McLaren appeal ruled Inadmissible

v10

The International Court of Appeal has decided to main the status quo by ruling that the McLaren's appeal against Lewis Hamilton a retrospective penalty at Spa is inadmissible.


The result means Hamilton will head into the Singapore GP with just a one-point lead...


Good News in my opinion.

Robbo

Can I be the first with "Rabble rabble conspiracy rabble rabble"?

Seriously though, I didn't see much chance of it succeeding and Hamilton's tone in the statements given could hardly help.

ven0m

It reeks to high heaven. The FIA sent an e-mail on Friday claiming the precident for Japan was a mistake & that the steward there effed up, yet under that stewards testimony on Monday, that email was a lie.

I don;t understand why Ferrari's Nigel Tozzi was there REPRESENTING Ferrari & carrying out cross examination - like, what the f**k business was it of Ferrari's to be involved in the appeal? Last I checked, it was an appeal by Mclaren against an FIA decision, or does FIA actually really mean 'Ferrari International Aid', so that's why Ferrari were able to cross examine??

The whole thing stinks to high heaven & anyone who says otherwise is blind - because there is no justification for Ferrari being involved in ANY cross examination in this appeal.

Methinks the WWE & 'Professional Wrestling' is more transparent than Formula-1 & the FIA.

RayM

It's good for the Championship battle, but pretty dire for the 'sport' (or 'fiasco', as it's very quickly becoming). I suppose declaring the appeal 'inadmissable' was the only option the FIA had, as it saves them the embarrassment of backing up the stewards' diabolical decision. It's just a shame that they can't be consistent when making these decisions...

I really hope Hamilton loses the championship by more than a couple of points.

thegoth

Lewis broke the rules IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as Alonso in 2005 while overtaking Klien and was treated in the EXACT SAME WAY.

I will admit that the FIA do seem to have it in for McLaren, but that doesn't mean that the decision wasnt correct

ven0m

thegoth wrote: »

Lewis broke the rules IN THE EXACT SAME WAY as Alonso in 2005 while overtaking Klien and was treated in the EXACT SAME WAY.

I will admit that the FIA do seem to have it in for McLaren, but that doesn't mean that the decision wasnt correct

Sorry, it's not the same. They never said you have to wait til after the next corner to make the passing move, which is what they DID do here & then conveniently after the punishment was given went back & amended the rules, & then proceeded to send an email to the team claiming a steward said something & had a conversation with people making retractions which never happened.

Whole different ball game, & the goal posts were in constant movement here on the rules, not to mention some very underhanded behaviour from the FIA.

v10

v10 wrote: »

The International Court of Appeal has decided to main the status quo by ruling that the McLaren's appeal against Lewis Hamilton a retrospective penalty at Spa is inadmissible.


The result means Hamilton will head into the Singapore GP with just a one-point lead...


Good News in my opinion.

Guess I should have known I'd be dragging the Ferrari Haters out of the woodwork again.:rolleyes:

The way I see it (and most of the drivers on the grid agree) the stewards got it right in Spa.

Now what happened today was a different matter. The FIA simply declared the appeal was inadmissible and rightly so as it was.

FrostyJack

Sorry, it's not the same.

In what why was it different? Because it was wet? Every driver that I heard interviewed said that they were told it in driver briefings regularly. So if it is an unwritten rule, it's still a rule he knew about.

I would have liked it to go to the full appeal so he could have been punished more, but the ruling was it was a drive through penalty and they cannot be appealed so there is no conspiracy. As stated before how were Mclaren allowed to drive around last year in a part Ferrari car and not get both drivers kicked out when they could have gained advantage? FIA does that stand for Ferrari Information (about their cars) Acquirers, a subcompany of McLaren? Oh look how clever it is to change words.

vectra

Face it.
lewis is a big mouth and an arrogant prat that thinks He has a god give right to do as he pleases on track
I for one say he got what he deserved.
Roll on the next race so as we can see revenge from Glock and Co. for Lewis's total lunatic driving in Monza

ven0m

Which part about the rules they nabbed him under being changed AFTER the penalty & the bogey FIA letter are people that willing to ignore or is it thaat you all hate Lewis so much you're totally oblivious & blind - probably the same people who think Michael Schumacher never did a bogey thing in his entire F-1 career :rolleyes:

Oblomov

The judgemnt was as expected, regardless of the pros and cons, how many appeals have succeeded?

