Anyway, my point is it is glaringly obvious that the FIA have appeared to be Ferrari biased in many decisions. I am surprised not many people are also talking about the fact that during this contentious spa race Kimmi also missed a chicane/ corner and used another drive off area to a rather good advantage but never got investigated nor penalised !? Yet Lewis was.

Equally Kimmi never got investigated nor punished for crashing into another driver during the Monaco grand prix yet Lewis indeed got done for his crash into Kimmi in Canadian race !!?

These are just two recent incidents, going back to 2006, you-tube has many good clips of Schummi clearly missing a chicane and gaining a clear advantage from it yet receiving no penalty never mind being investigated !!!?

In 2007 a few competitors (ahead of Lewis in that race)got away with using fuel which appeared to have been cooled beyond accepted levels and therefore affording them significant advantage. Again NO PUNISHMENT (which had it been rightly given out would have also rightly given the drivers championship to the best driver of 2007, a certain Lewis Hamilton !, but oh no that would have taken a victory away from Kimmi and Ferrari…CANT HAVE THAT CAN WE !!!

What the hell in the world is Lewis’ crime ???! Or for that matter what is Mclaren’s crime ?. Dont give me any crap about the spying scandal…. Spying on competitors appears to have always been part and parcel of previous seasons, delve into all the little rows teams had and you will see that, that how teams knew what to report each other on and copy similar systems/ parts etc.

Like i said at the beginning i am a fan of good F1 racing and good F1 drivers… i am not pro Lewis but i am definately pro the best drivers winning fairly ragardless of the colour of their team or skin. the more this happens the more it does really appear like formula 1 is run by FIAT for real. Sort it out Max and Bernie. Lets see the best driver win this year NOT THE BEST CONNECTED Team !!!!!!!!!!. What a DISGRACE AND DISSERVICE to all the fans who tune in the world over.

As a result, the admission of the Liuzzi/Sutil case is the one supported by the regulations the ICA claims to use in its Court of Appeal. It is also irrelevant whether the error of giving a straight 25-second penalty was made (and it would be an error, but I haven’t seen any evidence that it was committed in the first place – the summary of the Liuzzi/Sutil case suggests no such error) because the penalty as it became (time penalty) is the one that matters for applications of contracts as a general rule.

Technically, McLaren can appeal this to the Swiss Court of Arbitration. Not that I expect them to – in 17 months of the customer car case, they never got round to making a decision as far as I can tell, which was why Force India eventually made an out-of-court settlement.

Any organization should have some provisions of being able to question certain decisions. FIA has a provision of giving someone 25 second penalty when a drive-through penalty cannot be enforced in time, In the same tone, FIA decision to impose a 25-second post penalty should also be appeal-worthy. The only reason why drive-through penalty is not eligible for appeal is because it is irreversible! But, 25s post-race penalty is completely reversible if it can be proven that it was not the mistake of FIA giving false information to the team during the race; and then retroactively saying that the information they provided is not correct.

FIA should grow balls and re-write their rules.

Obviously Charlie made a mistake saying what he did to Ron Dennis, that’s not what we’re debating here. In many ways, the whole incident was the catalyst for McLaren’s appeal, as they understandably felt that they were given wrong information. So it was that he detracted his comment later; unfortunately he had already given McLaren something to complain about.

Remember also how ridiculous the whole telemetry thing was: Ron Dennis showed everyone that Lewis was 6km/h slower than Kimi crossing the line… And? So what? It is obvious that he slowed down (you don’t need telemetry, just watch the footage), but the point in question is that he slipstreamed him in a short straight, something he would have NEVER been able to do had he taken the corner behind Kimi.

Also regarding the other ridiculous controversy, whether Kimi did something illegal by ‘pushing’ Lewis off the track, I think Lewis’ overtakes in Monza and Hockenheim speak for themselves. Perfectly legal driving, so I don’t see what the big deal is.

short of repeating what i said earlier, i don’t know what else to say, sorry?

there is no provision in the rulebook for assigning just a 25 second penalty, unless it is either as part of a post-race drive through or a post race stop and go.

Journeyer, the wording of the regulations suggest that last time was not a mistake, since the time penalty was still a time penalty irrespective of how it came to be one. There is nothing in the regulations to say that a converted time penalty is to be treated as if it was the penalty from which it came. The dismissal, by consequence, was done on dodgy logic. Hence the precedent of Japan 2007 holds, whether the FIA wants it to or not.

“Both drivers will be working towards this target over the remaining four races, knowing that, as always for the Scuderia, the good of the team comes first.”

Sounds a little like team orders to me, wonder when the FIA investigation will start.

I pray for someone with a superior strength to show up and bring things together in F1 family. Someone like SuperNanny

This fact that Luizzy was, with the same penalty and grounds, heard by the court, makes it even more mind boggling. For Hamilton and his fans, this mess should be ‘cool fuel’ for the next few races. He is good enough to win with all these obstacles. He just has to finish in front of Massa and not overdrive his car.

The modern greats of our sport (not including current drivers) are the likes of Senna, Prost and Schumacher – all three of whom were happy to stretch the boundaries of ’sportsmanship’ in the quest for success.

As a result of this the rules for modern F1 should be – as close as possible – black and white. At the moment they’re so grey and hazy that the FIA can wag a finger in the general direction of any one of a number of so-called ‘rules’ and interpret and apply it in exactly the way they want.

The Result? Disgust, ridicule, claims of favouritism and even racism.

That whole ‘We’ve consulted Charlie Whiting’ thing was a rather pathetic McLaren stunt.

No it wasn’t. As I wrote here, on the only past occasion I can find where a driver was told he didn’t do enough to cede back position, that driver was initially given an instruction from race control to cede the position back again, which was later retracted. Checking with race control was the only sensible thing McLaren could have done under the circumstances.

You could say Hamilton should not have passed Raikkonen until after the following corner, but how was he supposed to know about that requirement? The FIA’s ‘clarification’ only came out at Monza. Perhaps if the trial had gone ahead we would have heard testimony that drivers were told to do this in a briefing or something, but we may never know now.

Regarding your answer to Koper: not so. Not everybody should be penalised, only those that gained an unfair advantage. The rules are clear.

Regardless of whether the FIA takes precedents into account, I think it’s fairly obvious that Liuzzi’s and Hamilton’s cases are not similar in terms of the circumstances of appeal. I’ve already made that clear in my previous post.

That whole ‘We’ve consulted Charlie Whiting’ thing was a rather pathetic McLaren stunt. As I’ve said before, Liuzzi’s penalty actually constituted a harsher application of the rules, and nobody is claiming a Toro Rosso witch-hunt.

I think Keith’s article title declaring Lewis Spa’s ‘moral victor’ summarises almost everyone’s feelings towards the race: overall, Lewis did, in my opinion, deserve to win the race. However, that does not change the fact he’s broken a rule and should be penalised for it.

Hamilton’s dad is his manager. The same attention isn’t given to other ‘dads’ who turn up at the races; maybe because of the TV cameras focused on him, maybe because he’s black? Is that your problem with him? I’ve never seen him jumping and yelling: where exactly are you getting your mental imagery from?

I don’t think I said those things about Lewis but maybe……. What I will say is that I feel Lewis needs to make some serious moves to change his attitude and the perseption that many people have of him. As for his father being at every race……manager or not the guy is old enough now not to need his Dad making sure his son is being looked after. I just can’t get the image out of my mind of Lewis’s Dad wearing a football mum’s attire yelling abuse at Charlie Whiting because Lewis was handed a drive through…..awwww it’s awful. As for the voices in my head, I’m used to them anyway…..what’s that Max you want me to what with that whip?!?!