because the penalised Bourdais for hitting Massa.
mario wrote:I'm wondering what the hell has been going on in this thread [...] it's turned into a bizarre detour into mythical flying horses and the sort of search engine results that CoopsII is going to have a very hard time explaining ...
It seems to me to a concerted effort by all concerned to ensure that F1 is considered a farce. How a hearing into what was a pretty minor misunderstanding between two drivers can be allowed to escalate into this storm just beggars belief. The sponsors must all be crying.
I feel pretty sorry for Dave Ryan, who has been saddled with the scapegoat role for all this. It seems to me that Dave has been strung up mainly to ensure that the blessed Louis is seen to have done no wrong. Louis trying to look all hurt and innocent, and say 'I was only acting under orders' didn't impress me at all.
Also if you read Martin Whitmarsh's description of events on the Autosport site, that is very misleading as well. So will Martin be on the next plane back to London?
And Trulli claimed that he pulled alongside Lewis, and waited before passing, but if you look at the video he just appears to cruise right past.
And apparently the stewards rushed to a decision to put Trulli out of the points without looking at the telemetry and video that would have been easily available to them. Because if they had looked properly they would have been able to decide whether Lewis had slowed unreasonably, without the need to be fully reliant on his inevitably biased testimony.
Whatever, Lewis did or did not say on the radio had no effect on Trulli's actions. Trulli had to make his judgements from what he actually saw on the track. So why was Trulli first penalised severley then re-instated, when there has been no change in what he actually did?
A real mess that reveals all concerned as devious or incompetant.
And at its root lies the culture of rather arbitrary, lead footed stewarding that dishes out severe penalties at random.
"Other than the car behind and the driver who might get a bit startled with the sudden explosion in front, it really isn't a major safety issue from that point of view,"
Hamilton seems very contrite, but you notice he's only sorry after getting caught. It's easy to put your hands up and say you made a mistake after you're backed into a corner.
Clearly McLaren should have stolen Ferraris ability to cheat. You don't see them doing stupid stuff like lieing about information that they know has been recorded, and you damn sure never saw Schumacher admitting and apologising for any wrong doing. Hamilton will never be one of the greats at this rate
Hamilton considered quitting over Oz GP By Simon Strang Saturday, April 4th 2009, 23:43 GMT
Lewis Hamilton considered quitting McLaren, and even Formula 1, over the controversy surrounding his exclusion from last week's Australian Grand Prix, according to a report in The Sunday Times newspaper.
The newspaper claims that the world champion was talked out of walking away from the sport by FIA president Max Mosley, after Hamilton contacted the governing body to express his frustration that McLaren had misled him over the affair.
The Briton was disqualified from the Melbourne results after the stewards deemed he and McLaren sporting director Dave Ryan had 'deliberately misled' them about a radio conversation that took place after he had passed Toyota driver Jarno Trulli behind the safety car.
Hamilton and his father Anthony are reported to have been furious that his public perception had been tarnished by the affair, and both apparently insisted McLaren allow him to take the unprecendented step of holding a press conference in the FIA media centre so he could come clean about the situation.
He subsequently made an emotional open apology to the stewards and his fans. "I was misled and that is the way it went," he told the press. "I would like to say a big sorry to all my fans who have believed in me, who have supported me for years, who I showed who I am for the past three years, and it is who I am. I am not a liar. I am not a dishonest person.
Bernie Ecclestone told the Daily Mail: "Lewis is terribly upset but his father is even more upset having his son called a cheat. Anthony has brought Lewis up not to be like that and he is disappointed somebody has called him a liar when he isn't deliberately lying."
Hamilton's future with McLaren now remains unclear. BBC commentator Martin Brundle pointed out in his Sunday Times column today that the 24-year-old could walk free from his multi-year contract citing a breach on the team's behalf.
"McLaren could also now be perceived to be in breach of Lewis's contract for bringing him into disrepute especially as a senior team member has taken the whole rap," said Brundle, who raced for McLaren in 1994. "This would make him a free agent if he wanted to move teams."
