Rift grows between Hamilton and Sutil over trial

F1 Fanatic round-up

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Circuit de Catalunya, 2013In the round-up: Adrian Sutil says he hasn’t spoken to his former friend and F3 team mate Lewis Hamilton since the Mercedes driver chose not to testify at his trial last year.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Adrian Sutil will race for Force India as F1 driver line-up completed (BBC)

“We have no relationship at the moment. I never saw him, I never spoke to him. For sure I will meet up with him, but I don’t know what will happen.”

Marussia expects engine change (Crash)

Marussia sporting director Graeme Lowdon: “My understanding is that Cosworth won’t be making a 2014 engine.”

Kings of the private equity jungle (FT, registration required)

“CVC distributed ??5bn [??4.32bn] to investors last year and expects to make as much as seven times its $1bn [??660m] investment in Formula One, the motor racing company slated for an initial public offering in Singapore this year.”

Vergne hails impact of updates (Autosport)

“We have new upgrades here [and] we are really happy. There were many things we wanted to test and we could follow the programme quite well despite the bad conditions.”

Good news for Vijay (Joe Saward)

“Mallya keeps saying that the troubles of one company do not affect the other firms in which he has shareholdings, but it is hard to imagine that at least some of the cash will not be going towards the airline, unless even he has finally concluded that it could be a lost cause.”

No Time For Tears ?ǣ Racing, Romanticism and Revolution (The Buxton Blog)

“Ultimately this whole thing will have come down to finances. The money off deal proposed by Ferrari for their 2014 engines will have been less than Adrian Sutil was able to bring to the table.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

@MalleshMagdum on the long wait for Force India’s driver announcement:

That announcement took as long to arrive as Kingfisher employee’s salary.

Happy to see him back.
@MalleshMagdum

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jose Arellano!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Jody Scheckter became the third different winner in as many races on this day in 1975.

He won the South African Grand Prix for Tyrrell with team mate Patrick Depailler third and Brabham’s Carlos Reutemann in between them.

Image ?? Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

128 comments on Rift grows between Hamilton and Sutil over trial

  1. Tyler (@tdog) said on 1st March 2013, 0:20

    Sutil’s friendship with Lewis Hamilton ended over the incident – Hamilton was in the nightclub at the same time but did not testify in the trial.

    Ah yes, it’s when life turns sour that people reveal themselves, and you learn who are your true friends. Still, Lewis recently “emailed” Sutil a couple of times, so he must be making a real effort.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 1st March 2013, 0:30

      You have to put some limits into a friendship. If my drunk friend reacts in a weird way in a disco, and if my testifying is made in a way that can save him but can affect my proffesional life, so I think Hamilton did the right thing. At least he didn’t appear on court accusing Sutil. That and Hamilton good lawyers’ advice are significantly important on this case.

      • Kimi4WDC said on 1st March 2013, 0:51

        I think you getting carried away, testifying is not accusing either of them. Just getting a different (hopefully true) perspective upon the case which does a significant difference upon the outcome, specially if either of sides trying to spin the things.

        Not to mention if they were friends, where would be no question about his appearing. As too their relationship – I doubt whatever Hamilton would have said in court would had an negative impact on their relationship, considering what happened as he chose silence.

        Said that, I think the way Hamilton developed as human being, he would have done different and I’m more then sure those two will set things straight when they see each other.

        • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 1st March 2013, 8:58

          My guess is this would never have worked out favourably for Hamilton.

          Seeing as CCTV footage seems to show Sutil basically doing what he was accused of, Hamilton’s options were a) confirm it under oath (which Sutil might also see as a knife in the back), b) lie under oath (which, er, no) or c) take himself out of the equation.

          • jimscreechy (@) said on 1st March 2013, 11:08

            Completely agree. Unfortunately sometiems there is the expectation that friendship means compromising your morals or opinions to aid a friend, and it can be interpreted as you being the person with questionable morals when you don’t. I had a friend who was a nice guy a lazy good for nothing on the job, he asked me for a reference I saidd no… we haven’t spoken since.

