Why did the FIA let Vitantonio Liuzzi appeal but not Lewis Hamilton?
The FIA's ruling on Hamilton contradicts a similar verdict from last year
Lewis Hamilton has had Belgian Grand Prix penalty appeal thrown out, bringing another wave of reaction, much of it highly critical of the FIA.
At the heart of the controversy is the FIA’s decision not to allow Hamilton to submit his appeal, despite letting another driver, Vitantonio Liuzzi, do so last year.
The official documents that shows how the FIA permitted Liuzzi’s appeal is below. How are the FIA going to explain why they allowed Liuzzi to appeal, but not Hamilton?
How Liuzzi was allowed to appeal
The International Appeal Court verdict on the Liuzzi appeal is still available on the FIA’s website.
Here are the relevant parts from that document (emphasis added):
Having acknowledged that the due hearing of all parties was in order, that the appeal was admissible, that the rights of each of the parties had been duly examined both in the proceedings which preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself, that the appealing competitor, the intervenor and the knowledgeable parties were duly heard…
And in the conclusion:
WHEREAS under these circumstances it is necessary to confirm the decision of the Panel of the Stewards of the Meeting;
ON THESE GROUNDS,
STATES AND RULES the appeal to be admissible,
It doesn’t get more clear-cut than that. The article under which Hamilton was refused grounds to appeal was apparently never discussed. Liuzzi was allowed to appeal.
How Hamilton was not allowed to appeal
McLaren knew Liuzzi had been allowed to appeal his 25-second penalty which, just like Hamilton’s, was intended as a drive-through penalty but took the form of a time penalty because the incident occurred so late in the race. A McLaren representative, Mark Hubbard, had been at the Liuzzi hearing, but even if he hadn’t been the appeal court’s findings were freely available after the verdict. (See correction below)
However when Hamilton made his case on the same grounds as Liuzzi he was refused appeal under Article 152 paragraph five of the International Sporting Code:
Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal.
One might ask whether Hamilton’s penalty, given he never took a drive-through or stopped in the pits, applies here.
But assuming it does the more compelling question is: why was this same clause not used against Liuzzi? As it was not invoked, any observer might reasonably have drawn the conclusion that time penalties applied after a race can be subject to appeals.
The FIA’s decision to refuse Hamilton grounds of appeal is a stunning act of hypocrisy. How can they justify treating two identical cases so differently?
Suspicious timing
Let’s assume for a moment the FIA genuinely felt the Liuzzi ruling was a mistake and wished to correct it. We must ask then why did they not announce the change earlier? They’ve had almost a year.
The FIA only revealed it would no longer admit appeals such as Liuzzi’s after McLaren confirmed its decision to do just that. The FIA sent notification to McLaren at 6:30pm last Friday.
The suspicious nature of the timing and the highly dubious means by which the FIA attempted to prove such appeals were no longer valid (more on that here) gives the strong impression that the FIA changed its own rules to hinder McLaren.
Time for an explanation
The FIA must be held to account over this. It is a disgrace that two F1 teams should appeal on the same grounds, and for one to be given the right to appeal and the other denied it.
Before the hearing Max Mosley said:
It’s a reflection, and I’m sorry to say this, of the stupidity of the people who say it because they haven’t really thought the thing through and put themselves in the position of the people who have to take these very difficult decisions.
The Liuzzi precedent is not the first glaring inconsistency we’ve observed in the FIA’s handling of this penalty. If you think through the case, the rules and the precedent you end up with a simple observation: that one driver was allowed recourse to the law and the other was denied it.
So why did the FIA let Vitantonio Liuzzi appeal but not Lewis Hamilton? Share your thoughts in the comments. (For general comments on the Hamilton verdict see here: Lewis Hamilton’s appeal fails and Felipe Massa keeps Belgian Grand Prix win).
Comments have been split across multiple pages. If you are having trouble viewing the pages, click here to see all comments
Probably because he’s Italian, like the accent of the whispering voice in the FIA’s ear.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080923172326.shtml
Probably because Article 152 does not, in fact, give the FIA latitude to ignore time penalties. Only drive-throughs, pit-stoppages and series-specific incidents.
