Hamilton joins Senna, Prost, Schumacher and others who had F1 wins confiscated

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Hamilton joins the likes of Senna and Schumacher - by losing a win after the race
Hamilton joins the likes of Senna and Schumacher - by losing a win after the race

Lewis Hamilton will have to hand over his Belgian Grand Prix winner’s trophy to Felipe Massa (appeal pending).

It will be small comfort to him that plenty of other drivers have had wins taken off them in the past. Alain Prost, Michael Schumacher and others have lost race wins after the chequered flag. More encouragingly for Hamilton, a small number of them got their wins back

However by my reckoning only one driver has lost a win because of a racing incident, rather than a technical infringement or stewards’ mistake: Ayrton Senna. Here’s a look at some of these controversial races:

1976: James Hunt, McLaren, Spanish Grand Prix, Jarama

In 1976 F1’s governing body began setting limits on the dimensions of the cars. They used the McLaren M23 as the reference for the maximum width, because it was the widest car in F1 at the time. But when the team used a new construction of tyre at Jarama it failed to notice it made the car 1.8cm wider than the regulations allowed, and Hunt was disqualified after winning.

However his win was reinstated on appeal.

1976: James Hunt, McLaren, British Grand Prix, Brands Hatch

Later that same year Hunt was caught up in a crash on the first lap of the British Grand Prix. Ironically, it was triggered by the two Ferraris. Hunt was originally going to be barred from taking part in the re-start in his spare car, but after noisy objections from the crowd the race organisers relented and let him start.

He won the race, but was disqualified afterwards for using his spare car, handing the win to Ferrari’s Niki Lauda.

1980: Didier Pironi, Ligier, Canadian Grand Prix, Montreal

Didier Pironi crossed the finishing line at Montreal in 1980 about 40 seconds before Alan Jones’s Williams. But Pironi had been given a 60 second penalty for jumping the start which dropped him to third behind Jones and Carlos Reutemann in the other Williams.

1982: Nelson Piquet, Brabham, and Keke Rosberg, Williams, Brazilian Grand Prix, Jacarepagua

FIA rule enforcement at its most bonkers. After an especially hot and gruelling Brazilian Grand Prix (Piquet collapsed on the podium) Piquet and Rosberg were disqualified because their teams had been using ‘water-cooled brakes’ as a means of getting around the minimum weight regulations.

Their disqualification promoted Alain Prost’s Renault into first place. Behind him were John Watson (McLaren) and Nigel Mansell (Lotus), both of whom were also using ‘water cooled brakes’ but were not disqualified. Given how close Watson came to beating Rosberg to the championship, a major embarrassment was only narrowly avoided.

1985: Alain Prost, McLaren, San Marino Grand Prix, Imola

In 1985 refuelling was not allowed, turbo engines were thirsty, fuel tank size was restricted, and the technology used to monitor fuel levels was crude. At races where the rate of fuel consumption was high cars would often run out of petrol in the final laps.

Prost’s McLaren just made it across the line on dregs of fuel at Imola in 1985. But he had so little fuel left in the car it fell underweight, he was disqualified, and victory went to Elio de Angelis in the Lotus. The disqualification rankled with Prost, and he has said he feels he has won 52 races instead of 51. Including, of course, that controversial Brazil ’82 win.

1989: Ayrton Senna, McLaren, Japanese Grand Prix, Suzuka

One of F1’s great controversies. Senna was trying to pass team mate Alain Prost on lap 47 when Prost turned in on him. The pair interlocked wheels and slithered off the road (perhaps this is what would have happened if Hamilton had not driven off the track at Spa last weekend?)

Prost got out of his car and retired – he knew that with Senna out of the race he would be champion. Undeterred, Senna re-gained the circuit via an escape road, pitted for a new front wing, caught new leader Allessandro Nannini, and won the race.

Or so we thought. But the stewards chose to disqualify Senna for missing out part of the track. McLaren appealed the decision but found themselves asked to answer a series of additional charges when they confronted the FIA. Senna’s disqualification stood, and Prost became champion.

1990: Gerhard Berger, McLaren, Canadian Grand Prix, Montreal

In a bizarre repeat of circumstances at the same track a decade earlier, Berger was the winner ‘on the road’ but a 60s penalty for jumping the start left him fourth. Team mate Senna collected the win.