I'm sure they are enough followers of F1 to remember Michael Schumacher in a red car taking a black flag in the pits to ensure he won the race.

If the stewards had made their decision early enough, surely, the same tactics could have been used and all parties, well maybe not all, could have been suitable satisfied. The delay only suited one team.

I believe Ferrari's counsel was present because of their objection, which they later denied.

vectra

ven0m wrote: »

Which part about the rules they nabbed him under being changed AFTER the penalty & the bogey FIA letter are people that willing to ignore or is it thaat you all hate Lewis so much you're totally oblivious & blind - probably the same people who think Michael Schumacher never did a bogey thing in his entire F-1 career :rolleyes:

If it is any consolation to you I hated the living sight of Michael Schumacher as well because he never won a wc fair and square. Which is one reason i like Kimi so much.. When schu retired Kimi said ! I was having a $hit "

v10

vectra wrote: »

.. he never won a wc fair and square

To say Michael Schumacher never won a championship fair and square is just ignorant so I doubt it will be any consolation to anyone.

vectra wrote: »

.. When schu retired Kimi said ! I was having a $hit

Yeah that was funny .. pity he has proved not to be a worthy successor to him.

Oblomov

McLaren revealed some very strange goings-on involving the legal department at the FIA in the last couple of days.
McLaren had submitted papers in advance of the hearing making clear they were going to rely on the Liuzzi-Sutil case at the Japanese GP last year as a precedent. In this case the stewards handed Liuzzi a time penalty which was then found to be open to appeal. Responding to McLaren's submissions, Charlie Whiting phoned Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at Fuji, on Friday, to ask about that decision. Whiting then informed the legal department at the FIA that Scott Andrews had indicated in that phone call that he was mistaken about the time penalty and had confirmed, in as many words, that it should have been a drive-through(which, of course, could not be appealed).

The FIA lawyers then wrote to McLaren's lawyers at 6.30pm on Friday informing them that Scott Andrews had made a mistake. "Having checked with the permanent chief of stewards who signed the Decision in Japan, we wish to inform you that there is an error on the face of the Decision document," the FIA told McLaren. McLaren's lawyers did not take this at face value and sought out Scott Andrews who was officiating at Brands Hatch on Sunday. When informed of what the FIA had alleged, Scott Andrews was outraged. He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'", Scott Andrews wrote in a lengthy submission which was read to the court by Phillips.

What on earth was the FIA up to? Why did they make such a big effort to discredit McLaren's precedent, even misrepresenting Scott Andrews in the process, when their lawyer could have dealt with it in court? It certainly smells fishy but I suspect it will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings.

Lewis aquitted himself pretty well under cross-examination by Nigel Tozzi QC for Ferrari, attacking the lawyer, even if he overstepped the mark once or twice. Charlie Whiting was given a good going over by Phillips and was perhaps fortunate that he had to leave early for a flight to Singapore(seemed a bit odd given that we all have to go there and have known for over a week about the timing of the hearing).

All the detail on the events on the track - and this is a very, very broad summary - only underlined to me that the stewards were right about the basic point about whether Lewis got an advantage in the chicane and whether he fully handed it back before attacking Kimi into Turn 1. I always thought Lewis's driving looked iffy from a rules standpoint.