      • trophicip (@trophicip) said on 1st March 2013, 2:19

        I see no fault in Hamilton not testifying. If Sutil was wrong, then how is Hamilton’s testimony is supposed to help him? Is he supposed to lie? If Sutil is going down because of the incident, should Hamilton go down with him, and taking with him the years he, his family, and sponsors put in for years? To save your friend, you have to save yourself first. I think Hamilton did that, then he tried to reach out to Sutil. Sutil may have failed to see that maybe if Hamilton testified and spoke the truth it could have been harmful to him (Sutil). If he were a friend to Hamilton, he would not want to see his friend get dragged down because he is going down. Sutil should check himself.

      • Christopher (@aficion) said on 1st March 2013, 3:22

        No no… you don’t have to put limits on friendship. That’s why you’re ‘friends’. Where did you get this idea? Maybe YOU place those limits, but don’t make the mistake that all people do. Thank god.

        • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 1st March 2013, 7:06

          So if your friend murders your mother, will you still be friends with him? What if he just slashes her throat? Of course there are limits on friendship. It’s silly and hypocritical to say otherwise. If I see my friend doing something wretched and immoral, according to my own moral compass, we will have a talk, but most likely I will re-evaluate him as a person and distance myself from him. Defending the wrongdoings of your “friends” against your own conscience is what’s wrong with this world.

          • UKF1rules said on 1st March 2013, 9:00

            you are reading into it too far, for most people – it was just hamilton being a coward – that is the most likely thing that happened, as we all know hamiltons personality by now.

        • MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 2nd March 2013, 6:58

          @aficion and @UKF1rules It’s a pretty clear concept, if Sutil was a real friend since it works both ways it doesn’t all fall on Hamilton’s shoulders as you people would suggest… Rather, if Sutil was a real friend he wouldn’t put Hamilton in a compromising situation when evidence points to Sutil being guilty, and just manned up to his charges instead of being asinine. Sutil wanted an out and thought his friend Hamilton would bail him out by saying otherwise, but Hamilton knew better than to tarnish his reputation at the expense of a bad friend.

          I would and have done the same thing, when my friends do something stupid and want me to bail them out at my expense, I don’t indulge their selfish ways, and I find those who side with Sutil morally inept.

      • Beto (@chebeto0) said on 1st March 2013, 10:04

        haha no, that’s actually what friends do for each other. You put your hands on the fire for a friend and he would do the same for you. The real question here is: did Hamilton consider Sutil a friend, or just someone he meets casually at every race? I think it is really the second one.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:00

        Well, being officially called to testify, but getting out of that stating other things to do really does not sound much like somehting a friend would do. Especially after the guy throwing the party was Hamilton.

        I am sure the team, and his management would have objected, but still. From all that has been said and written, its clear that Hamilton could have confirmed the amount of acidic comments apparently made by Lux towards Sutil, that was why his defence insisted on calling him as a witness.

        • surya (@suryafb) said on 1st March 2013, 13:24

          +1

          exactly the incident was b/w Lewis Sutil and Lux …. we cant say what was the circumstace and conclude he was wrong … i think there was something from erics view that made adrian do that and in the CCTV we don’t get to hear the conversation and only video goes …by video adrian is wrong …….but as Lewis was one of the witness or by stander near the conviction spot he could have said about the conversation and that s what sutil wanted i think…………………….the main reason Lewis leaving Mclaren would be this kind of restrictions

    • firstLapNutcaseGrosjean (@) said on 1st March 2013, 0:34

      And to say what, at the trial? “Yes, Judge, that guy over there did it!” Or, to lie for his friend? What did you do? Oh, stop…I don’t care.

    • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 1st March 2013, 0:45

      Indeed – perhaps Hamilton felt that Sutil revealed himself by glassing someone in the neck?

      • Tyler (@tdog) said on 1st March 2013, 0:59

        And that’s fine. If Lewis saw what happened, and thought “I don’t want to be around this person any more” ok, just say so.

