‘you can actually say that he had a slight advantage by coming from up high there’

Martin added a but clause after, but looking at it hard and fair, Alonso should’ve been penalized.

Alianora, you said:

‘The “clarification” ends up supporting Hamilton – he did wait until the next corner to pass Raikkonen, albeit the braking zone rather than the apex. So in fact the FIA has contradicted itself again.’

I think the FIA meant wait until the next corner before you start CHALLENGING again. Fundamental difference there. Which means Lewis shouldn’t have challenged at La Source, he should’ve challenged at Eau Rouge at the earliest.

‘Also, if contacting Charlie Whiting is a mistake, why is a two-way connection in place, and why have the teams recently been asked to pay for it (among other things)?’

I think Max had in mind that Charlie can directly contact the drivers for whatever reason (not sure what these could be).

Paige and Sumedh, I don’t for the life of me see how you think Keith can’t be objective with Lewis. Let’s remember that Keith has also criticized Lewis on a number of occasions, such as Bahrain, Montreal (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/09/why-do-million-dollar-f1-drivers-keep-making-mistakes-at-red-lights/), and Magny-Cours (http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/22/video-hamilton-under-pressure-after-error/). Let’s also remember that making a call for this incident was VERY marginal. It could’ve gone one way or ther other. And while I do agree with the penalty, I also understand why many don’t agree with it – these folks have very valid points too.

Amy,

I simply cannot follow your logic. The two situations are nearly identical fundamentally.

Furthermore, you referred above to the clarification of how the FIA interprets the yielding of position, and how someone Hamilton should be held to this standard. The FIA didn’t issue this interpretation in an official statement until AFTER this weekend’s GP. It is simply and positively unfair to punish drivers for breaking a rule or an interpretation of a rule before said rule/interpretation was officially issued.

Also, Charlie Whiting himself during the race told McLaren that he was ok with what Hamilton did. This alone should exonerate Hamilton and McLaren, as Race Control gave the impression to them that they were conducting themselves within the sporting regulations. (Which, in my view, they were.) They acted based on the word of Charlie Whiting. Had Charlie Whiting said differently, McLaren and Hamilton would have acted differently. You cannot punish a team retroactively when the Race Director- the man who is responsible for interpreting situations like this- gives his seal of approval.

What you’re essentially suggesting is that the FIA should act in a reactionary form with disregard for the rule of law. In other words, you are arguing that the FIA should be a fascist organization. When the FIA ignores the letter of the regulations and the in-race interpretation of the Race Director and imposes their never-before officially declared interpretation of constitutes a proper relinquishment of position, they are in fact acting as fascists. This is a very bad and dangerous way to run Formula One, and its something that should upset all fans. The FIA has acted similarly in past situations, one of which includes the asinine penalty against Alonso at Monza in 2006.

Having read many of your posts, I have gradually come more and more to the conclusion that you are incapable of impartial analysis on any matter regarding Lewis Hamilton. I admire your passion as a Formula One fan, but you should allow passion to cloud reason. I am a Hamilton fan, but I will be the first to criticize him when he makes a mistake, as he has at Bahrain, Montreal, and Malaysia this year. (And I don’t even consider him to be the best right now, although I think he certainly can be.) If you want to have serious and informed discussions on topics like this, I would advise that you please check your biases at the front door, or at least acknowledge facts that establish validity for alternative points of view.

In this regard the FIA’s reaction has been shockingly mismanaged. No surprise to me that in fact Mosley’s reaction to the scandal was simply patroninising, accusing those who percieve bias of being “stupid”.

In his position (as I would expect anyone with management experience to know) he should be ensuring that his organisation’s decision making process is seen to be crystal clear, and that he is in a position to emphasise the expertise, training and experience of his stewards.

In other words to put the professional integrity and judgement of his officials beyond question

He doesn’t of of course, because the idea that this might be important is not taken seriously. F! teams are highly professional outfits, it is my submission that the FIA is not. It is in fact little more than a network of “influential”and connected people with little practical relevant experience.