The one element which emerged very strongly is that there needs to be a much clearer and more specific law on giving back a position. As Whiting explained, there is no hard and fast rule on this and each incident is judged on its merits. The FIA needs to clear this up immediately. The best answer is to ban overtaking by the following car until after the first corner subsequent to the surrender of a position unfairly gained.

vectra

v10 wrote: »

pity he has proved not to be a worthy successor to him.

theres ignorance of the highest degree. What exactly did Kimi become last season??? Do the words "WORLD CHAMP" ring any bells ??:rolleyes:

Just because Kimi has an off season this year you jump down his back..
Schu had a few off years as well remember and only for his faithfull "Minders" ie. Irvine.. barrachello.. he would not have won so many races either;)

v10

vectra wrote: »

theres ignorance of the highest degree. What exactly did Kimi become last season??? Do the words "WORLD CHAMP" ring any bells ??:rolleyes:

He did win the championship last year fair enough, I never said he wasn't a good driver or inapable of winning a championship but I genuinely believe if Schumacher was in Kimi's car last year he would have scored far more points that Kimi managed.

vectra wrote: »

Just because Kimi has an off season this year you jump down his back..

an off season ? is that what it is ? maybe he's actually only a good driver and not a great driver ?

Iompair

This was the first full F1 race I've watched in a couple of seasons and as soon as Hamilton retook the position he'd handed back it was pretty obvious he was going to be punished.

He gained too much of an advantage from cutting the chicaine and was rightly punished for it

He could have passed Raikkonen at any point in the next few laps as he was much faster at that point in the race. But instead he took the position cheaply, its the same sort of thing you see in soccer with people diving and clutching their faces at the least touch. Ronaldo, Drogba and Hamilton are so good at there respective sports that they don't have to resort to this stuff and to see them do it only turns people off sports in general.

If Hamilton had taken his time he would have won that race fair and square. I think he'll win the championship this year and rightly so as he seems to be the best driver/car combination at the moment. I just hope he doesn't have any more rushes of blood that could cost him more points.

Oblomov

The very strange thing about any form of racing, when the opportunity presents itself to overtake an opponent, strangely enough you take it.

It's not part of the mind set to evaluate and procrastinate on the values of an opportunity, to consider the possible changes in the weather, how the various cars on circuit will move over or even if a traffic jam, a red flag, a safety car , all these things are imponderable at that moment as the racer seeks to gain that fraction, the millisecond to decide brake or accelerator....

I really must get a job description for a racing driver,

Remember words of Ron Dennis: second place is first of the losers.

Lewis Hamilton, what ever you think of him, is a racer, he enjoys the buzz, the ultimate control at the limits of the car.

Lets not introduce legal limitations to take that away.

ven0m

There are just too many ambiguities, too many 'interpretations' of rules & the lack of professionalism in a multi billion euro international racing series.

Even football has professional adjudicators - F1 has no professional adjudicators at events, apart from Charlie. In a sport where 0.001 of a second can determine a win or second place, there cannot be ambiguity, grey areas - or incidents where someone like CHarlie Whiting tells McLaren "yeah, that looked ok to me" & then highlights the incident to the stewards.

The FIA make FIFA look competent & above board with some of the wierd decisions of late, like establish F2 whe GP-2 exists & this was purely to piss Bernie off, no other reason. GP-2 was a more than adequate feeder series, & still is.

ven0m

Ficus wrote: »

There has been some hilarious post in this thread.
Firstly, saying schumacher and all his championships were not attained fairly, well that smack of stupidity and ignorance. Sure he bent the rules to his advantage, and he did some dubious moves, but when you look at the overall picture, you cant deny that he is one of the greatest drivers the world has ever seen, and i think his accomplishments reflect that.

And to say that this is a big witch hunt against Mclaren is also quiet funny. Hamilton did something he wasnt supposed to, got punished like people who have commited the same offence before him, and suddenly ever one is out to get him. Not true. The evidence backs this up. And there is a reason why lewis is not a liked man in the f1 paddock, its with moves like he performed on glock etc, calling the people at the back of the grid monkeys and for saying he is better than every other driver on the grid, i know self believe is important in racing but to be that cockey is always going to lead to problems.

And the whole thing about loose interpretations of the rules is exactly what f1 has always been about, as martin brundle always says, you read the rule book twice, once to see what the rules are, and then the second time to see how you can bend them!.
And it happens in every sport, look at football, how many fouls on match of the day the other night that were not given and how many incorrect calls from the referee?
And in the olympics, the olympic walk, competitors can only have both feet off the ground 3 times max, yet there were clips of competitors doing it many time and there are oveder 40 judges for that event.
Every sport where there is human judgment has the potential to be incorrect, yet i am convinced that this hamilton case was 100% fair.