        But don’t originally say you that will testify, then develop a “scheduling conflict”, go to ground, remain uncontactable, and after the event claim you have tried to “email” your friend to repair things, and have “prayed” for him to return to F1.

        It all just smells like BS.

        It also reminds me of the twitter incident last year with Jenson. He thinks that Button unfollowed him up on twitter, and rather than speaking to his team mate face to face like a man, he just gives him a spray on social media.

        Spot a character flaw yet?

        • Zahir (@zahir) said on 1st March 2013, 2:18

          It just sounds like another chance to Hamilton bash to me. To think Hamilton should come out and ‘just say so’ is a very naive way to look at it. Firstly its a court case so saying anything to the worlds media is probably against any legal advice he was given. Also if you factor in both the team and sponsors, he was probably told what to do rather than decide himself.

          The fact is so much went on behind closed doors that is unknown to us that its stupid to jump to conclusions about how Hamilton should have conducted himself. Plus its much easier to look back with hindsight and say what he should or shouldn’t have done.

          What makes me laugh though is Sutil is found guilty of stabbing someone and yet Hamilton has come out of this with the character flaw? Its amazing the conclusions you can reach with a bit of bias in your thinking.

          • MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 2nd March 2013, 7:03

            @zahir sounds like people just want another reason to hate on Hamilton and act as if they have all the facts.

            @tdog it’s quite ironic that you call Hamilton the one with a character flaw, but the one caught on camera stabbing someone due to mean comments isn’t flawed at all, your world perspective is amazingly skew.

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 1st March 2013, 0:46

      “He wasn’t the friend I thought he was” moans the prisoner wondering where his fair-weather friends have gone.

      “He wasn’t the person I thought he was, he’s a stabbing lunatic” thinks the ex-friend and stays away.

      I’m with the ex-friend on this one…

      • Mike (@mike) said on 1st March 2013, 2:21

        Of course this is presuming that you know exactly what, when and how the situation occurred.

        Which we don’t.

      • Ritesh (@rits) said on 1st March 2013, 8:42

        So you were there and saw what exactly happened? One F1 journalist present there said it looked more like an accident in the heat of the verbal fight. Stabbing lunatic? If he was that, he wouldn’t be out in public. And prisoner? He never went to prison. Its was a suspended sentence. So, calm your horses down man!

      • UKF1rules said on 1st March 2013, 9:03

        the ex-friend who says he prayed for Sutils return?

        • pSynrg (@psynrg) said on 1st March 2013, 19:53

          So you do something wrong and one of your mates was with you but they didn’t do anything wrong.
          What kind of a friend are you to expect your innocent friend (or friends) should also be punished for something you did?
          No, you try your damnedest to make sure your friends are NOT implicated in any way.
          This notion of ‘doing time together’ simply because you’re mates is absurd. You protect your friends and you don’t drag them into your own mess.

    • Let’s look back on what Sutil said about Hamilton at the time; I thought it had some good dramatic flair:

      “Lewis is a coward. I do not want to be friends with someone like that, … For me he is not a man. Even his father sent me a text message to wish me good luck in the trial. He (Lewis) changed his cellphone number. I could not even reach him anymore.”

      But seriously — those of you who think Sutil is a hardened criminal because of what happened, there is potentially another side to the story:

      CCTV footage viewed by SPEED.com last year showed Sutil sitting next to Hamilton, with Lux standing over them, and a discussion apparently taking place.

      Lux then suddenly grabbed Sutil’s left arm and tried to pull him out of the chair, and it was while Sutil tried to defend himself and push Lux away with his free right hand – in which he was still holding a glass – that the injury occurred.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 1st March 2013, 2:23

        I think a lot of people are already firmly in the, “Sutil is a heathen” corner. -.-

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:04

        thanks @aka_robyn for the comment. It really seems that being convicted of something now makes people evil to the bone nowadays.