Law’s are made by precedent or decree.
If a precedent is set then it should be adhered to until such time as the decree over-rides the precedent, but this can not be applied retrospectively (as in this case).
The FIA is corrupt.
“How are the FIA going to explain why they allowed Liuzzi to appeal, but not Hamilton?”
Why do they have to? And to who? The FIA doesn’t have to to explain anything they decide. That’s the biggest part of the problem.
@ Keith…
…regardless of all that is going on, arguing about it won’t bring back those points…
…I feel like Lewis just has to regroup and simply try to outscore Felipe in the last races, that’s it…no ‘balls-out, win-at-all-cost, i’m the best’ driving…that’s what messed him up in Bahrain, Canada, France, and Hungary (I think he was overdriving the car, causing the tire to rupture, as Heikki’s did not). The truth of the matter is none of us really know what goes on behind the scenes…hell, BMW could be plotting with the FIA to make sure they win 09
being English (not Italian or German), a Maclaren driver (wrong colour car and not Italian or German and being Black means Hamilton “needs some more of zee punishment”
I may be wrong of course – it may just be that Mosley just likes punishing people. Maybe he will invite Lewis to one of his parties!
Rod S (a very disilusioned ex F1 Fan)
Mail123456 – here’s the FIA verdict in full. The relevant bit says:
This is a perverse attempt at logic. The fact neither party had raised the question of admissibility neither proves nor disproves anything. Furthermore, if Max Mosley is apparently so infuriated by cases such as these being a waste of time (recall his comments at Monza) why did he not clear up the matter between the Fuji and Spa incidents?
@Keith:
This says that FIA must administer rules and regulations, not to wait someone to complain
(yes I know that Ferrari may be asked race control, and knew about investigation but there is no appeal)
… oh yes they did it! at Spa after the race, when nobody complains
Source: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/about-fia/Pages/AboutFIA.aspx
And again agree about wasting time … already said that 2 days waiting and receive inadmissible is pure joke with all fans and competitors.
My complaint all along has been that the FIA’s refereeing system is completely messed up.
No other sport in the world would need the amount of time required by the marshals at the track to come to a decision regarding the rules. If the marshals had made a ruling in an appropriate period of time (one lap should really do it, and they had three), then the confusion surrounding the case would be slight. Fans of EVERY sport argue about the justice of penalties all the time – F1 fans would accept joining that group.
No other sport in the world tries to impose a post-event “equivalent” of an on-field penalty. Football referees don’t add a point to one team’s score because later that evening, it final appeared conclusive that they deserved a penalty kick. An official in a 100m dash would never take three seconds off one runner’s time because an opponent tripped in front of them and disrupted their run. The punishment here may have been the functional equivalent of a drive-through, but it didn’t involve driving through anything.
All of this is wrapped up in a cloak of pseudo-legal terminology that I am convinced serves only to render the verdict unreadable (and therefore unopposed) by the public. It obviously isn’t there to ensure that the rigorous logic of the ruling is correctly interpreted.
@Keith
I think it may be because if they had established the rule and then one of my beloved red cars had broken it then that would mean the FIA would have to punish them.
And if there’s any punishing to be done than Max will be the one doing it (or getting it) and not too (but possibly from) Ferrari.
All I can do is sigh… Doesn’t seem worth the effort to do anything else.
What’s the point in saying anything. We all knew that this would be the verdict anyway. A pointless waste of time, money, carbon emissions, breath etc……
FIA(T) can publicly spit in its own face and loudly announce decisions that have nothing to do with law or justice. So why would they give a s**t for what we have to say?
Time to let go and move on.
So what we see is not what we get.
My wife thinks the mafia must be involved. She’s usually right.
i personally think it is absolutely disgusting, im sure it is nothing against lewis per se, but rathe that his boss happens to be Ron Dennis
i would stop watching F1 but i love it too much,
great work with the site Keith, definitly one of the best on the net, im sure evyone else would agree?
Why didn’t someone say they couldn’t appeal it in the first place without waiting all this time to say it, or is the Court of Appeal only allowed to say that in the Court of Appeal.