Except you forget several facts.

1. all adjudicators in sports you mention are PROFESSIONAL, they aren't in FIA motorsport events
2. The rules Lewis were penalised under were CHANGED AFTER his punishment was published, i.e. can only challenge AFTER the next corner, that was not in the rules at the time of the race event.
3. Lewis has never referred to anyone as a 'grid monkey' & to be honest, Minardi & other such teams were always referred to by press etc as 'making up numbers', & treated as such by Max Mosely & the FIA in general. It' why people like Paul Stoddart walked from F1 - elitism.
4. Dubious is what Lews Did - Schumacher trying to drive people off the road to win a championship, or parking a car to cease a qualification session, or even stage race wins are totally different, & beyond dubious
5. Schumacher is the GREATEST driver ever to have sat his arse at the wheel of a motorcar, not one of - but THE single greatest, & his expertise, knowledge at all levels of what he did inside the car - even Stevie Wonder could see it.
6. Lewis love him or hate him, if you watched Gp-2 you'd know his talent i epic. I love how people are quick to jump all over what he says - people have such short memories of characters like Jacques Villeneuve, Eddie Irvine, James Hunt, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost etc - these guys had massive gobs on them. Hamilton is more naturally gifted than most drivers in the field, whether you like him or not - it's s fact. You don't get into F-1 on a whim unless you're bloody good, as there's thousands of others who COULD get a chance, but will never. If you're in F-1, you're mustard - end of.
7. Comparing football's 'rulings' to F-1 is flawed, as football is under fire for it's rulings & lack of consistencies. If you want an example of advanced adjudication, with some failsafes - Rugby Union sets the standard with 5 officials, & where even a linesman now can overturn the referee if the referee is deemed to be wrong, & they are all professional too.

amacachi

As I said in another thread, F1 should take a leaf out of NASCAR's book and have officials who make a decision quickly and that's it. No appeal or any crap. A simplification of the rules would help a lot as well.

ven0m

amacachi wrote: »

As I said in another thread, F1 should take a leaf out of NASCAR's book and have officials who make a decision quickly and that's it. No appeal or any crap. A simplification of the rules would help a lot as well.

Amen - preach on brother, preach on!!!!!

EvilMonkey

ven0m wrote: »

Except you forget several facts.
1. all adjudicators in sports you mention are PROFESSIONAL, they aren't in FIA motorsport events

Wrong, very few sports have professional adjudicators. MotoGp dosent Soccer for the most part dosent, In England they only recently went professional and their has been no significant improvement, refs in world cups etc are amateur.

2. The rules Lewis were penalised under were CHANGED AFTER his punishment was published, i.e. can only challenge AFTER the next corner, that was not in the rules at the time of the race event.

Wrong, no rule was changed the drivers asked the FIA to clarify the situation so the same thing dosent happen again. Hamilton was penalised for gaining an advantage by cutting a corner.

3. Lewis has never referred to anyone as a 'grid monkey' & to be honest, Minardi & other such teams were always referred to by press etc as 'making up numbers', & treated as such by Max Mosely & the FIA in general. It' why people like Paul Stoddart walked from F1 - elitism.

He complains when he is racing slower cars for position he thinks because he has a faster car they should get out of his way, watch his hand gestures when he is stuck behind them. He said he knows more about F1 than Ferrari?

4. Dubious is what Lews Did - Schumacher trying to drive people off the road to win a championship, or parking a car to cease a qualification session, or even stage race wins are totally different, & beyond dubious

Hamilton never tried to push anyone off the track? I think Webber and glock might disagree. Certain incidents with alonso also spring to mind. Not as serious as some of the incidents acreddited to Schumacher but it is only his seccond year give him time.

6. Hamilton is more naturally gifted than most drivers in the field, whether you like him or not - it's s fact.

This is not a fact it is opinion. I think most of the newer drivers coming through are all at a very similar high level. It is impossible to tell who is the most gifted. Hamilton has the advantage of having the best car/team of the newer drivers.