        I no way do I think its ok to lose control when being drunk, but as the judge gave a suspended sentence for this unfortunate incident, its pretty sure that deeming him a “dangerous lunatic” is very wide off the mark

    • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 1st March 2013, 7:10

      Let’s say I have a friend. Maybe even a good friend. Then one day I see him slash open somebody’s throat, and then he expects me to testify in his favour. Now, what if I think, that he knew what he was doing? My perspective might be wrong, but what if I can’t help him without lying? Should I go to the trial and testify against my conscience? Should I go and tell the truth? Or is it best to stay out of it? It’s easy to judge Hamilton as a “bad friend” without knowing what really happened that night.

      • phildick (@phildick) said on 1st March 2013, 9:42

        I don’t think “staying out” is an option. If someone is a witness of a serious incident I expect him/her to testify. For me it’s a question of morality – no more, no less.

        And who said what was Sutil expecting from Hamilton to testify? Why do you assume that he was expected to testify in Sutil’s favour? I would expect him to tell the truth. But stop – that could hurt his corporate cool gangsta boy image ;)

      • DVC (@dvc) said on 1st March 2013, 9:53

        I know it’s for the discussions on morality that I come to F1Fanatic.

      • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 1st March 2013, 10:03

        I’m sure Sutil wasn’t expecting Hamilton to lie in court (that would be a serious offend). Why couldn’t he just go there and express his view of the event? It seems that he wasn’t fully comfortable with the decision as he felt the need of being secretive like this…

      • caci-99 said on 1st March 2013, 12:37

        By not going and saying the truth, you are still a liar.

    • Jason (@jason12) said on 1st March 2013, 8:20

      Maybe Sutil was in the wrong and Lewis was protecting him by not testifying.
      Anyway who cares?

    • coefficient (@coefficient) said on 1st March 2013, 9:30

      Yeah, I’d think long and hard about whether to continue to associate with the very best of my friends if they’d stabbed someone in the neck with a champagne flute stem.

    • nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 1st March 2013, 9:30

      Well I use to have a friend that was always making troubles where ever he goes. He isn’t my friend anymore because I was so fed up of getting in to a trouble because of him. Am I a bad friend? I don’t give a damn about some one who is ego maniac and think’s only about him self. Sutil for sure made a mistake as he admits himself so I see no reason why would anyone else make a sacrifice about it.

      • Klaas (@klaas) said on 1st March 2013, 14:14

        Did you tell your ex-friend the reason why you didn’t want to be friends anymore or did you simply change your phone number, tried to hide from him and later sent him e-mails?
        I think this conflict is more about Sutil and his lawyer trying to build a defense for the trial. In such case it’s very important to know on which witnesses one can count. From what he says, Adrian seems to be more upset by the fact that Lewis instead of giving him a straight answer on the matter (be it positive or negative), prefered to make a Houdini.
        I think the idea of Sutil asking Ham to lie to the court is out of the question. It would be stupid from Adrian to criticize Lewis in the media if he knew that the latter could respond: “The guy asked me to lie in court for him, what was I supposed to do?”

        • nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 1st March 2013, 16:16

          Well the relationship with my ex-friend ended when he tried to be aggressive with as well :). However, maybe Lewis wanted to help him in the first place but then decided to mind his own business. It’s their problem anyway.

        • nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 1st March 2013, 16:20

          And I hide or changed my phone number I just punched him on the nose as he was making problem at my home while my wife was pregnant. Don’t make assumptions that I was a “chicken” another time, cause you don’t know me as I don’t know you either ;)

          • Klaas (@klaas) said on 1st March 2013, 18:33

            @nidzovski I think it’s obvious for any person who developed abstract thought (who is more than 10 years old, that is) that I didn’t assume anything about you being a ‘chicken’ but merely making a reference to Hamilton’s behaviour.

        • nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 1st March 2013, 18:52

          @klaas
          My bad about your adstract thought as I hate agresive ******** and I was focused at that. I’m Nikola and I’m 36, nice to meet you :)

      • pSynrg (@psynrg) said on 1st March 2013, 19:54

        So you do something wrong and one of your mates was with you but they didn’t do anything wrong.
        What kind of a friend are you to expect your innocent friend (or friends) should also be punished for something you did?
        No, you try your damnedest to make sure your friends are NOT implicated in any way.
        This notion of ‘doing time together’ simply because you’re mates is absurd. You protect your friends and you don’t drag them into your own mess.

