Comments on: Two sides to the Hamilton-Trulli controversy: Another avoidable crisis

By: Chris W

Chris W — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:46:43 +0000

It appears that the FIA can interpret the regulations in different ways, depending on the outcome they wish to create – that’s why there are so many ‘grey’ areas in the regulations. Their rulings produce controversy, which is exactly what they want. As the saying goes – ‘there is no such thing as bad publicity’!

By: John H

John H — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:16:13 +0000

Can you label what Toyota did with their flexi-wings as attempting to mis-lead the stewards too?

By: Dave the Rave

Dave the Rave — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:16:51 +0000

I guess that in an “innocent” way all the drivers lie.
Just look at any coming together ! Both drivers usually declare that it was the others fault……….”he forced me off” etc., etc.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:50:41 +0000

I’m sure the FIA would be happier without that British kid on the grid… perhaps this is just the kind of excuse they have been waiting for to kick him out once and for all!

(I really hope that isn’t the case!)

By: The Limit

The Limit — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:57:53 +0000

The only way I can see this ruling being reversed is if a championship is won due to it, and the public outcry afterwards is big enough. I don’t think nobody agrees with Max Mosley’s stance on this issue.
Race Control could, and should, have handled this minor problem far better than they did. It is conveniant to suggest that this predicament Hamilton and McLaren found themselves in was self inflicted, as it diverts blame away from Race Control and the FIA.
Your article sums it up. Race Control should be more open for the teams to ask questions during a race, and Race Control should ‘order’ teams to change positions inherited through wrong doing straight away.
In this modern age, with cameras on the majority of cars involved, there simply is no excuse. McLaren and Hamilton were wrong, and were caught and punished. That, however, does not hide the inept way inwhich this scandal and that of Spa 2008 were handled.
If we get a driver, who wins a title, celebrates it on the podium, only to lose it a week later, then this sport’s image maybe damaged beyond any repair.

By: S Hughes

S Hughes — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 09:53:02 +0000

I agree with you gazzap 100%. He had his haters, he still has his haters but now with extra ammunition, and he has his fans who know what a good man and great driver he is. End of.

By: Pink Peril

Pink Peril — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:12:30 +0000

Ah yes, but after the race is when you can review all telemetry, radio comms etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is no time limit on the stewards issuing a decision – quite the opposite it seems. So why couldn’t they have taken the time to review all the information, speak to the drivers – recalling them for further questions if necessary – and then and only then, issue a decision?

I would rather they take hours to deliberate properly than make a snap decision on only half the facts, then do u turns a week later. Very poor form. So the avoidable crisis could have been avoided by the FIA well and trulli.

And only in extremely extenuating circumstances do I agree with changing the race result. If sanctions are required and that is a big if, I’d rather see them imposed at the next race.

By: Pink Peril

Pink Peril — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 03:06:52 +0000

Keith = nail on head.

Whole sorry mess was created by incompetent Stewards and a rulebook with too many grey areas, and an interfering governing body that is well, useless is the nicest way I can put it.

By: bwells

bwells — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:20:33 +0000

Hey all… a little late for this one but what I’ve been wondering about… with all the stewards decisions why they would let Ruben’s drive around like it’s a “hit to pass” race event… I mean look at the penalty to Vettel for simply a race incident..
it doesn’t make sense…

By: Bernification

Bernification — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 01:17:01 +0000

Just a question. I don’t know if you have the answer Keith, or anyone.

I was under the impression that investigations only took place if someone complained.

If that is true, Toyota withdrew their formal complaint, so why was this whole thing investigated further?

I’m probably wrong, but I’m asking for clarification!