The stewards are there to pass judgement there and then and handout penalties within the race and following the race as happens all the time and yet receive disrespect from all whom they punish (especially Scott Speed). How can they have any authority if it is deemed correct to take them to court every time.
…because Liuzzi didnt drive a McLaren….
I think there is no question that the FIA comes down hard on them for ruining the integrity of the sport, but each time they appealed they had a reasonable argument and its the FiA creating the whole mess.
I would love to see another series sprout up outside of the FiA’s control. I’m no Hamilton fan, but I’m not going to be waking up at 7:30 each weekend to watch an artificial spectacle.
Simple,the FIA are and you can quote me on this as in the online dictionary “Crooked” crooked – not straight; dishonest or immoral or evasive .They can if they wish sue me on this.They have treated two identical cases(in Penalty) in two completely different manners ie. NOT STRAIGHT! Also the same can be said of the stewards Kovalinen inthe same race recieves a penalty for not avoiding a avoidable incident,whilst Hamilton is penalised for avoiding one.Whoever may win the Driver Championship REAL F1 Fans will always Know who the real champion is and that is why F1 will never be taken seriously stateside,well done Bernie ,well done Max
Andy – thank you very much
It happened because this was the easiest way for the fia to get it over with!
ukk
I agree, time to move on. The fact is that had Lewis and his McLaren team not switched him onto inters at the start of Q2 at Monza, there’s a very good chance he’d be 9 points ahead now rather than one. It’s still more probable Hamilton will lose the championship because of this kind of mistake, or the mishaps we saw last year, than by being out-driven by Massa or Kubica (or anyone else).
@ Chris-
I think she probably is- my girlfriends like that, much to my annoyance;)
Look at the backround of some of the guys at Ferrari and you wonder.
@ Keith- agree with Andy- one of the least bitchy sites on the net, really enjoy the video preview of circuits (great for getting friends not into F1, to sit and endure me talking constantly through it with me), generally talking with people who love what they’re watching.
I guessed it would come to this unfortunately.
Max appears to be fire proof.
There is no doubt that Ferrari are treat in a different way than everyone else.
I am dissapointed for F1.
The FIA are not saying that the Liuzzi ruling was wrong, they’re saying that there was a mistake in the handing out of his penalty.
Instead of giving him a drive through penalty, (which seeing as the race had ended would be converted to a time penalty) which would not be appealable, he was given a straight time penalty which can be taken to appeal.
Obviously, “traditional” drive throughs cannot be undone, because its near impossible to quantify how much time was lost, particularly when track-position issues are at play.
So, when the stewards are awarding penalties post race, they get to pick from two functionally-equivalent penalties… The only difference between them (other than wording) being that a time penalty can be appealed and a drive-through cannot. Is it any surprise that they pick the “my word is final” option?
Oh well, if this link is anything to go by, Lewis is enjoying himself in Singapore and is going down quite well.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Sport/Story/STIStory_281959.html
Precedents are not necessarily binding, nor are they considered to be or set law. Further, who is to say the a precedent is correct?
Why cook up a conspiracy against mclaren, when clearly the problem is with liuzzi and fuji.
You cant appeal a drive through, so that appeal should have been thrown out, that appeal was FIA being what you call typical FIA uselessness.
The rejection of the appeal yesterday is the correct decision as per the rules.
Liuzzi and fuji was the screw up, yesterday was normal as per the rules.
@William Wilgus hit the nail on the head also – just because Liuzzi in fuji was able to appeal, doesn’t mean it was right, FIA clearly makes wrong decisions at times, and that was one of them since the rules state you can’t appeal.
Keith, your only fueling the fire of hamilton fanatics by misrepresenting what has happened.
It has nothing to do with lewis, it has to do with every driver and team, no driver and team can appeal. lewis is no exception just because you’re a fanboy, just because of the hype doesn’t mean he can appeal, no one can.