7. Comparing football's 'rulings' to F-1 is flawed, as football is under fire for it's rulings & lack of consistencies. If you want an example of advanced adjudication, with some failsafes - Rugby Union sets the standard with 5 officials, & where even a linesman now can overturn the referee if the referee is deemed to be wrong, & they are all professional too.

I didnt know they were professional referees in rugby

The FIA is a a terrible organisation run by some dodgy people so what makes you think if they employed their own stewards they would be any better than the current situation? People would still say they are biased toward Ferrari.

Edwardius

ven0m wrote: »

Except you forget several facts.
2. The rules Lewis were penalised under were CHANGED AFTER his punishment was published, i.e. can only challenge AFTER the next corner, that was not in the rules at the time of the race event.

That's how the sport evolves, **** happens, confusion results and the rulemakers try to make the situation watertight. It's beyond interpretation now and what was really a clarification of the rules appears to the british gutter press as some sort of ferrari conspiracy.

ven0m wrote: »

4. Dubious is what Lews Did - Schumacher trying to drive people off the road to win a championship, or parking a car to cease a qualification session, or even stage race wins are totally different, & beyond dubious

Do you not recall that these actions were punished? a grid penalty in monaco and points in Jerez.

I'm starting to wonder about all the smack that Lewis is talking of late. It could be to do with being cornered by the press into giving a quote on something and being taken out of context and he might not be quite the git that a lot of people think. However his interviews on ITV seem to portray the same arrogance he seems to communicate through the papers. Some of his statements may have some merit if he'd won three championships, but he's won precisely the same amount of f1 titles as Pedro Lamy!

Robbo

amacachi wrote: »

As I said in another thread, F1 should take a leaf out of NASCAR's book and have officials who make a decision quickly and that's it. No appeal or any crap. A simplification of the rules would help a lot as well.

Nascar, of course, being above any kind of competition manipulation, controversy or sharp driving practice and having a renowned fanbase of cultured sophisticates...

ven0m

Ficus wrote: »

i cant see any of your points as being correct, as evilmonkey has pointed out very clearley. And it was at indy last year when he called the drivers down the back monkeys while talking to itv live. Not all the referees i mentioned are professional, like olympic referees! And you talk about other drivers having big mouths, well i cant really see any point there. And you mention lewis is more natrually gifted than other drivers on the grid, well he is talented but i dont think he is the best by any means, he had the best car last season and still didnt win the championship, he has always been in one of the best cars, look at what schumi did in the jordan and in the 96 ferrari and what alonso did in the minardi, big difference with lewis in the top car. and another example of why he aint the best is his tyre usage, he is harder on the rubber than any other driver, to the point where bridgestone stopped him from using certain tyres for long runs, i dont know of any other driver to suffer this problem.
and if you think lewis didnt run glock off the road at monza, then i think you are stevie wonder, another example why the other drivers dislike lewis.
and to say to ferrari that he knows more about f1 then them proves he is talking out of his hole and his arrogance knows no bounds.

Lewis slides his cars around alot more generating more heat & wear as a result, happens with Karting drivers more often than not. I never said he didnt run Glock off the road - I neer said anything about that, so don't go making statement s about something I never said or referred to.

Being in the best car means nothing - ask Barrichello about that or Coulthard or the countless others who've sat in similar cars to respective world champions over the years - good cars mean nothing if you can't drive them, or understand them.

His reference to understanding more about F-1, that was in respect to Nigel Tozzi not Ferrari, tis amazing how many sites actualy twisted that entire conversation & mis-quoted the bejesus out of it, who knows as much about driving an F-1 car as the rest of us do - i.e. sweet f.a..

He won alot of races in his maiden season while driving next to world champion, that makes him special. There've been plenty of others sitting next to world champions who have come close & had no cigar. You cannot detract from his achievements which include being in contention for a world championship against more experienced drivers in his first season - that is a special talent & something we're unlikely to see again for some time.

Olympic referrees are appointed by the IOC, which is a professional committee, & very often those appointed are from professional organisations, although the IOC is as dodgy as 'Bent Harry's knocked down priced watches'.