1994: Michael Schumacher, Benetton, Belgian Grand Prix, Spa-Francorchamps

Having led all but one lap of the 1994 Belgian Grand Prix it was particularly galling for Schumacher to be disqualified for excessive wear on the plank on the underside of his car. The planks had been introduced by the FIA earlier in the year to force the teams to run higher ride heights for safety reasons.

Benetton argued the wear had been caused by Schumacher’s spin across the kerbs on the exit of Fagnes. But their appeal against the exclusion failed and Damon Hill inherited the win. Others suggested that the changing conditions throughout the weekend and lack of data on running with the planks caused Benetton to set Schumacher’s ride height too low.

1995: Michael Schumacher, Benetton, and David Coulthard, Williams, Brazilian Grand Prix, Interlagos

The Renault-powered duo of Schumacher and Coulthard were originally excluded because of fuel irregularities. But on appeal the FIA chose to give the drivers their points back, but not the teams. The rationale was that a technical breach had been committed but no advantage had been gained by the drivers.

This unusual decision was not seen again until last year’s Hungarian Grand Prix, when McLaren were stripped of their constructors’ points following the infamous qualifying incident.

1999: Eddie Irvine and Michael Schumacher, Ferrari, Malaysian Grand Prix, Sepang

Another famous controversy. Ferrari had finished one-two in the inaugural Malaysian Grand Prix but after the race both drivers were disqualified because their barge boards were deemed to be 1cm outside the tolerances allowed by the regulations. This meant Mika Hakkinen was the winner not only of the race but also the world championship.

On appeal Ferrari convinced the FIA that the barge boards had not been accurately measured by the Malaysian Grand Prix stewards and were in fact legal. The FIA accepted this claim, reinstated the Ferraris, leaving the final round to decide the championship.

McLaren’s Ron Dennis felt the stewards had allowed Ferrari to get away with a deliberate misinterpretation of the rules in order to guarantee an exciting championship finale:

I believe, along with probably every technical director in Formula One, that the manufacturing tolerance referred to under article 3.12.6 of the Technical Regulations has no bearing on any other aspect of the car other than the vertical flatness of the horizontal surfaces that form the underside of the vehicle. We think the push for our sport has inevitably become quite commercial. Everybody wants to have an exciting race in Japan, but I think that the price we have paid for that one race is too great.

Read more about the 1999 Malaysian Grand Prix

2003: Kimi Raikkonen, McLaren, Brazilian Grand Prix, Interlagos

The final example concerns a driver and team who hadn’t actually broken any rules at all – instead the FIA stewards were at fault in failing to follow the rules correctly.

The 2003 Brazilian Grand Prix was red-flagged to an early halt following a severe crash for Fernando Alonso. This came shortly after Giancarlo Fisichella had passed Kimi Raikkonen for the lead. However the rules for stopping the race meant that the final positions would be those on the lap before the race was halted. This, they felt, meant Raikkonen was the winner.

However it was only when they studied replays of the race and timing data afterwards that they accepted Fisichella had complete one more lap than they initially realised. Therefore he was in fact the winner, and Raikkonen handed over the winner’s trophy to him at the following round at Imola. It was Fisichella’s first and Jordan’s last Grand Prix win.

Can you remember any other instances where drivers lost F1 wins after the race? Which of these did you think was particularly fair or foul? have your say in the comments.

54 comments on “Hamilton joins Senna, Prost, Schumacher and others who had F1 wins confiscated”

  1. It is pretty clear even from this set of incidents that FIA was always in the pockets of Ferrari.

  2. Like you said Keith, little consolation. Sadly I think the WDC was decided by the stewards on sunday.We all know how important 2 extra points could be at the end of the season.

  3. McLaren – 6 – 1 back
    Benetton – 2 – 1 back
    Ferrari – 2 – 2 back
    Williams – 2 – 1 back
    Ligier – 1 – 0 back
    impressive :)
    from this stats McLaren have no chance on appeal if they decide to appeal :)

  4. Jolene – actually, Massa gained two points and Hamilton lost four so the net difference is six.

  5. Oops.Sorry Keith. Realised that afterwards. Even worse then. Even changed my gravatar coz Ferrari sucks! Why is the old pic still showing? Now I’m going to be slaughtered!

  6. Keith I don´t believe in conspiration theories…normally

    That Schumacher disqualification in Malaysia 99 for the huge barge board difference of 1cm :-) was shameless something…. clearly due to race that was completely manipulated by Herr Nowadays FIA don´t need to appeal to tech-reg… the sport-reg suffices

    That Senna disqualification in Suzuka 89 was little bit surreal.