If you want to start a topic on it, the topic should be focused on Liuzzi and the FIA stewards at fuji, nothing at all to do with hamilton or mclaren because at the end of the day that’s what you are arguing as a ‘precedent’ for appeal. you need to look at why they were able to appeal, not why hamilton was NOT able to appeal because once again, hamilton is being treated just as fairly as any other driver – no other drive is be able to appeal, that is the rules.
Any deviation from the rules deserves a question, but this verdict with hamilton does not, since it’s 100% to the rules.
Today’s decision is unsurprising, but yet still hard to swallow. After having two weeks to digest the events of that race, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Hamilton bent the rules to the point of breaking, but little to warrant the penalty he recieved.
With the benefit of hindsight, on McLaren’s part, they would have been better off ‘ordering’ Hamilton to let Raikkonen past, and to not attempt any counterattack for atleast another couple of corners.
Alot has been said of McLaren going to Charlie Whiting and asking him if they were within the rules, and Whiting’s answer was yes. If the media are to be believed, Whiting’s influence on such matters is limited to say the least. If this fact is true, and is well known within the sport, then McLaren made a terrible blunder in putting too much faith in Whiting’s opinion. They would have been far better off not taking a chance at all, and covering all bases, as it was obvious that Ferrari were going to appeal against the La Source pass by Hamilton.
Concerning past cases such as the Luizzi incident, as others have implied, Luizzi was not competing for the world championship. At the Hungarian Grands Prix of 2006, Michael Schumacher was guilty of cutting a chicane whilst battling with De La Rosa, and was not even investigated by the stewards. Unlike Luizzi, he was fighting for a championship.
Alonso, in the same year, was famously put back on the grid at Monza under very suspicious circumstances, just when the Scuderia needed a boost to their title campaign. If any of you have noticed, these scandals, more often than not, always occur around the latter half of the season, when penalties are doubly painfull to the team involved.
Mentally, to a team coming off the back of such a decision, this must be very difficult. Whatever your opinion concerning last year’s spy scandal, the wheels seriously came off McLaren’s wagon after they were relieved of $100 million, not before. The bottom line is, is that Ferrari’s relationship with the FIA is so close, so interwoven, in that when needed, situations like this can arise. When Ferrari’s dominance is threatened, as with Alonso in 2006 and with Hamilton in 2008, Ferrari wheel out the heavy artillery.
For me, if I am right, it proves that Ferrari are desperate. Desperate because that in wet/dry or full wet conditions, the McLaren, particulary in Hamilton’s hands, beats their car. Raikkonen in the dry, sweeping corners of Spa, was untouchable, until it rained!
The same can be said of Silverstone, Monaco, and Monza.
They know, as in Ferrari, that if there is just one or two more wet races, which is not impossible, they are in trouble.
McLaren need to remain strong, focused, and they can become world champions for the first time since 1998, and have a champion driver for the first time since 1999. If they take today’s ruling to heart, and let it affect their performance, then this whole saga would have served its purpose, and scandal should never settle an F1 championship, only talent and sheer skill will ever do, for the fans who watch this sport.
Keith,
First of all, congratulations on your F1 site. Your stories are well researched and your passion for the sport is evident. I personally like your ‘bias’ towards Lewis; at least you don’t pretend to be some impartial commentator like the ITV morons.
On the hot topic of the moment, I am amazed that none of the fans who posted here bothered to notice Liuzzi’s was a yellow flag incident: he was penalised for overtaking under the yellow flag, but later appealed claiming that the green flag had already come out in a different part of the circuit (and which showed in his GPS system) prior to the manouvre. The FIA, rightly in my opinion, decided to hear the appeal, make sure it would’ve been impossible for Liuzzi to have seen a green flag between M2 and M3 and clarify that cockpit light signals can only be used to “give drivers information concerning track signals or conditions”. This only shows how strict the FIA can be in observing regulations; in my opinion, this was an even harsher application of the rules than in Lewis’ case.
This is obviously different to Lewis’ appeal: there was no sense in which Lewis could have been ‘unaware’ of the situation that characterised the penalty. It was painfully obvious that he gained an unfair advantage by cutting the chicane (he would not have been on Kimi’s slipstream otherwise), and you can’t just claim ‘heat of the battle’ sort of excuses. What he did was misjudge how much he could get away with, and every single driver on the paddock agrees with the FIA ruling (very different from many of Schumacher’s past favourable rulings).
