With that I will follow McLaren’s lead and turn my attention to Singapore

So you have dissected my post and even better, put words in my mouth. Well done.

OK now, who’s next!!!

You mean like this?
“So it bothers me that when the FIA make a ruling that is not in favour of McLaren they feel the need to undermine the FIA’s authority via this stupid appeals process.”

I agree completely with that point. It is indeed strange that the FIA has undermined the FIA’s authority via this stupid appeals process.

Please don’t take this post too seriously

Which brings the Massa/Valencia debate to light. It was not Felipe’s fault that he was released early so why should he be penalised? Please find me a link to an article that shows the rule regarding the mandatory drive through he should have received.

The Bleacher report is no more than an article written by someone who is of a similar opinion to me regarding the rhetoric visited upon Ferrari and the FIA because McLaren have been in the spotlight for breaches, that’s all. I have no case to answer for so I don’t know why I would need any evidence. I do not believe the FIA are biased for one simple reason, Michael Schumacher the greatest modern day F1 driver was not gifted a retirement world championship! I do believe that McLaren are a bunch of whingers who have no one to blame but themselves for their current standing amongst rival F1 teams and the people that run the Sport. I also believe that the sooner Mercedes leave McLaren to fend for themselves, the better Mercedes will be for it!

Lewis had his nose alongside Kimi’s right rear then went completely behind his car. At that point he had reliquished his position. That is a fact. He was behind and travelling at a slower speed. That cannot be disputed. Kimi entered the next corner on the extreme left of the track therefore Lewis’s positioning did not affect his ability to take the corner. There has never been a requirement that the position be given back before the next corner. It has often been the case that one or two corners later the position has been yielded. In this case the position was given back almost immediately without affecting either Kimi’s forward progress or his ability to choose his stupid line into the next corner. Lewis quite clearly initially stayed on the left because he was expecting Kimi to defend his line.

As for the nonsense that Kimi had to jink to avoid him. Lewis maintained a straight line. Kimi only had to jink because he tried to move into a space that was occupied by another car. There was no logical sensible reason for Kimi to be on the left. There was no requirement for Lewis to be behind him at any particular point in the run to La Source. He only had to cede the position at some point before a penalty was issued.

As for the bleacher report whoever wrote that is not overly well informed. Max’s deputy is on the Ferrari board and his chosen successor is on the Ferrari board. Add that to the fact that Alan Donnelly who is not a qualified steward conducted the driver interviews while the stewards of the meeting sat in slience and of course Donnelly listed Ferrari as a customer on his company’s website until just before he got his current job. No-one in the higher reaches of F1 is or has been in any way associated with another team. Then you can add in Charlie Whiting’s lies during the trial. What motivated them? Do you think it is OK that we are going into a race weekend with a race director who stood and lied to the ICA? Does that not concern you? Does it not concern you that the court did not challenge the fact that he lied? Is it really OK with you that these things happen so long as Ferrari benefit? Or do you think the fact that the race director lied and has not been challenged suggests there are fundamental problems with how the sport is administered?

The bleacher report author says Massa should not be penalised for Valencia because he cannot see in his mirrors. What does that have to do with whether the team released him safely or not. Is this idiot saying that all the other drivers who have been given drive throughs for precisely the same offence including in the GP2 race the same day have some magical ability to see through people that Massa and the rest of humanity do not have? What Massa can see is of no consequence. The team released him unsafely in the view of the stewards and every time that offence has been punished the penalty has been a drive through. The offence has gone unpunished on too many occasions but on those occasions where the stewards have chosen to punish it there has never been more than one penalty for the offence. While defending the non-penalty he was given sever high ranking FIA people said it would have been unfair if he had lost the race on a penalty having driven so well. So why doesn’t the same sympathetic approach apply to Hamilton at Spa. Because he does not drive a Ferrari?

Frankly if that Blacher Report is the best evidence you can produce to support your case you better hope Max is picking the judges.

The reason Ferrari were allowed to attend and participate in procedings was dealt with here:

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/09/22/mclaren-claims-the-fia-mis-represented-its-own-steward-in-hamilton-trial/#comments

In regards to Charlie Whiting I tend to agree with Max. McLaren seem to have a tendancy to play the ingnorance card in these circumstances. Of course they knew who they needed to clear things up with. If Charlie says it’s ok surely they, for all their resources would have realised that he isn’t the be all and end all of the decision. The issue I think that has been smoke screened by many biased posters on this blog is the stage of the race when the incident occured. Although it’s clear that Ferrari made no official protest I did read somewhere that they did speak to Race Control regarding the incident. This would suggest to me that they knew that the incident was under investigation. With that knowledge they obviously knew that no official decision could be made between then and the end of the race and hence let it go. I also read a post on another forum werein it is pointed out that this incident was and still is a complex issue hence the amount of data that would need to be analysed could not bare an outcome in approximately 5 mins. So to put this one to bed, for me at least, I will say McLaren should have made their own interpretation and suffer the consequences either way and not try to drag Charlie Whiting in as a scapegoat. Another mistake was that made by Charlie himself for allowing himself to used like this. Won’t it set an interesting precedent if the appeal reinstates Lewis, that’s mean you can cut any chicane, get the crew to find a scapegoat to OK everything without having a proper chance to review, all because there’s only 2 Laps to go!