    Hamilton is wellcome to the super-competent excluded drivers club.

  7. Hmm…not a conspiracy theorist, but McLaren drivers seem to appear on this list A WHOLE LOT.

  8. Ops! Herr Schumacher. Sorry

    He was disqualified of all points in all races in 1997. Another record…

  9. “It is pretty clear even from this set of incidents that FIA was always in the pockets of Ferrari.”

    Yeah right. Specially in 2007. Ask Fiamilton and his flying car lol

    Lewis gain an advantage and has been punished.
    Live with that people.

  10. Lewis has always said he wants to emulate Senna, his wish has come true!

  11. Hi Keith,
    If I remember correctly, Ferrari admitted that the barge boards were too big immediately after the Sepang race, blamed it on a manufacturing fault but seemed to accept they were in the wrong. They then appealed and won, by claiming that, although the boards were indeed illegal, they were within the manufacturing tolerances allowed by the regulations. I might be a bit cynical here, but it may well have been the red paint on the boards that allowed them to get away with it! I believe it was after this appeal case that Max actually blamed McLaren for the Ferrari appeal being upheld, because they hadn’t turned up at the appeal and argued against it correctly! As if McLaren were actually the ones who should have been ‘prosecuting’ the offence.
    As for the water-cooled brakes, I thought it was actually a ‘water injection’ system for the engine that was used to circumvent the rules on weight, by allowing the water ballast tank to be topped up after the race to meet the minimum weight. Of course, most of the water was dumped on the track during the warmup lap… Most British teams at that time were quite good at finding loopholes like this, especially my favourites, Williams, and also Lotus.
    At that time the FIA was called FISA and run by Balestre, who most British observers thought favoured Ferrari and also Renault. Both teams supported FISA in various disputes and rule changes, against the predominantly British teams, who supported Ecclestone and FOCA. That was back in the Eighties, before Max, Bernie and Charlie Whiting turned from poacher to gamekeeper. Happy days.

  12. poor fisi. he and the team were pretty sure he’d won but then he was told he hadn’t. he must have felt even worse than hamilton does and who didnt’ have a soft spot for jordan? at least that came out alright in the end-well, if you don’t consider kimi. still, that was an incident really of two drivers having had the win taken away. at least fisi got his back.

  13. Lewis is in good company, then, with 4 multiple-champions, 2 one-time WDCs and 2 multiple-race winners on the list.

  14. i say start listening to the guy who dresses funny.

    http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43880

    and make him head of the fia before it’s too late.

  15. GuyPV, you seem to be correct and although I understand that Macca wants to concentrate on Monza, what about all the fans who have been waging war since sunday? How many comments have been made since then? it all seem so futile now. They should have taken the fight to the FIA. This is either a brilliant move or a stupid one. Either way, Im upset that they’re letting it go.

  16. It’s ironic [or moronic…) that motorsports have the most grandiose official ceremonies of any sport to recognize the event results, yet is the only form of sport where later altering those results is not completely out of the question.

  17. mail123456, you’re the biggest fanboy I’ve ever seen.

    First, You said Ferrari 2-2 Can you enumerate them? Because I only see 1-1

    Second, McLaren 6-1… do you really feel that Raikkonen should have kept the win, when he clearly didn’t? You’re incredible, boy…

    Maybe if they’re 5-1 it’s because they’re cheating (and copying) more than others…

  18. F1 fans seem utterly partisan regarding Lewis Hamilton and Ferrari.

    If the appeal is won, the Ferrari fans will moan about how LH can’t win without cheating. If the appeal is lost (or not even accepted), LH fans will moan about “Ferrari International Assistance”. I have never known a driver like Lewis Hamilton acquire such a positive/negative split amongst fans. He is either utterly adored or utterly despised.

    On balance, Lewis is a cocky, hot-headed racing driver. He is prone to make big mistakes, but equally adept at providing some of the most exciting over-taking moves we have seen in years. The last driver to remind me of such mercurial form was Nigel Mansell.

