Lewis Hamilton loses Sports Personality of the Year Award for a second year

Lewis Hamilton\'s trophy cabinet gets some much-needed respite

Lewis Hamilton's trophy cabinet gets some much-needed respite

He may be the youngest ever Formula 1 world champion but the British public snubbed Lewis Hamilton in the voting for Sports Personality of the Year 2008.

Hamilton was beaten by cyclist Chris Hoy, who was supposed to be racing Hamilton in the Race of Champions at Wembley today. That event was cancelled due to safety concerns.

Hamilton finished second to Joe Calzaghe last year. The boxer was among Hamilton’s rivals for the award once again this year along with Rebecca Adlington (swimming), Ben Ainslie (sailing), Christine Ohuruogu (athletics), Andy Murray (tennis), Nicole Cooke, Rebecca Romero and Bradley Wiggins (all cycling).

Hamilton has been handed a string of awards since he won the 2008 world championship. He has already scooped the Autosport international racing driver of the year award plus a BRDC Gold Star and the Richard Seaman trophy. On Friday he collected the F1 world championship trophy at the FIA Gala.

British racing drivers have a tradition of success in the Sports Personality of the Year Award. John Surtees, Stirling Moss, Jackie Stewart, Nigel Mansell (twice) and Damon Hill (twice) have all won (Surtees doing so for motor cycle racing, five years before he became F1 world champion). Mansell and Hill are two of only three people to win the award twice.

But Hamilton will have to wait another year to add his name to the list.

Advert | Go Ad-free


59 comments on Lewis Hamilton loses Sports Personality of the Year Award for a second year

  1. Dougie said on 15th December 2008, 10:56

    Overall I agree with Owen (#19) on the points he made, and appluad Hoy on his achievements that he has worked very hard for all his life.

    I can see where Antonyob is coming from also… am sure SPOTY was never on Lewis’s list of must haves this year, as its not something he can work toward, “oh, I need to try harder in the next race for SPOTY”… its a bonus if you like.

    You can’t lose SPOTY, you can only win it.

  2. Robert McKay said on 15th December 2008, 11:06

    Hoy was the right choice.

    He might only have “ridden for half an hour” or whatever nonsense that comment was but he trained for the FOUR years leading up to it.

    Hamilton did a good job in winning the WDC but looked considerably less assured and much more nervous in doing it this year compared to last season.

    And that’s ignoring the fact that, when you really come down to it, Formula 1 is not an individual sport, and Lewis relied on someone to design and build a fast car for him. It’s not even, say, 30% car and 70% driver any more, it’s more like the other way round.

    I’m not saying that automatically precludes Hamilton from winning it, I’m just saying that there are and were other sportsmen out there who can make a better case for their efforts over 2008.

  3. hmmm cycling got huge funding and the technology of the bikes had a big influence on our teams performance. Not upto f1 levels but though Hoy is a worthy winner, hed not have done it without the funding levels and super high tech bike.

    No sport at that level is an individual sport

  4. John H said on 15th December 2008, 11:44

    I have to say, that’s a bit harsh saying he lost it for a second year isn’t it?

    Anyway, credit to Hamilton for his demeanor on the night, and well done Chris Hoy – 3 gold medals is no small achievement.

  5. Pete Walker said on 15th December 2008, 14:23

    Good to see The Chain used on Lewis’ featurette – thats pretty promising for the BBCs 2009 coverage :D

    Tough break for Hamilton missing out on the top prize again but he did make a few errors this year and I imagine Chris Hoy’s performance leading up to and at the Olympics was pretty flawless to bring home three golds.

  6. 2nd is hardly a snub! Especially in an olympic year where the British team had their most successful ever medals haul. This was always going to be about the olympians. I’m suprised he beat Addlington!

  7. keepF1technical said on 15th December 2008, 16:03

    Keith, is that a typo with the voting?

    only 35,473 (not 135,472) for fourth place for ainslie. All credit to all of them, but he’s been doing his thing and winning for years just like hoy. If the vote is correct thats a huge ‘lead’ for the top three and you’d have to question the argument about voting by sport. He was also an olympian, not just any other BBC televised sport.