As for the incident itself all I will say is that the fact that Kimi had to “jink” away to avoid Lewis front end is clear evidence that the “full advantage” was never relinquished. You should never assume anything Steven!

I look forward to your rhetoric. Which will no doubt include factual evidence or workable solutions. Just lines on how I have no idea or better yet a dissection of my post with quotes cut to suit your point of view.

I still can’t believe the carry on from all these people. One poster even had to start their post by clarifying as to who they support only to buy in to the pro Hamilton side of the debate (the rival of the team they support). Smells a little fishy to me!

I have said it before. My initial thought when I saw the incident was “That wasn’t right”. I’m not talking about the cutting of the chicane but rather the relinquishing of “the gained advantage”. Let it be known that I had also accepted that what Lewis had done was sufficient, not saying I agreed with it. I do happen to listen to those two english commentators going on about their love for the golden child and was almost convinced that it was ok. Then it was put that there was an incident under investigation involving car 22 etc etc, not long after the end of the race. Then I thought “That’s what I thought”. I have read posts on this blog in the past but never thought to comment yet when it was “lit up” by angry **** I couldn’t resist!!! I have always been patriotic when deciding to follow a particular team or individual in sport yet in F1 I have kept away from switching teams once my countryman in Schumi left Ferrari. Instead I stayed true to them support them with a passion. So it bothers me that when the FIA make a ruling that is not in favour of McLaren they feel the need to undermine the FIA’s authority via this stupid appeals process. Then to really get my back up we have these ignorant McLaren fans dragging Ferrari into another conspiracy debate! One post in this thread mentioned that all the teams should get out of F1 and see what happens then. Along the same line of thinking I would love to see Mercedes pull their engines out of the McLaren shell and put it in a Toro Rosso and get behind their country man in Vettel. Mercedes are losing face being associated with McLaren! I want to raise another point and that is the coincidence that Massa was promoted to first. Some posters on here would have you believe that the penalty was dealt for the benefit of Massa. I disagree because I have to believe that penalty would have applied regardless of the positions!

Now on the incident itself and you not being able to unserstand my point, Steven. The point I am making is that Lewis does not relinquish the advantage he gained, completely. He still had his nose near the left rear wheel of Kimi’s car. He should have backed off completely before resuming instead of shadowing as he did. You can’t be sure that Kimi was struggling because you have stated on a number of occasions ” I assume” or “he assumed”. I based my comments on what I saw not what I thought Kimi or Lewis were thinking and everytime I watch it the only good move Lewis made was borking Kimi and getting the better line in and out of
La Source.

One point being treated as anecdotal is the presence of Ferrari at the said appeal. Let me remind you that Ferrari where stated as being part of the initial investigation so in the case of an appeal, the result may or may not affect them and hence they to would need to be represented.

The difference is that I am stating my opinion on a matter. On the other hand a majority herein are chastising me on my opinion and taking sides without any or even factual evidence.

Here’s an interesting read for you Ferrari haters:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/60176-why-is-everyone-against-the-fia

“Fans want to see good races on the track and it is very bad for Formula One that decisions of this type are made behind closed doors.”

And when he says about the 25 seg penalty is not a concrete Drive Through, one may think at first that this is something like a truism but secondly one may think that if a Drive Trough is for sure an irreversible fact, a time penalty is not. Because it´s possible to be given 2 hours after race and out-given 15 days after the race.

In the years I’ve been watching F1 it has been accepted that if you cut the chicane then you let the other car past and then go for it again.

Kimi was driving far too slow in the wet conditions and Lewis was all over him, any suggestion of an unfair advantage is simply rediculous, the advantage came from the relative performances of the drivers cars.

Kimi’s move to the left, combined with his very early braking, is the only reason Lewis got past him at that point, had Kimi kept his normal defensive entry into that corner then Lewis would have had to wait until the next corner but he didn’t, he moved over and braked early.

Either way, Lewis would have had him on that lap.

Max Mosely needs to be removed from the FIA as soon as possible taking Allan Donelly with him.

Let us have an openly defined set of rules, even if they are vague and open to interpretation at least we will all know what they are. The current system is simply unacceptable for a major international sport. I wouldn’t pay to watch a football match if I didn’t know what the rules were and equaly I am unwilling to pay to go watch an F1 race when I don’t know what the rules are.

I get all of the Sports Entertainment I need watching Triple H wrestling Jeff Hardy, I want to get my racing fix from F1.