  2. firstLapNutcaseGrosjean (@) said on 1st March 2013, 0:21

    I hope that, what Sutil said, will not be a another reason to start saying, about Hamilton, bad things, again Ok, he ‘choosed the money instead of performeance’, but now what it will be? ‘he choosed not to go to trial instead of going there’? or about friendship? or, what bad person, Hamilton is?

  3. Dane. (@dane-1) said on 1st March 2013, 0:40

    There’s a saying: A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend will be sitting next to you in there :)
    When Hamilton & Sutil meet, im sure they will be all smiles in front of the cameras.

    • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 1st March 2013, 0:50

      And why on Earth could Hamilton go to jail with Sutil, if Hamilton didn’t do anything? So should he take the blame “for being a good friend” and even when there were other witnesses there confirming it was Sutil in the wrangle?

      • celeste (@celeste) said on 1st March 2013, 1:57

        @omarr-pepper If I understand correctly Sutil didn´t ask for Hamilton for anything but to say the true in the trial.

        The argument that Sutil gave was that things weren´t as bad as they were painted, and with out a witness to back him up, it became Sutil words againts the other party (the guy he have a fight to and his friends/companions).

        If Hamilton decided not to testified thats his perrogative, but he changed his phone number, moved away and didn´t gave them the new direction, didn´t answer emails, didn´t answer phone calls from Sutil and his father. That´s what in my book made him a bad friend, even a bad person.

        • John H (@john-h) said on 1st March 2013, 10:00

          That´s what in my book made him a bad friend, even a bad person.

          Seriously, can we really make statements like this? Do we really know the full story by typing on our keyboards & checking F1Fanatic from time to time?

    • MONEYR (@moneyr) said on 1st March 2013, 0:57

      This is nonesense. These guys worked their whole life to get into F1. You can’t even THINK about Lewis risking his F1 carreer.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 1st March 2013, 2:25

        If they were mates, then I would expect him to risk it.

        • The Next Pope said on 1st March 2013, 5:16

          In my opinion NO, nobody would. Lewis, at the time in a team like McLaren, would have probably been advised to ‘walk away’.
          If you think Hamilton should have risked it, Sutil should have tried to understand why he didn’t.

          • UKF1rules said on 1st March 2013, 9:11

            which he would if hamilton acted like a friend and had communicated to Sutil that he cant help :P

            There is no way hamilton would have risked his career

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 2:37

        You can’t even THINK about Lewis risking his F1 carreer.

        It’s strange that you think it is beyond reproach for Hamilton to risk his future in Formula 1 by possibly perjuring himself for the sake of a friend, but you have no problems with Sutil having risked his career by doing something foolish, like assaulting someone and causing grievous bodily harm.

        • Tyler (@tdog) said on 1st March 2013, 2:59

          Hamilton to risk his future in Formula 1 by possibly perjuring himself for the sake of a friend

          Who says that Hamilton had to perjur himself?

          Sutil claimed, so I understand, that he was provoked and that he was trying to defend himself, with any injury unintended. Not surprisingly, it was considered that the person sitting next to Sutil during the event would be able to give evidence relevant to those defences.

          No lawyer worth his salt (I am a litigation lawyer, so I know a thing or two about this) calls a witness without first knowing what they are going to say. Sutil’s lawyers would have taken a proof of evidence from Hamilton well prior to the trial.

          Their expectation that Hamilton was going to give evidence, and Sutil’s reaction when he didn’t, is consistent with Hamilton having told them things prior to the trial that assisted Sutil’s defence, but then deciding that getting involved was just all too much trouble.

          You can’t compel the defence to call any particular witness. If Hamilton had told Sutil’s lawyers things in conference which did not assist Sutil (e.g. you just smashed the glass into Lux unprovoked) he would have been told thank you very much, no need to trouble you any further.