    I was half expecting Lewis to make a comment about ‘the chain’. Maybe he doesnt remember it!

  8. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 15th December 2008, 16:14

    KeepF1technical – I think that’s right, here’s the results I found.

    Also, is that a new username? Welcome to the site!

  9. beneboy said on 15th December 2008, 16:28

    hmmm cycling got huge funding and the technology of the bikes had a big influence on our teams performance. Not upto f1 levels but though Hoy is a worthy winner, hed not have done it without the funding levels and super high tech bike.

    No sport at that level is an individual sport

    But in cycling the person peddling is putting in most of the performance, the bike is only giving you a very slight advantage but it’s not comparable to the difference between driving a Ferrari compared to a Force India.

    Lots of the funding that’s gone into cycling in Britain in the last few years has gone into building & maintaining velodromes as well as community cycling schemes. The papers may like to say we’ve put ¬£millions into cycling but when you look at the breakdown of where it’s been spent you see only a small percentage of it went to the Olympic team directly.
    They obviously benefit from the new facilities but it’s not a case of it all being pumped into the elite program alone.

    No one will win in the Olympics without the appropriate funding & infrastructure to support them but to say Chris wouldn’t have won without the bike is just wrong.
    Just check out this to see how good the guy is:

    Chris has now won medals at consecutive games and is a worthy winner, Lewis has plenty of time left in his career to win SPOTY.

  10. well im not getting into a yes it is, no it isnt debate about cycling. This is an f1 site for starters. But the cycling team as a whole said the technology of the bikes was a big factor. I

    ronically the biggest factor was probably the marginal return theory where every tiny thing was looked at and changed to improve performance. Basically if you improve 100 things by 0.1% you get 10% extra performance. The fit one – cant remember her name even said she was told not to go shopping by her coach as the walking would impact her training regime negatively.

  11. beneboy said on 15th December 2008, 17:01

    They’re hardly going to dismiss the effect of the bikes on their performance, especially when the manufacturer is one of their biggest sponsors.

    But as you say this is an F1 site so we can leave it at that :~)

    On a slight tangent “if you improve 100 things by 0.1% you get 10% extra performance”.

    If the thing you improve only contributes to 0.01% of your overall performance then no matter how much you improve it you’re never going to improve your performance by more than 0.01%. So improving 100 areas with a similar impact will only give you a 1% increase in overall performance, not counting any conflicts that these improvements bring.

    Sorry, I know this isn’t a maths site either but the statistical analysis of performance isn’t quite that simple.

  12. you just said the same thing as me 0.01 x 100 = 1%

    0.1% x 100 = 10%.

    i’ll get your coat

  13. beneboy said on 15th December 2008, 19:15

    Sorry, tried not to turn this into a thesis but:

    If you improve the performance of 100 things by 10% then their relative performance is now 110% of the original.

    If these things only contribute to 5% of your overall performance then your overall performance has only increased by 0.5%, not 10%.

    You may make a 10% improvement of the parts but this does not necessarily result in a 10% improvement in overall performance.

    So for an F1 example, if Ferrari improve the power of their engine by 10% this doesn’t mean their performance has increased by 10% as the engine only makes up a set amount of the cars performance.
    You then get the associated problem of the gearbox & transmission etc needing to be improved to handle the extra power, without which the extra power of the engine can be a disadvantage.

    As my boss constantly reminds me, solutions are the main cause of problems.

    Without going into field arrays and several pages of boring math this is the best I can give you.
    Please accept my apologies if my previous post sounded a bit arrogant or adversarial, it was not my intention. I’m just getting very, very bored waiting for the next season to start & find myself arguing with people over nothing as there’s little to argue about now the racing has stopped.

  14. I’m surprised no one has pointed out charisma is not one of Lewis’ strong points. If anything he did surprisingly well….

  15. Exactly Alejandro, Hamilton lost because he doesn’t have an appealing personality. Then again I’ve never really heard Chris Hoy say much. Perhaps Ronnie O’Sullivan should have won it, he’s got one hell of a personality, even if he is a little bit crazy. Or perhaps I shouldn’t take the word “personality” too literally.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.