Now, I almost feel like I’m playing devil’s advocate here considering how many unfair rulings FIA has pulled in the past. Sorry folks, but this is just not one of them.
one must surely notice the irony…
the FIA is headed by someone who well understands the legal concepts in question, yet the organisation brushes them aside at a moment’s notice. i would wager that were Mosley representing McLaren in a legal capacity, he would be outraged at this outcome. FIA… feifdom in action?
Why? I’ll be damned if I know Keith. Enlighten me when you find out would you?
Keep up the great work my friend.
Beautiful work William Wilgus and Todd!
Exactly correct. Of all the words (besides the swear words such as McLaren or even worse Ron Dennis etc) the word “precedent” will be the word remembered as the most exploited, to argue the point for ChicaneGate (That’s mine Keith!). The fact of the matter is that unless a precedent is party to the establishment of a law or rule that is to be adhered to, no amount of jumping up and down screaming “corruption” and the even more comical “but he did it so why can’t I ?” will do any good for future cases. It is now up to McLaren and any other team who should seeks to gain from this outcome, to demand a clarification of the rules and issues that have been exposed herein.
One thing todd, I don’t think Keith is really trying to pervert anything. I do agree with you that this issue has brought out Keith’s allegiance and solidified my opinion that this site is geared more towards the English fan base and that of Lewis Hamilton. That’s not to say I will stop trying to post my own opinion and stir up a few of these ****! After all would I be a true blue aussie if I didn’t?
One other point I would like to make is that as justified as I think they were to pull the “inadmissable” card the fact that this was not declared prior to (hence closing) proceedings has a touch of arrogance about it on the part of the FIA. Maybe the judges wanted to send McLaren a message, not to come in half cocked in the future.
Keith, have we heard anything from anyone that has a genuine knowledge of law and due process etc? I can’t seem to find anything from proper law makers, not ex drivers or team principals etc. on their opinion of how the process was handled.
It is a shame that the FIA didn’t give Massa a drive-though in Valencia. Ferrari would have appealed that and wouldn’t it have been interesting to see if that was admissible?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I cannot think of any major disputes with the FIA in any of the other motorsports they ‘govern’. I think there was a grumble or two from GT Racing and WRC when they first took over, but apart from that, nothing of any consequence.
So why is there all this hassle over F1? I still feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, the is he / isn’t he tug of love between Bernie and Max and who is best to control F1. Is Bernie inciting Big Ron to mad acts of commercial suicide, just to point out how badly the FIA run things? Is this the motorsport equivalent to insider-trading?
If it really is as petty as Max holding a grudge against Ron that Max needs his own padded cell somewhere.
Can anyone explain what the term “fanboy” means? Other than sounding like the sort of character you should probably avoid on a trip to Bangkok, is this now the collective term for any supporters of Hamilton, McLaren or aggressive racing in general?
Todd, If we go by your reasoning, then why did the FIA come up with the lie, that the race steward at the time, admitted he made an error, as reason not to allow for an appeal?
If the race steward was in the wrong, they he should have been read the rule book.
Its Max who says, race control shouldn’t communicate with the teams, but its the same race control that asked alonso to give the position back.
I have a doubt whether it is a F1BLOG or HAMILTON fan site?????@@@@@
Todd:
That simply isn’t true – Liuzzi was allowed to appeal, Hamilton wasn’t. If the FIA wanted to clear up the implementation of their own rules then it would have been fair enough if they’d done it before McLaren lodged an appeal. As ever, this has nothing to do with which drivers I do or don’t like – I read the reports, I read the rules, I look at past precedent, and I call it like I see it.
Senor Paz & Negative Camber – thankyou!
