Belgium 2008 GP - Court of Appeal Thread

[shir0]

Hey, Project Four!...
I'm pretty sure that if you try to read my direct quotes from the Sporting Code you'll find the answer to most of your questions.

But, since I'm already baited - hook, line and sinker ...let me see how I can rephrase myself...

Also, can you explain why the following did not happen then: -

F1 Sporting Regulations

16.4 Should the stewards decide to impose either of the penalties under Article 16.3a) or b), the following procedure will be followed:

a) The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors

So, if I have read this correctly the stewards should have highlighted that the event was suspect and a penalty was going to be imposed during the race then at least Hamilton and McLaren had an opportunity to Raikkonnen re-re-pass him so they wouldn’t have been penalized. Very hard to do this four hours after the race has finished.

Now as generally agreed McLaren contacted the race director to ask clarification that Hamilton had let Raikkonnen re-pass and was this okay. The race director told McLaren twice yes this was okay but as highlighted it was the stewards decision not the race director decision.

My understanding of your question is that "Why did the stewards not inform the race director that they were imposing a penalty on LH during the race". And from what you said, if this had happened, McLaren "could've" told LH to give the place back again. Is this right?

I'm not going to pretend that I know what happened behind the scenes during those last 2 laps of the race in question and immediately before the decision was printed, signed, sealed and delivered...or what conversation transpired between the stewards, the chief of stewards, the race director, the clerk of the course and McLaren.

But what I can do is point out facts of the case as were taken and pointed out as TRUE in the ICA's decision. This is because anything other than what is on that ICA document is moot and open to debate and is considered irrelevant by that document.


Now based on what you said above...

Just reading those highlighted phrases inside the quote box sums it up.

The stewards, through the race director, did give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned. It was even handed to McLaren and signed by them on the day of the GP.

Now you would wonder...why did they come up with the decision for the penalty four hours after the end of the race? Honestly, I do not know. And I would be sure enough that no one here in this forum knows exactly why and can give hard facts to back up that big "why".

But, see, the thing is, I'm also not so sure if the sporting code prescribes a certain amount of time after the end of the race for the stewards to complete an incident investigation and/or to make the decision, print it, sign it and make sure the parties involved receives it. I'm not sure if the sporting code prescribes any time on the application of penalties at all. If you can find one in the regs, I'd appreciate if you can share it here with links to the document.

So as far as I know (I'm grasping straws here...), the stewards are not bound to any time restrictions in investigating incidents and handing out penalties. Again, let me state that I MOST DEFINITELY CAN BE VERY WRONG on this.

What I do know is this:

Article 141: Authority of the stewards of the meeting
-They may amend the classification (see Article 168)

Article 168: Amendment to the classification and Awards
In such cases as are provided for in Article 167, the stewards of the meeting shall declare the resulting amendment in the placings and awards, and they shall decide whether the next competitor should be moved up in the classification.

The stewards CAN amend race classifications. If you would allow me to give my opinion on this, I think this says that stewards are also allowed by the sporting code to hand out classification-affecting penalty decisions.


About the second part of your own Sporting Code quote: "The stewards will give written notification of the penalty which has been imposed to the competitor concerned and will ensure that this information is also displayed on the timing monitors.".

I can only give my opinion on this as I have not seen the timing monitors as seen by all TEAMS, by RACE CONTROL and the STEWARDS.

The matter might already been under investigation during those last two laps...BUT!!!... Even so, does any one here know of any incident investigation by any panel of stewards, on any previously concluded GP, that have been started and completed, less than a LAP's worth in time immediately after the incident? I would prefer just as you would that this would be true. Though, in race situations, wouldn't you think that any panel of stewards would take time to discuss facts before handing out penalties? Most especially for probable controversial ones...?

In the 2008 Belgian GP, the incident happened with only 2 laps to go. That's what? 5 minutes at most for 2 laps of Spa? How long does it take for any panel of stewards to notice (or be given notice of) a possible incident which had just happened and then decide to start an investigation? Frankly, I do not know. And I do not have hard facts about it to make much less defend any position.


About the third part:

2,5 The race director must be in radio contact with the clerk of the course and the chairman of the stewards at all times when cars are permitted to run on the track.

So now I am getting confused, the stewards imposed a penalty on Hamilton after the race had finished, but according to the Sporting Regulations the stewards could / should have notified the competitor that a penalty was going to be imposed either written or on the timing monitors, and McLaren contacted the race director for guidance, and was told yes Hamilton had let Raikonnen repass so yes it is okay, but he wasn’t the one who imposed the penalty, but was in contact with the race stewards (or should have been) who did impose the penalty.

Does any one here have hard proof to the contrary of the quote above? I don't.

MORE IMPORTANTLY, we don't have any publication of the transcripts for any conversation that transpired (if any) between the Race Director, the Clerk of the Course and the Chief of the stewards from the time that the incident happend and the penalty was printed, signed, sealed, delivered. The much publicized "conversation" between Race Control and a McLaren representative was not even printed and included as facts of the case in the published ICA decision.

We can't just deduce that there were no communication that happened between those party mentioned in the previous paragraph.

We can't even say for sure that the the RACE DIRECTOR asked the stewards if the LH move was OK and not a breach of code, then relayed that information to McLaren. We just cant.

THERE ARE NO HARD FACTS. JUST PURE SPECULATION. So, there is no point of contention here.

And it transpires that within their regulations the race director is in contact with not only the clerk of the course but the chairman of stewards as well, so he is ideally positioned to relay all information and decisions to the teams or to ask the clerk of the course or the stewards.

And so he might or might not have been in contact. But as I stated above, we can't contend anything FACTUAL about any transpired conversation between all of the parties involved since we have no real facts about the conversation at all. We can't even say a conversation did or did not take place. Anything outside hard facts (w/c we don't have) are JUST PURE SPECULATION.