    (sorry, that was a bit irrelevant and meandering)

  19. Conspiracy theory? James Hunt run with tyres 1.8 cm wider than what was allowed and got his win back. He was then disqualified for using the spare car when doing it was not allowed – where is the conspiracy? In other two instances in which a Mclaren driver was disqualified another Mclaren driver won the race – where a hell is the conspiracy? In the other two cases, in one the car was underweight and in the other the race had been red flagged before the Mclaren driver got the lead. And last Sunday, Hamiboy tried one more of his antics – Cut the chicane, get a toe and overtake where you would not have been able to otherwise. He got busted and deserved it.

  20. Keith, Monza 1978 also belongs to your list. Andretti lost his win to Lauda. Check it out. But I’ll also include it in my Italian GP retrospective.

  21. McLarens – clearly the bad guys of the lot :-) I wonder how FIA allows them to race at all! They should be at least banned from Q3 ;-)

  22. Journeyer – ah yes hadn’t thought of that one!

  23. Brar,

    ‘He was disqualified of all points in all races in 1997. Another record…’

    Only his 2nd place in the Championship was stripped off him. He kept all his points and wins.

  24. @aa – what I think doesn’t matter … I just do the math … and OK agree about Ferrari. Let it be 1 – 1 back.
    My Point was that McLaren have 6 (yes 6 more than any other team) taken wins and only 1 returned after appeal.
    So it’s very impressive in terms of what is going to happen or not – McLaren appeal against Hamilton penalty.
    After GP on sunday everybody needs to laugh – go on it’s all about the fun anyway :)

  25. Journeyer.
    He wasn´t there in tha Stats until a gave a click and appeared the last table line on the window. Thank you for this one!

    It seems he remains with his points for statistical purposes: he loose nothing. Piquet quote “The second one, is only the first looser”.

    PS: The first time I remember that there was disqualifying problem: 1970 with Jochen Rindt in British G.P for rear wing measurement problem (high) but he was then reinstated.

  26. Martin Whitmarsh has made an interesting point:

    “…”Following our decision to register our intention to appeal the penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton by the FIA Stewards at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, we hereby confirm that we have now lodged notice of appeal,” said team boss Martin Whitmarsh.

    “From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ‘OK’. If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time…”

  27. I think that hamilton should get the win because when lewis took Vettel on a shacane and didn’t give the place back he got a 10 place drop. In contradiction here is that lewis gave Kimi the place back yet he gets punished for it again for doing the right thing.:(

  28. Thanks for that Keith – you answered my question beautifully. I really enjoy your blog.

  29. I start with a fact: Louis Hamilton won the Belgian Grand prix. I am surprised Raikenon has not stepped forward to say so. He knows what happened out there and as a sportsman and fellow racer he should tell the FIA their Stewards got it wrong.

  30. @ mail12345 and aa
    I may be mistaking, but this is my list from the article above:

    1. Williams gains 2
    2. Ferrari gains 1
    = Jordan gains 1
    = Lotus gains 1
    = Renault gains 1
    6. Benetton loses 1
    = Brabham loses 1
    = Ligier loses 1
    9. McLaren gains 3 (gains 2, loses 5)

  31. Reading this is either a conspiracy against McLaren or the proof that McLaren are used to braking the rules…

  32. Ahahaha… the petition is getting stronger and stronger. It is in AUTOSPORT right now:

    http://www.autosport.com/news/grapevine.php/id/70446

    Don’t give up, Lewis… Let’s get YOUR win back!!!!

  33. I think the 1989 disqualification was the foulest of them all. If you watch the incident Prost turns in way too early and if Senna had not restarted prost would have won the world championship anyway.Balestre was French and Prost had already agreed to go to ferari and had previously driven for renault.

    After what Phil said maybe thats the main reason why the fia favour ferrari.

  34. Thanks Becken; I’ve just signed the petition. I don’t know what to believe, but it just looks like if McLaren step out of line just a little the FIA come down like a ton of bricks. Whereas, some other teams are given the benefit of the doubt. (And that’s being diplomatic)

  35. Let’s remember that over the time period quoted above neither the people awarding the penalties, nor the owners of McLaren receiving them, are the same people we have today.

    I can believe that Max hates Ron, I can even believe that Ron gets unfairly treated because of it, but not that this is a generational thing spanning decades.

    Enough conspiracy, thank you ;-)

  36. So far Niki Lauda, Jackie Stewart, Cesare Fiorio(who used to run Ferrari), Ralf Schumacher and others have come out against the penalty. Only Trulli from outwith Ferrari is in favour of it.

