McLaren claims the FIA mis-represented its own steward in Lewis Hamilton trial

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Vitantonio Liuzzi\'s appeal last year set a problematic precedent for the FIA
Vitantonio Liuzzi's appeal last year set a problematic precedent for the FIA

The Times’ Ed Gorman reported a very surprising development during today’s hearing into Lewis Hamilton’s controversial Spa penalty.

According to Gorman, McLaren produced a document claiming the FIA tried to undermine McLaren’s argument about the admissibility of the appeal by mis-representing the position of one of its own stewards.

The question of admissibility

A crucial part of the hearing concerns whether McLaren actually can appeal Hamilton’s penalty. Hamilton was given a 25-second penalty because there was no time to make him serve a drive-through penalty. As drive-through penalties can’t be appealed against, therefore Hamilton cannot appeal his penalty.

However, one driver has already had an appeal heard in exactly the same circumstances. Vitantonio Liuzzi was given a 25-second penalty after last year’s Japanese Grand Prix, but took the matter to appeal. The appeal was heard, and although Liuzzi didn’t win, it must have been considered admissible.

FIA claims a change of mind

McLaren had informed the FIA what arguments they were going to make in the Hamilton trial (which I believe they are required to do – it’s not a case of them mistakenly ‘showing their hand’). This included reference to the Liuzzi appeal.

However the FIA responded to McLaren claiming that the chief steward at the Japanese Grand Prix, Tony Scott Andrews, had since changed his mind about the incident, and believed it should have been a drive-through penalty. Therefore, Liuzzi would not have been able to appeal, leaving McLaren with no precedent.

The FIA claimed Scott Andrews had informed Charlie Whiting of his opinion via telephone. McLaren were contacted by the FIA by email to inform them of Scott Andrews’ change of opinion.

“Grossly inaccurate and misleading”

Wanting to be sure of the facts, McLaren contacted Scott Andrews. He told them the FIA’s email was “grossly inaccurate and misleading.”

McLaren’s lawyer Mark Phillips read out a statement from Scott Andrews which said that Whiting had not asked him if he’d changed his mind about the decision he made regarding Liuzzi in Japan and said: “Had he done so, the answer would have been ‘no'”

Ed Gorman’s opinion is:

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.

Are the FIA going to ram home a verdict of “appeal not admissible” against Hamilton and McLaren having apparently made an attempt at changing their own former stewards’ viewpoint without having consulted him?

Or is there more to this than meets the eye?

Tony Scott Andrews is no longer the FIA permanent steward. That role is now filled by Alan Donnelly, who has played a prominent role in this case, and was the only steward to interview Hamilton in the enquiries at the track, despite his name not appearing on the stewards’ decision.

47 comments on “McLaren claims the FIA mis-represented its own steward in Lewis Hamilton trial”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. WTH.

    yes i did see it. Massa was the most consistent and stayed out of trouble showing that he used his head while Kimi and Hamhead were going off all over the place very silly in those conditions so for sure Massa deserved the win. And he’s tall.

  2. foorza, i totally disagree!
    f1 is about racing, and racing is about coming first, no matter what the circumstances.
    and to be treated to watching 2 of the top drivers duke it out wheel to wheel is indeed a treat sorely missed. yet after watching the seasons best race (apart from monza) and have it marred by a legal wrangle (just or unjust) brings the sport into disrepute, imo.
    and where was massa? consistently a few seconds behind with no threat the kimi or lewis. i’m not sure how you ascertain his merit?

  3. I like to see racing. but fair race. lewis cheated then tried to hide by go back to 2nd but slipped in Kimi’s stream. Thats not fair. It was mclaren who went to the court.

    Massa took it deservingly after kimi couldn’t. I think Felipe is the greatest since the Great German – Schumacher. Massa is the saviour and future of F1. And he’s not short, in fact above average in height.

  4. hey each to his/her own, although i do shudder when people compare current drivers to schumi, its just not right.
    but you more than entitled to back which ever pony you choose.

    but one question, why the fixation with massa’s height? who cares if the wee man is vertically challenged? i would still think he’s a so-so driver if he was tall.

    o and hamilton technically did not cheat, unless you consider massa a cheat too? ;-)

  5. Hamilton is far too arrogant for his age. He’s not that good, Massa has far more class on the track. Hamilton is total over-rated and and despite what people say not tall, in fact i think he’s shorter than Massa and almost the whole grid for sure

  6. yeah, hamilton is arrogant, but so was schumacher and a plethora of other drivers. i reckon it’s thing you need to be a top f1 driver. modesty is not a trait many drivers follow…

    anyway, we’ll see at the end of the season who’s the better driver.

    btw, you crack me up. had a real good laugh :-D

  7. the tort bar and their enablers in the democrat party will eventually run out of victims. A young business person with ambition and a nifty idea should seriously consider pursuing those dreams outside the clutches of the looters in this nation.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

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.