          And, if Hamilton saw an unprovoked assault, didn’t he owe it to the victim to give evidence about that? Surely anyone who witnesses an alleged crime has a moral duty to give evidence about it, whatever they saw?

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 1st March 2013, 3:18

            Nice post…

          • Ritesh (@rits) said on 1st March 2013, 8:55

            Well said. Someone has some sense and a thinking head rather than all those drones out here going.. “bleh.. he cut someone’s throat.. bleh.. he was sentenced.. bleh he’s a criminal”.
            I’ve personally been through something very similar when a friend of mine was wrongly accused of trying to run over someone and I was in the car with him. The accidental victim (who happened to be a professional rival of my friend) just tried to make it look like a pre-meditated attempt to injure him and it was my testimony that saved my friend from being wrongly sentenced. Btw, I had a visa interview coming up for my higher studies in the UK and I could’ve distanced myself from the whole court thing (courts & law in India, you can imagine) keeping my future in mind. But it was a testimony I owed my friend or anybody innocent and I would’ve forever lived n guilt if I walked away from it. I’m not trying to imply Hamilton did this, as I have no idea what actually happened and what was the reason behind him not appearing for a testimony, I’m just citing a real life example of how important a single testimony could be.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:08

            Well said @tdog

          • Asanator (@asanator) said on 1st March 2013, 16:51

            I don’t understand this nonsense impression people have that Hamilton testifying would have risked his F1 career? It’s not like he was accused of anything!

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 8:15

          So explain to me why @moneyr is under the impression that Hamilton would have been putting his career in jeopardy? dane-1′s original comment suggested that if Hamilton was a true friend of Sutil, he’d be in the prison cell with Sutil instead of bailing him out or testifying on his behalf. Since Hamilton wasn’t charged with anything to begin with, the only way he could have gotten himself locked up would have been by committing perjury.

    • coefficient (@coefficient) said on 1st March 2013, 9:35

      It may be a saying but its a ridiculous one!! Its probably very simple all this. Lewis probably thought Adrian was a complete idiot for assaulting the Lotus guy with a Champagne Flute causing injury and refused to condone such actions by defending him. Quite right too!

    • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 1st March 2013, 10:14

      I’m pretty sure @dane-1 was joking with the saying he quoted, why y’all taking it so seriously?

  4. Mallesh Magdum (@malleshmagdum) said on 1st March 2013, 0:57

    My post made it to the COTD :) The 3rd time i hv been mentioned on F1F

  5. Mallesh Magdum (@malleshmagdum) said on 1st March 2013, 1:00

    Speaking on the HAM-SUT issue, apparently Sutil didnt do it on purpose. So in my view HAM should have gone to court to testify the truth.

  6. D (@f190) said on 1st March 2013, 1:08

    I fail to see what Hamilton did wrong. His friend stabbed someone, what could he say to defend this. All he could do to help Sutil would be to lie, being a sporting icon this could ruin his career. Hes taken bad advice and lied before ( Australia GP 2009 ) which almost broke the guy, why would he do that again ? At the end of the day Sutil did wrong, Hamilton chose to keep well clear of the situation, a situation he couldn’t really help with.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 1:19

      I fail to see what Hamilton did wrong. His friend stabbed someone, what could he say to defend this. All he could do to help Sutil would be to lie, being a sporting icon this could ruin his career.

      It has been speculated that Sutil was drunk at the time of the attack, and was provoked by Eric Lux (who was also apparently drunk). I’ve heard – though can’t confirm – that Lux had been mocking Sutil, particularly on the subject of his success with women. It’s possible that Hamilton could have testified about this, which might have gone some way towards influencing the judge when it came to sentencing.

      • Mallesh Magdum (@malleshmagdum) said on 1st March 2013, 2:28

        @prisoner-monkeys agree. This what i said in my comment above

      • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 1st March 2013, 2:59

        Lux had been mocking Sutil, particularly on the subject of his success with women.

        More specifically, he allegedly said that not only did Sutil enjoy inadequate success with sub-par women, but that he (Lux) was surprised that he (Sutil) had not succeeded in bringing Pfizer into F1 as a sponsor (ostensibly b/c of Sutil’s need – implied by Lux – for Viagra in order to poach said sub-par snapper).

      • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 1st March 2013, 10:10

        Well, when I met him at Flanagan’s in Majorca, he had the hottest girl in the restaurant on his arm, which would lead me to the opposite opinion!

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 11:36

          That doesn’t really have anything to do with … well, anything. Whether or not Sutil was successful with women is beside the point – the point is that someone was reportedly mocking him about his success, and that that was supposedly enough to set him off.

    • Klaas de Vries said on 1st March 2013, 13:19

      I don’t think Sutil was being so naive as to think for a second that Hamilton would lie for him in court – for God’s sake he wasn’t being trialed in a 3rd world country and Lewis was risking way too much if he dared to give false evidence. So most probably he asked Lewis as a friend to tell his side of the story as it happened. If Ham’s story would have been more incriminating for Adrian, he would never had called him. But I guess Lewis had been adviced that his image would suffer if he associated himself with a man who injured another (and the circumstances didn’t count too much). Thus Ham chose to defend his marketing values than his human ones. In the end Adrian seems to be more ****** by the fact that Lewis never gave him a straight answer over the matter but instead tried to do anything to hide from him.

  7. With PURE enterprises now seemingly a big fail I wonder who will step in to provide engines in 2014. Realistically its between Ferrari and Merc due to renault wanting to reduce the number of teams it supplies. I thought the whole point of Cosworth supplying the likes of Caterham, HRT (Au revoir) and Marussia, was due to their ability to provide an engine that is signifcantly less than Merc, Renault and Ferrari. With that being said and the fact that Marussia had get rid of Glock for a pay driver, will Marussia be able to afford the 2014 engines supplied by the other suppliers seing as the units are expected to be sizeably more expensive than the V8′s anyway.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 1:15

      will Marussia be able to afford the 2014 engines supplied by the other suppliers seing as the units are expected to be sizeably more expensive than the V8′s anyway

      That’s why they’re said to be toying with the idea of replacing Luiz Razia with Jules Bianchi – because Bianchi comes with the support of Ferrari, which would get them a discount on engines.

      • I had heard thats what Force India were debating but hadn’t heard rumours about Marussia, and with the failure of funds to appear from the Razia camp, I could actually see this occuring. It would also allow Bianchi to come accustomed to F1 and build his craft without the pressure of the spotlight, it worked for alonso in Minardi. talent nearly almost rises to the top anyway.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 2:13

          It’s also been speculated – with various degrees of reliability – that Vitaly Petrov, Heikki Kovalainen and Narain Karthikeyan are all in contention for the seat. The talk of Kovalainen racing with them seems to be strongest; Petrov only seems to be getting a mention because he is Russian and the team is owned by Russians, whilst Narain Karthikeyan’s name has come up in conjunction with just about every single free seat over the course of the silly season.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 1st March 2013, 2:26

        Bianchi comes with the support of Ferrari, which would get them a discount on engines.

        How do we know that Ferrari would effectively pay to give him a drive?

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 1st March 2013, 2:32

          It’s believed that Force India were considering Bianchi because they could get a Ferrari engine deal out of it. With Marussia expecting that they will need a new engine supplier in 2014, they’d probably chase after Bianchi in the hopes of getting a similar arrangement in place.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:29

        And it seems that maybe is the reason why we see Kovalainen mentioned too.

        Surely McLaren would not be too happy about a Ferrari development driver testing in their simulator, so maybe a deal where McLaren gives incentives to take Heikki (and Mercedes gives a competitive price for the 2014 engines) is pitched against Bianchi with a good Ferrari engine deal in view

  8. Peter_GH said on 1st March 2013, 1:23

    A lot of people have a go at Sutil over the wine glass incident, However do we know for sure that Sutil intentionally & blatantly just stabbed the guy with the wine glass?

    Its true that Sutil was convicted of GBH, However you can still be convicted of GBH even if the court determines the injuries were unintended & inflicted accidentally.