    In answer to an earlier point both water cooled brakes and water injectio to the engine were used. The water cooled brakes were a complete con. At the first couple of corners the contents of the tank were dumped and the tanks run empty for the rest of the race. Technically they were legal but against the spirit and the intention of the rules.

    FISA was the sporting arm of the FIA. Max was FISA president after Balestre became FIA president and used that position to mount his attack on the FIA presidency. To prevent anyone using that position to challenge Max he effectively closed down FISA and now the FIA has supreme power over motor sport.

  37. The decision in Suzuka 1989 is by far the worst.

    First Senna was run into by Prost and stopped. When he got going he used the exit road, but the alternative was to do a U turn and drive towards the oncoming cars. After changing his nose cone (talk about getting no advantage from cutting the chicane, LOL) he STILL won.

  38. Becken said:
    Martin Whitmarsh: “From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ‘OK’”
    Becken, I believe this is an all-important contribution, you have some sources?

  39. http://f1.gpupdate.net/es/noticias/2008/09/09/domenicali-ve-un-poco-extrema-la-sancion-a-hamilton/

    this is not appearing (yet) in the english version of GPUpdate

    it reads “Domenicali remarked tha Ferrari didn’t protest and simply got a call from the stewards at the end of the race to talk about the chicane’s maneuvers. Nonetheless, the italian team’s director admitted that, personally, the penalisation to their rival seemed to him “a bit hard”.

    “It seems to me a little bit extreme” he reckoned. “When you’re competing it is normal to attack, the problem is the advantage you can gain thanks to a maneuver of that kind, and that is the key to this. I believe this is what they took into consideration”.

  40. All these facts are very informative, well done Keith yet again for your research. Although my point is not connected to the topic at hand, it is however related to last Sunday’s events at Spa.
    I can recall the Hungarian Grand Prix two years ago in which a McLaren and a Ferrari were engaged in a furious battle for track position, not unlike that of Hamilton and Raikkonen. The drivers were Pedro De La Rosa (McLaren) and Michael Schumacher (Ferrari).
    De La Rosa, if I remember correctly, was standing in as Juan Pablo Montoya’s replacement following his falling out with Ron Dennis. This particular battle stands out in my mind because I could never remember De La Rosa being that much of a fighter before, but that day he really put Schumacher through the grinder.
    As Schumacher approached a particular chicane towards the end of the lap, De La Rosa had gained enough ground on the German to attempt a pass. Not unlike Hamilton, the Spaniard saw an opportunity and went for it.
    However, in this instance it was Schumacher who cut the chicane, in a desperate bid not to lose track position. Afterall, he was fighting Alonso for the championship at the time, and could not afford the loss in points.
    At no stage did Schumacher allow De La Rosa to regain the track position that Michael had attained by shortcutting the chicane. Schumacher did not even slow down, and at the end of the race, Michael kept his position, which he had attained by delibrately braking the rules.
    If Lewis Hamilton was guilty of breaking the rules on Sunday, then so was Schumacher two years ago in Budapest, yet the punishments were completely different. Thankfully, Schumacher did not benefit from this blatant ‘foul’ enough in order to win the 2006 championship, and I hope the 2008 championship is not won or lost due to this blatant injustice we have seen.
    My point really is Keith, can you research instances in the past where drivers have delibrately shortcutted chicanes and got away with it? Cheers, and keep doing what you do best mate!

  41. UKK..if you want McLarens banned from Q3, please watch A1GP. You should be happy there as all the cars are supplied by FIArrari. It’s a 1 make series, nomatter who wins, FIArrari wins. That ought to get you juices flowing, remember to wash afterwards.

  42. Keith,

    Found this on Facebook. Too good to let it get away without sharing.

    Ferrari International Assistance (FIA)

    Got a Ferrari?

    Not quite good enough at driving?

    Are other boys faster than you in the wet?

    Then you need:

    Ferrari International Assistance (FIA)

    This exclusive Ferrari only membership club has many benefits. Including:

    ● Anti overtaking assurance
    o Been overtaken? Feel a bit silly? Don’t worry, we’ll rule out the other party even if it’s embarrassingly obvious that they’re faster than you

    ● Exclusive access to a secret “second lane” in the pits
    o Just to make things a little bit easier we’ve arranged a private second lane just for you

    ● Guaranteed world championship?
    O Had a crash? Need to win the world championship? Don’t worry, just limp across the track and take off your nearest championship title contender – we’ll do the rest.

