OT Hamilton appeal dismissed

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/ica/ica08/Pages/ica_230908.aspx

Inadmissable.

 

What a surprise.

--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250

 

it's *so* not *fair*

 

"Is it because F1 is run by Nazis?"

 

<spits green tea>

 

Bunch of cunts.
The decision was flawed in the first place and that's it, no comeback at
all. Arrogant twats.

I really hope Hamilton can scrape through to a season victory in spite
of this. What a fucker if he's denied the title because of some utter
wankers who made a totally arse-headed call.

<sharpens up steward-skinning knife>
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

 

<shrug> If McLaren had won this appeal, then Hamilton had gone on to win
the championship by a small enough margin that it actually mattered, it
would be forever questioned by the Ferrari fans and those with dodgier
motives. As it sits, if he wins the championship, he wins it cleanly.

 

If he'd been driving a Ferrari though.... cunts.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Well, there's a direct comparison here with the football referee who
called a goal (on the advice/insistence of his linesman) although the
ball had passed outside the goalpost without crossing the line. Once
they'd restarted the game, that was that. No way back, no replay, no
chance of removing the goal - once an official makes a decision,
that's it.

Even more to the point, in motorsport, stewards and other officials
responsible for making decisions are appointed as "Judge Of Fact".
Just like the Pope, once a decree is handed down, it becomes a matter
of fact and thus cannot be brought into question. Whether that
official ever gets the chance to **** up again in that capacity is
another matter, but as far as the event or issue goes, once the
decision has been made it is set in stone.

 

You're quite right. Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the original
rulings, it would have established very dangerous precedent if this
appeal had been allowed.

And I think that many of Lewis's fans are ignoring the very real
possibility that he did in fact gain an advantage from the manouever.
I count myself a fan, and of course I'd have liked the penalty
removed, but I think it's fair to say that he would have found it very
difficult to get as close as he did, where he did, to Raikonen to
enable the overtake to happen.

Not saying I agree with the stewards, but as he made the move the
thought went through my mind that he hadn't backed off enough, and
clearly it also did through the minds of his crew, who then raised the
question with Charlie Whiting as a result. If they were so sure about
it they wouldn't have needed to ask.

TBH I think both he and his crew made a mistake - he should have
waited until after the next corner before lining Raikonnen up; his
crew should have told him to let him past again, just in case.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

And now they all know exactly where they are. They have to get round
another corner once they've sorted the running order out. That way
any advantage that may have been unfairly gained has been totally
wiped out. FFS, at the rate young Hamilton catches other drivers, it
is only a matter of a couple of corners before he has enough speed
advantage to whip past 'em.

It was unfortunate that it had to happen, doubly so in the way it
happened, but now the playing field has been re-levelled (until the
next time) and that possibility for error has been eliminated (until
the next time).

 

You can speculate as much as you like. As Ace has pointed out, Hamilton
breached the rules and received a penalty. Next...

 

But in this case , the appeal verdict actually doesn't say that he broke any
rules or not.

At the time of the race the stewards decided he had and imposed a penalty ,
and McLaren appealed.
The appeal was dismissed because of a rule that says appeals aren't allowed
where they concern drive through penalties , so they didn't actually
consider or rule on whether he did anything wrong.

--
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

 

There was no verdict as there was no case to consider.

Quite correctly as laid out in the rules[1]

As you say, the appeal panel has no jurisdiction to consider Hamilton's
beef.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Hamilton was
*legitimately* penalised for breaking a rule. He and his team need to
wind in their necks and get on with racing.

Perhaps Hamilton & co. need to take a leaf out of Rossi's book. He got
penalised after his team swept his grid position. He was relegated to
the back of the grid, IIRC, and went on to win the race. I don't
remember any bitching in the press over the matter.


[1] i.e. the rules McClaren subscribed to when entering the competition

 

Which rule is this?

Again, which rule did he break, & if the ultra experienced race
director didn't even know a rule had been broken, how is a rookie
driver meant to know?

The fuss is more about the very real bias though. Everyone saw Kimi
overtake under waved yellow flags & not get so much as a ticking off.
Same race, same stewards, within a lap or two of Hamilton's penalty.

--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250

 

@mid.individual.net:

Rightly or wrongly, I'm basing my opinion on comments made by Martin
Brundle. In his review of the situation, at the beginning of the next race,
he opined that the ruling had always existed. He stated that the drivers
had just received a briefing to remind them of this rule. He further opined
that Hamilton would not get any sympathy for his situation and implied that
he should simply STFU.

More quotes here, including a view on the context of the race director's
misinformed and out of turn comments:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7611152.stm

 

The 'not gain an advantage' rule always existed, & being somewhat
wooly, was always interpreted as 'hand the place back if you pass'. The
'hand the place back, & don't try to pass again until after the next
corner' rule was created following Spa.

So whether Hamilton broke the original rule is very open to debate, as
he simply did what drivers have always done, & handed the place back.
Well drivers other than Schuey that is, who did the same thing, didn't
hand the place back, & didn't get penalised. Unsurprisingly he was in a
Ferrari at the time.

He said he wouldn't get any sympathy from the other drivers, which is
hardly surprising. Ex drivers otoh have almost exclusively come out on
Hamilton's side - even ex Ferrari drivers.


--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds

'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250

 

An arse of the first order.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"It's a moron working with power tools.
How much more suspenseful can you get?"
- House

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Bear

Sorry? You are surely not suggesting that the FIA (chaired by Max
Mosely, son of the former leader of the British Union of Fascists,
Oswald) could be in any way biased against the first black F1 driver, in
such a way as to favour a team based in Italy (a former Axis power)?

Surely not?

 

Build a bridge and get over it.