Maybe then decisions which affect the outcome of the race will be made during the actual race and not after the race has finished.

Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but the Sporting code does have provisions which allow the outcome of the race to be "made" (more appropriately, amend the classification) after the race has finished.

Which now brings us back to one of my previous posts stating that the teams can have the rules changed...


This exercise really reminds me of of the large,17-mile diameter, "black-hole generator" underneath the Franco-Swiss border. It goes round and round and round then KABOOM! ...then it restarts all over again...

[gcdugas]

I am convinced that shir0 is an FIA shill and that his Acton, Ma address must be fake. Who else but an FIA shill blogger could ever write such volumes of meaningless smoke and mirrors? Here I am giving him credit for doing desperate things for money in tough times. I think that is more charitable than accusing him of madness.

But you are free to choose madness as an option if that is your opinion. I can't see any other option. How else could someone post all that tripe?

[Belatti]

And that´s why LH will win this championship :-"

Divine justice it is called in my town

[Ciro Pabón]

gcdugas, c'mon.

Belatti, I also believe in justice, but in the poetic one, so, there you go.

If Ham thinks that he's the best
why he feels so much unrest?
"Almost champion" people calls him,
he's 20 points over Kim.
Isn't McLaren the car
That in the grid finds no par?

Lewis blames all of the stewards
fans would like to have them skewered
While Lewis has all the advantages
like a child sometimes he manages.

Now he feels threatened by Massa.
Ham would send him to Kinshasa
or further, toward Mombasa
but Felipe works at NASA
because Felipe is a rocket.
We hope Ham loses a sprocket
'cause Hamilton seems a lawyer
and spies bought his employer.

Insult to injury you add
saying that shirO is now mad.
Maybe the old friendly Cyrus
of this forum is a virus!

I confess I'm in FIA's payroll.
To them, I devote my soul:
not a dime from them I see
but I'm paying all my fees.
I'm member in Bogotá
I think they did well at Spa.

You ponder about the fairness
I just want to increase awareness:
at four tracks rang Lewis the chimes
while Massa has won five times
Who deserves WDC?

I just say, let's wait and see.

[gcdugas]

You ponder about the fairness
I just want to increase awareness:
at four tracks rang Lewis the chimes
while Massa has won five times
Who deserves WDC?

I just say, let's wait and see.

I see you are counting the stolen crooked win in Massa's column.

[andartop]

Filthy little Red Hobitses!
Nasty little Red Hobitses!
They tricksed us!
They stole it from us!
Our pur-rrrrr-ecious!

[Ciro Pabón]

I see you are counting the stolen crooked win in Massa's column.

Ok, ok, fair enough, friend. I just checked Wikipedia, you know how they are: Muse-less.

Then, please, change the end as follows. Although the rhyme is a little odd, I find the alliterations excellent... well, you know, in the end we're mere aficionados, technicians and engineers:

...

at four tracks rang Lewis the chimes
while Massa has won four times
not counting into this history
last, sour and disputed victory:
while Belgium's unsatisfactory
an engine was broke at Hungary.
Who deserves WDC?

I just say, let's wait and see.

Andartop: nice one, poet. We should start to work on "The Ballad of Ham and Massa"... Maybe we could ask a musician hanging in this forum to add the melody, because the lyrics are almost done.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Wins are all well and good but wins alone do not a championship make. In 1981 Keke Rosberg won the WDC...after having won only one solitary race that year.

Wins are good, but points mean prizes. Ask Nikki Lauda, his final championship win proves that .

Either way, the season's been a good one, and yes there's been controvasy off the track but THANK GOD its not like last year, that madness could have permanetly damaged our sport. At the end of the day this yea the guy with the most points wins, and franly which ever one does that deserves it this year. (Unless something crazy happens in the next few races changes my mind on that lol!)

I posted in another thread that I'm glad Lewis didn't have his penalty revoked "What?!" you cry, "YOU, are HAPPY that Lewis' penalty still stands?" Well yes, the rules state that a drive thru penalty IS NOT appealable. I didn't like the penalty to begin with BUT I DO what to see consistency in the rules, having the penalty reversed would have done damage the sport's reputation. Two wrongs do not make a right. So, all those time's I've said "I'm not a fanboy" maybe I had a point. I'm not a blind follower of Lewis, I am however a fan of his, and Fernando's and Kimi's...I like to see good racing on the track and I hate penalty that appear unjust in my eyes.

Speaking of the term fanboy has anybody else noticed that said termanology has only been used on this forum within the last year. I've been a member here for over 4years and never noticed it before. And it prelexes me because being a fan is somehow wrong? (I know what it means - a fanboy is somebdy who is a fan of a team or sporting person and blindly follows them regardless of right or wrong etc etc)but its a stupid name, It's now getting to the point where it's being used to describe somebody (lets call him/her Person A) who has strong feelings or an opinion about a driver or team whom person B doesn't like. Person B then says Person A's argument is irrelevent because they are obviously a "fan-boy". Well I'm sorry, but doesn't that just make you out to be clearly less able to debate "You don't agree with me so I'm going to call you a demeening name. " real mature

There are two solutions to this problem I think...
A) When person B calls person A a "Fanboy" person A could retaliate with "Anti-FanBoy" on the basis that person B blindly flames the driver that person A likes e.g P_O_L often flames Mclaren for seemingly no reason. To me thats as bad as these supposed "Fanboys"

OR there's obtion B) We grow up and stop calling eachother names! lol.

Please note I'm not trying to get up high on a pedestal, and I'm not pointing out individuals, this is not an aimed attack at anybody. I just really like coming here to discuss our great sport with you guys and I feel that name calling doesn't have a place here.

respectfully yours,
Spence.