    ● A bit strapped? Need extra cash?
    o Simply get one of your team to tell someone else how you make your cars.

    ● Bits falling off your car? Looking a bit dangerous?
    O At Ferrari International Assistance we operate a “blind eye” policy just for Ferrari drivers.

    ● Been a bit silly? Taken off another driver whilst following the safety car?
    O It’s ok, as long as you didn’t hurt yourself. I mean, who are Force India anyway? And how dare they be in front of you?

    ● A bit bored? Want some extra action?
    o With FIA plus you can take part in a number of additional membership activities

    ● Not sure when you might need us next?
    o Relax. Check out our track record. We’re confident that we’ll be able to make something up on the spot that will get you out of any pickle that you might find yourself in.

    Ferrari International Assistance – Making it up as we go along for over 100 years

  43. That last one is really Funny,

    but since some of you guys/girls have been throwing taunts at each other. let me say this.

    McLaren are lucky to be in the championship this year. i think the 100 million fine they got last year was the best that could happen to them. my opinion was to get them barred for a year or two and relegate them to GP2 or something

    they had a clear line of communicaiton to the inside of the opposing team taking advantage of every single detail. even tyre pressure !!!! so if the FIA resents them, i understand and you should too.

    Dennis should pack up and go. and Hamilton should shut up and race. he’s been braging about playing the championship point by point, and yet he was greedy to pounce and make a mistake for two and now he lost 4.
    i’m sure if he had let raikko pass clear, he would have been able to pass him fare and square a couple of corners later, because it was obvious that he had him in the conditions. he should mix his incredible ability with some wisdom. he will learn eventually how to dog fight with a brain rather thatn just seem of the pants driving.

    so hamilton fans, if he’s the true prodigy you claim he is (obviously there’s something there), then he will make up for it. but this Hamilton is clearly in the wrong team, after what happened last year, McLaren will be tainted for a few more years to come.

    as for you Keith, great work on the articles!! keep it up.

  44. It doesn’t matter who you support, that was some of the best F1 action we’ve seen in years, and any minor technicality should have been put aside for the glory of the sport.
    There’s some great footage on Youtube showing clearly what happened, and it should be obvious to even the one-eyed commentators that Lewis not only lifted to alow Kimi past, he went behind the Ferrari, which meant he was clearly going slower, and the outbraked him on the wet side of the circuit. In both the chicane and the hairpin Kimi breaked incredibly early, and it is not a greedy driver that takes the place – it’s a racing driver.
    If you look at the arguments it gets even simpler. Lewis did cut out the chicane (did he jump or was he pushed…?), and did what he was penalised in France for not doing – yielding the position.
    Did he gain an advantage? A resounding no – he already had the advantage! If the track had been dry, Lewis wouldn’t have regained the position at the hairpin because Kimi would have been able to stay in front. The advantage that Lewis had was that in the circumstances, he was the faster driver.
    Sometimes when we are partisan we enjoy the benefit of “wrong” FIA (or other referees) decisions, but we should still be able to accept that it’s wrong.

  45. Drew i agree with you but even as an attendee of the race and a fan of Hamilton (and top racing drivers in general, though i wear a Mclaren beanie at races) i think Hamilton did stretch the laws somewhat. Its a trait that most of the greats have, i.e. the presence of mind to be imaginative with the rules in the heat of the battle.

    I think Hamilton dipped out and then back in too quickly, it was almost one movement and although im sure i’ll get criticised for it, i think the officials have grounds for making the decision to penalise him. Its not relevant that he wouldve taken Kimi anyway or that the track conditions favoured the Mclaren, he left room for doubt and that doubt was called.

    Its very easy to criticise officials, they are faceless bureaucrats but they are almost certainly fans of the sport and aware of the ramifications a wrong decision will have.

    Was it a great race, yes? does the decision ruin it? for me, no, i went and feel priveliged and lucky to have witnessed it. DOes it mean the climax of the season will be even more exciting, yes.

    So there it is, its an imperfect world, lets get on with it and thank our lucky stars a driver like hamilton is there to fight and inspire, not roll round like a Ralph Schumacher picking up 4 points and settling for it.

  46. Ian Phillips, Director of Business Affairs at Force India, the team that use FERRARI´S ENGINES, has made a great point on a sidepodcast.