AussieLeb (& Madurai) –
This site is only geared towards English fans of F1 in that it’s written in English (I’d love to make multi-language versions available but I don’t have the time/knowledge/resources). As I always say, impartiality is something one strives to achieve while knowing it’s impossible. But if you think I never criticise Hamilton or I never support what the FIA has done, then you’re wrong on both counts:
Video: Pressure on Lewis Hamilton after error in French Grand Prix …
Traction control banned in F1 from 2008
John Beamer – Indeed…
Owen – ‘Fanboy’ is a last-resort term used when you disagree with someone else’s point of view and want to claim they only hold a certain opinion because they support a certain driver. See above.
Madurai, couldn’t you have attempted to argue a case as todd did (even though with flawed points as Oliver mentioned) instead of flaming this thread? I love this blog because of the standard set here with people trying to reason and show their reasons. You I am afraid to say are far below that standard.
Someone has alreay pointed out it, but I would like to insist: Liuzzi didn’t get a drive-though, that’s why they accepted the appeal. One can agree or not with the drive-though given to Hamilton, but the difference with Liuzzi is clear and simple.
Brazillian, Spanish and Italian press generally make no mention of the Liuzzi precident and seem to imply justice was done. I don’t imagine that news surprises anyone. I did find a Fittipaldi interview where he said Hamilton would be the more deserving world champion though, despite his love for Massa. He said Hamilton has been more consistent.
German press makes plenaty of mention of the Liuzzi precident and the strange obfuscation by the FIA. Perhaps the Mercedes connection would induce some bias, I offer no view on that.
Personally I’m unimpressed with the verdict, not because they upheld the penalty but the manner in which it was done. The FIA needs to be consistent and have its laws and regulations clearly stated for all to read. It really wouldn’t take that much for them to deal with all this negative reaction in a positive way, instead they look arrogant, insular and inconsistent.
so what is the difference between FIA and Zimbabwe again?
Sorry for the clear breach of your comments policy Keith I never knew you Englishmen took the word *** as racial abuse.
Nice try also on the splitting of hairs in regards to where your deep seeded allegiance lies. By English fans I do mean British. I’m sorry but to fuel the fire burning inside of the Hamilton, Mclaren and British fans after the case has closed, smacks of sour grapes to me, Keith. What is your motivation for this thread when McLaren have clearly moved on and to this date, have not sought clarification on the incident? I would think they would be entitled to do so? What happens next time? No one knows, and I believe it’s the task of the teams to seek such clarification by posing their own questions otherwise accept the referees decision!
Nice jibe at the end to Keith!
Um, Zimbabwe’s a country where the dictator’s had to agree to a power-sharing deal to the opposition?
And the FIA isn’t a country, it just runs motorsport… with no recognized opposition?
Makes Zimbabwe seem better sometimes…
Jian I really didn’t like to argue as this site ends with .UK…..sorry to tell this but I really loved some of the articles posted by keith that i got some knowledge about technical stuff in F1 only after reading it.Thanks Keith…
Can’t an F1 fan have an opinion on the issue? Keith is of his own mind to have an opinion and state it; he does not need to follow McLaren’s lead.
Also, the purpose of McLaren’s appeal was also in part to get a clarification on the penalty! But given the FIA is acting, they’ll never get such a clarification. Do you think they’ll get a clarification from the FIA? The appeal was the perfect moment for them to give it to McLaren, but they did not do so.
Roser –
Neither did Hamilton, that’s why the two are the same.
Diseased rat -
Inevitably it’s not just one nation’s press that only sees things a certain way.
Dan – I don’t want to get into a whole racism thing. Inevitably some people think some words are and others aren’t, I’m staying to the safe side because I don’t want to get sued.
What makes you think McLaren have any further recourse? As far as I’m aware F1 teams can’t take matters to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Whitmarsh said after the verdict they were disappointed “to have received no ruling on the substance of our appeal”. The FIA has since published its full reasoning (linked in my comment above) which came out after this article was written. But even with that new information we can see the mechanism of how the FIA disallowed the appeal but the question why remains.
Madurai – Two-thirds of the users of this site are not British.
Over at Sidepodcast, one of our fellow commenters Alex Andronov had this to say over the incident.
In simple terms: what happened last time was a mistake, regardless of what Tony Scott-Andrews said or not said. Your thoughts?