Brundle also suggested that the scandal may stay with Hamilton forever. "The Briton's reputation has understandably taken a battering but a sense of perspective is required here.
"He will recover from this in time but he will have to live with the stigma in perpetuity, just as [Michael] Schumacher does. It will always be mentioned in his epitaph."
If you're going to quit, Lewis, your should have don it in 2007 when McLaren were found guilty of having the Ferrari documents. Something like this is small fish.
mario wrote:I'm wondering what the hell has been going on in this thread [...] it's turned into a bizarre detour into mythical flying horses and the sort of search engine results that CoopsII is going to have a very hard time explaining ...
He should quit. An end to Lewisteria? Finally! Ronzo can hire that steady driver who always brought the car home and needs a race seat. HWNSNBM at McLaren? Please!
Nissanymania! Friday has never been the same since.
McClaren have trained Lewis to drive cars for the last ten years, and also have trained him in the arts of PR for the last ten years. You'll see lots of these sorts of articles.
Maybe he thought about quitting but I imagine the prospect of being sport's first billionaire looked better than that of working in a chip shop in Stevenage.
All of these top drivers are massively ambitious and occasionally that gets them into trouble. At least Schumi could play the villain role properly.
"Other than the car behind and the driver who might get a bit startled with the sudden explosion in front, it really isn't a major safety issue from that point of view,"
RejectSteve wrote:He should quit. An end to Lewisteria? Finally! Ronzo can hire that steady driver who always brought the car home and needs a race seat. HWNSNBM at McLaren? Please!
Unfortunately, if that did happen, McLaren would probably be too busy begging Lewis to come back rather than bite the bullet and make the sensible decision.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing I wouldn't be in Formula 1.
Really, the issue here is the speed at which this was decided. The bad thing is that the stewards didn't have access to Hamilton's radio or post-race interview, which would have allowed the stewards to make the decision on the day, or one day after. Not mid-week!
As for the actual decision, I see it like this:
- Hamilton passes Trulli while he's off the track. - McLaren play it safe by letting Trulli pass, clearly telling Hamilton to let Trulli pass. - Trulli passes Hamilton, because Hamilton was clearly letting him past. - McLaren realise they didn't have to do this, so some element(s) of the team, isolated or not, decide to skip the detail that Trulli was let past, in order to punish Trulli, in order to regain the single point they'd lost. - The Stewards somehow fail to take into account any of the evidence that McLaren had done this, and punsih Trulli unfairly. - Finally, the new evidence comes to light, and the Stewards realise that McLaren had tried to land Toyota in the shite. - They justifiably think this is particularly unfair, and disqualify Hamilton for being complicit in this.
Therefore, nothing wrong with the actual decision, because McLaren clearly acted wrongly, just something wrong with the way the Stewards review and compile information. I don't think any more sanctions are needed though.
Hill - 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, Frentzen - 1999 French Grand Prix, 1999 Italian Grand Prix, Fisichella - 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix
Stewart wrote:<snip> and Lewis has 'apologised', claiming that he was instructed to say what he said by Ryan. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, the "I was just following orders" defence is pretty weak. He made several claims to be a 'team player' during his 'apology'. Except, that is, when asked to let Alonso through in qualifying (Hungary 2007), when he felt it appropriate to ignore the team and do his own thing. When asked to lie, however, he does whatever the team tells him. What a marvelous role-model.
Thank you for reminding me of this. I have been a long time Alonso fan (my enduring thanks to him for being the man who was finally able to consistently beat Mikey and get him to retire) and that incident certainly turned me off the Lewis the wonderkid. I was starting to feel just a tiny bit sorry for him when he did the apology interview but that feeling is receding now.
It would be interesting indeed to find a database that would list all the penalties handed out to various drivers over the years and see how Hamilton's tally rates.
ETA: The thing that really ticked me off was that Hamilton was quite prepared to let Trulli look like an idiot for passing behind the safety car.