FI teams and management should immediately pressure the FIA for greater transparency in the training, expertise, selection and decisions of stewards as a matter of utmost urgency, if the FIA does not get it’s house in order and become transparent and accountable, no new agreements (concorde or otherwise) should be signed

The credibility of the sport demands it

Drivers seem to agree Lewis was in the wrong.

But of course it’s all a FIA/Ferrari conspiracy :rolls eyes:

This latest interpretation is a knee jerk reaction to one incident and like most knee jerk clarifications in Max’s time it is a long term solution to a short term problem. Anyone who thinks it is a good idea is only considering it in relation to this one incident. Believe me there are implications which have not been considered which one day soon will have this ruling turned on its head. You don’t have to believe me just run a few alternative scenarios through your head and it is blindingly obvious that the new rule as written or spoken is not what was really intended. Tomorrow we have a circuit with chicanes which have been shortcut many times this weekend already and will be shortcut again during the race. I reckon there is an extremely good chance that something will happen which will make this rule look utterly ridiculous.

“But the primary mistake in my view was the team’s. The team should have decided on precedent, and from everything they know, what advice to give him (Hamilton). I’m not going to express an opinion but the correct procedure was for the team to decide what to tell their driver. Charlie’s responsibility is to see that nobody gets killed.”

It seems like Max is saying that the teams must know what they are doing, and take decisions based on precedent. In other hand, in an ethical way, the teams could say to Max the same thing: if he, Max, knows what he is doing (based on precedents)

My point always was that if you broke the rule you have to be punished. But we have too many unclear areas in this case. Unwriten rules, penalty imposed on paragraphs in rules that have nothing to do with advantage, race control which says OK, then change his decision and on next round clarify!? rule and insist that this is just a clarification not a new rule, and we have Max who says that Whiting make a mistake when he talks to McLaren … may be Max need to arrange first of all meeting of all people which are responsible and then try to cover all this mess up … or better fix it for ever.

Mate, i think he was talking about two drivers in Spa. Valencia by any stretch is not one of the fastest circuits(which he mentions in the previous line).

@ Keith
“Looking at Mosley’s quote about looking at precedent I think the FIA do use past instances to set standards, they just didn’t adhere to them properly in this case.”

Hmm, are you trying to say that as yesterday someone escaped a penalty for an infringement due to anything, we shouldn’t punish the same in the future???

Think about it, this is the first time i believe that a penalty has been handed out under that specific rule. May be stewards know more than we do, about the whole incident.

last paragraph is interesting:
“It is understood that Whiting made clear his information was simply a clarification, rather than a new interpretation of the existing rule, or a new rule altogether.”
it is about:
“In the regular pre-race drivers’ briefing at Monza, scene of Sunday’s Italian Grand Prix, Whiting told the gathering that, if a driver negotiates a corner illegally and gains a place, he should wait at least one more corner after giving back the position before launching another overtaking move.”

When it is just a clarification how exactly he give McLaren OK twice ?

big big mess …

Perhaps that is a clue to understand that quote
“Anything that you say ,may be, and will be used against you”

If Whiting told to the stewards about Mclaren´s doubt, anyone, (put your self the stewards place) would thing something like this “if even Mclaren have some doubts about Hamilton´s manouver, I should doubt too for more reason either.”

Personnel from other teams who have seen the telemetry, confirm Lewis was traveling slower than Kimi at the line. I can only conclude you will only believe what you want to, despite the opinion of professionals.

@ Kate #51
Speaking on the clarification, Red Bull Racing driver Mark Webber said: “It is pretty clear for people to probably not attack immediately again, which wasn’t mega, mega clear in the past.”
http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4138820,00.html

So Kate if Mark Webber who has been in F1 for some good number of years now, didn’t know about it, I then wonder what rule book you are using.

Ron – “but to be consistent you need to set standards, and that is not the case as i see it. ” Looking at Mosley’s quote about looking at precedent I think the FIA do use past instances to set standards, they just didn’t adhere to them properly in this case.