    “Lewis — again, this is what we have to state — was mature, because I think it was coming into, was it the last chicane? And he got squeezed by Räikkönen. He was right alongside him — actually… almost in front. Räikkönen squeezed him and made him take the short cut. And you’re not allowed to take that short cut. Well, you can, but you mustn’t gain position.

    And of course he came out alongside Räikkönen. But he had the presence of mind straight away — because I don’t think anybody could have told him — he let Räikkönen come alongside. Then he actually let him go in front and pull in front of him. So they went nose to tail. But by the time they got to La Source, he was having another go at him! And it was extraordinary stuff.

    But that moment was real maturity and professionalism when he was forced by Räikkönen to cut that chicane and I thought that was great presence of mind. Because he could have thought, “I’ve got this in the bag.” Now that would have been a stewards’ inquiry and that would have been a problem for him.
    To my mind he behaved perfectly correctly and did the right thing. I think by then he knew he’d got the upper-hand. I think he’d been frightening Räikkönen. “I’m coming, I’m coming, I’m coming.” And the guy [Kimi Räikkönen] is saying, “Where’s he coming from?!”…

    I think the view of the entire paddock is that Lewis is entirely innocent of anything that’s happened in that motor race. He was an absolute hero. Räikkönen was the man making mistakes and ultimately went and threw it in the wall anyway.

    But, this is Formula 1. In seven days’ time we’ll be talking from Monza, the home of Ferrari, the reigning world champions. So I won’t predict the outcome of the stewards’ inquiry.”

    (Transcribed by DUNCAN STEPHEN in his blog:
    http://vee8.doctorvee.co.uk/2008/09/09/another-opinion-on-the-incident/ )

  47. i dont think that quote shows much becken and he was told by his team to back off though im sure he wouldve done anyway. the point is if he was mature and had realised hed got him, then hed have said to himself, i’ll wait and give the stewards no opportunity to say i gained from cutting the corner. if im that much quicker now its wet then it’ll be easy. he didnt and so he got penalised. having said all that i cant wait to see what happens if a non mclaren team do the same thing.

    on a slightly different theme,answer me this. does furore and controversy generate more headlines and coverage than a great race?

  48. The point is if he was mature and had realised hed got him, then hed have said to himself, i’ll wait and give the stewards no opportunity to say i gained from cutting the corner.

    I think that’s exactly what he did do. He gave Raikkonen the place back. Based on past cases I don’t think he had any grounds to expect a penalty.

    Still, just to be sure, McLaren asked the race director twice and he said it was OK. Twice. And they still got a penalty. It’s beyond daft.

  49. yep but if you watch it, he let Kimi through and then went to re pass in one movement. not wise as it has turned out. it serves no one to just say “it/they are daft” – you have to ask why competent and intelligent people would come to that conclusion. I think they based it on something id probably, on reflection, not support but would equally not think it daft that others disagreed.

    Its a pity because it was a great move on Kimi and equally great was them both managing to miss ROsberg a corner or so later.

  50. The petition now stands at 42983. not bad, but more people think Jeremy Clarkson should be prime minister so the whole thing should be taken with a pinch of salt

  51. Kimi was making his best race oh the year and…

    The first Lewis outbraking, was a humiliating one.
    Lewis was in slightly in front of Kimi at the final braking point. Then Kimi goes for it and squeezed Hamilton that needed to cut the chicane.

    The position devolution and final like the mice and rat and the final outbraking looke highly humiliating again. For things like that, Senna, was once punished in Suzuka when he made that humiliating overtoking over Prost, (he was something like tenth or twenty meters behind)…There is a well known German driver that was also hated by oddest things lie that.

  52. Ronald said:
    “…McLaren are lucky to be in the championship this year. i think the 100 million fine they got last year was the best that could happen to them. my opinion was to get them barred for a year or two and relegate them to GP2 or something…”
    Fine, Ronald. You have a good point here, perhaps the FIA should have banned McLaren for the present season.

    BUT the fact is that they didn’t. Don’t you think that if the FIA allowed them, they humbly paid the fine and apologized, and nobody else protested, the matter should be settled now that THIRTEEN GPs have been raced in the current season?

    Do you think that the way of dealing with the spying scandal is to allow the team to race again and then to strip them of their championship points if they are threatening to win it? Will it perhaps do any good to the racing sport? Don’t fool ourselves, two wrongs don’t make a right…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.