If other drivers dislike Lewis so much, how come so many of them are friends with him off the track, such as Massa, Kubica, Button, Glock etc.?

it would seem to me that Hamilton (zero chance of being champion this year imho) has so many haters that are more interested in hating him than actually for one second sitting back, & actually appreciating what he has achieved & how talanted the guys is & what an exciting few years drivers like him, Vettel, Kubica, Glock are going to provide us with going forward.

I will even go one step further & say, the kind of vitriol about Hamilton is akin the same kind levelled at people like Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods & even Schumacher, & even then - no matter how successful they are, the hating never stops because people love to hate on those who are successful & confident & dare to express themselves as such.

People have short memories about formula-1 drivers boasting, because I certainly remember outrageous remarks by Prost & Senna, but then again - when it comes to Senna, everyone only seems to remember his wins, not how much of a jackass he was about his fellow drivers & comments he made.

Catcher86

ven0m wrote: »

Except you forget several facts.

3. Lewis has never referred to anyone as a 'grid monkey' & to be honest, Minardi & other such teams were always referred to by press etc as 'making up numbers', & treated as such by Max Mosely & the FIA in general. It' why people like Paul Stoddart walked from F1 - elitism.

Not true.

After the Monaco GP last year where he was held up by traffic trying to chase Alonso he called the rest of the drivers monkeys. British media might have turned a blind eye to this though.

ven0m

Catcher86 wrote: »

Not true.

After the Monaco GP last year where he was held up by traffic trying to chase Alonso he called the rest of the drivers monkeys. British media might have turned a blind eye to this though.

Sorry, but that's not a 'grid monkey' - someone said he called them 'grid monkeys'. Either quote him correctly, & put up the exact quote, or forget about it. This is how stupid crap about people starts, & the same kind of irresponsible crap the media engage in.


EDIT: Funnily enough, I can't find a quote for this anywhere, or a video on YouTube, & the ONLY references are a handful which don't even quote him & 'allude' to it. Again, further proof that if you;re going to attribute something said by someone to a person, at least have the exact quote to back it up - otherwise, fugedaboutit.

EDIT 2: For those who question his talent, even Der REAL Reigenmeister himself thinks he's bloody good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq8q1g6aP18

amacachi

Robbo wrote: »

Nascar, of course, being above any kind of competition manipulation, controversy or sharp driving practice and having a renowned fanbase of cultured sophisticates...

Ah, was wondering if anyone would reveal their snobbery or not.

My post wasn't about whether the rulings are perfect or not, it's about the fact that in NASCAR rulings are made and that's usually pretty much it. In F1 there's usually a coupla minutes gap between someone speeding in the pitlane and getting a penalty. Then another few minutes before they serve the penalty. Surely in pitlane speed limits violations it should be confirmed straightaway and they serve their penalty next time they get to the end of the lap.
At least in NASCAR decisions are made quickly and enforced quickly.

ven0m

Oh, & just for all those who forget what being a racing driver means:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j6dGOGftY4

Pay attention to Senna.

Catcher86

ven0m wrote: »

Sorry, but that's not a 'grid monkey' - someone said he called them 'grid monkeys'. Either quote him correctly, & put up the exact quote, or forget about it. This is how stupid crap about people starts, & the same kind of irresponsible crap the media engage in.

First of all whats the difference, its insulting either way.

ven0m wrote: »

EDIT: Funnily enough, I can't find a quote for this anywhere, or a video on YouTube, & the ONLY references are a handful which don't even quote him & 'allude' to it. Again, further proof that if you;re going to attribute something said by someone to a person, at least have the exact quote to back it up - otherwise, fugedaboutit.]

If you watched the interview before the '07 Monaco GP on ITV you would have heard him say " I am better off at the front and away from the monkeys at the back" with regards to turn 1.

I suppose now you are going to tell me that you watched it on Setanta, except they made reference to at the next GP in Canada, but I suppose you were watching it on ITV that day.
Moreover it was well documented on online F1 sites and forums at the time.