    If the court had believed that Sutil had intentionally tried to stab the guy I can’t help but think he’d have received a more hefty punishment. I also can’t help but think that he would be having visa problems with certain country’s should he have been found to have caused the injury in an intentional act.
    I know people who have been refused entry to Australia for less.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 1st March 2013, 9:27

      A conviction is a conviction in some jurisdictions…

      Hey, that rhymes!

    • Klon (@klon) said on 1st March 2013, 11:43

      However you can still be convicted of GBH even if the court determines the injuries were unintended & inflicted accidentally.

      Not in Germany. “Schwere Körperverletzung” (GBH) always implies that you were at least willing to let injury happen, otherwise he would have been sentenced with “Fahrlässige Körperverletzung” (bodily harm caused by neglience) and would have received a much milder sentence. So at least jurisdical he was proven to either had a intention to hurt or to accept that Lux could have gotten hurt.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:45

        @klon, Am I mistaken when I think that by being drunk and aggressively reacting to provocations when holding a potential weapon in my hand would well qualify me as such?

        he was proven to either had a intention to hurt or to accept that Lux could have gotten hurt.

        I think there are may countries where it would.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:33

      do we know for sure that Sutil intentionally & blatantly just stabbed the guy with the wine glass?

      Thank you for posting that question Peter, it does seem that many people behave as if they do. But from what we actually know, both were in a bar, both were under influence and Lux group had been unhappy about Hamilton and his group being there from the start of the evening. There are also indications that Lux did push a lot to get Sutil angry, even grabbing him by the arm (see this post above ) before Sutil, glass in hand, reacted as he did and ended up slicing Lux’ neck.

  9. Nick.UK (@) said on 1st March 2013, 1:23

    I hope we don’t see any backlash of this on track this year alla’Massa 2011.

  10. Yes . Now especially that hamilton is in the midfield

  11. Victor. (@victor) said on 1st March 2013, 3:58

    I don’t know whether this has been mentioned anywhere but Ted Kravitz claims that there are rumours about Kovalainen taking Razia’s seat if his credit card continues to fail making up for his ability as a driver.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 1st March 2013, 6:28

      Yes: I’ve heard four names for that Marussia seat, which are Bianchi, Karthikeyan, Petrov and Kovalainen. If they were to take Kovalainen, then it would be a temporary solution: I’m afraid they might kick him out after a few races when they have sorted out the Razia situation. But nothing concrete yet.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st March 2013, 12:47

        I’m afraid they might kick him out after a few races

        Not so sure about that @andae23, although its well possible.

        It could be that Mclaren would support them having Heikki in the car with a better deal on the support + simulator use package they have with Marussia. And maybe Mercedes would help with a good engine deal too.

  12. Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 1st March 2013, 4:27

    The only people who know the truth are Sutil and Hamilton. As friends, if Hamilton could have helped Sutil by telling the truth then by all means he should have gone to court and supported his friend.

    The more difficult choice is telling the truth when you know it would hurt your friend and destroy your friendship. In this case, I think Sutil was punished plenty.

  13. Cosmas (@cosmas) said on 1st March 2013, 5:27

    What goes around comes around.
    Its not only the absence of Lewis in the court that is reprehensible but mostly the way he avoided to be there. Even worse for Lewis , that in his case it supposed to be, standing by your friend not simply helping some acquainted.
    How knows ……maybe some day Lewis will be in the court waiting for a friend’s help. If this ever happen i can’t imagine which friend will come up.

  14. Deepak (@ideepak) said on 1st March 2013, 5:48

    This has been blown out of proportion, both will be fine and will get along jolly well off track after Melbourne.

    If anything their on track rivalry will be even more fun to watchfor spectators !

  15. OOliver said on 1st March 2013, 7:37

    I thought it was Mclaren that decides were their driver can go or not go. Their corporate sponsors will not like to see their driver invloved in any case where the media can distort the story, such as, ” Hamilton appears in court over near fatal stabbing of rival team member”. Some employers don’t even give employees the opportunity to attend a PTA meeting.

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.