Belgian GP 2008

[modbaraban]

This is a pretty shameful episode in F1 really. The fact that the ruling nots/explanation weren't released immediately shows it. Anything they come up with now will really be written by the group, with advisers trying to justify it after-the-fact.

R

[casper]

Here's a rejoinder from Pete Gill of Planet-f1 regarding the technical merits of the penalty.

Either Lewis Hamilton was punished for leaving the racetrack or he was punished for gaining an advantage when he did so. The stewards have got themselves into a muddle for claiming it was both...

The three race stewards who imposed a 25-second race penalty against Lewis Hamilton have raised more questions than answers - and possibly erred in legal judgement - in declaring that they punished the McLaren driver for leaving the racetrack by describing it as 'fact' that he gained an advantage when cutting the chicane.

Refusing to publicly explain their decision, the three stewards - Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelain - instead opted to announce their ruling in a press release through the FIA.

Short on words, the statement, which began by confirming that the 'Stewards determine a breach of the regulations has been committed', listed as 'Fact' that Hamilton 'Cut the chicane and gained an advantage' and specified as 'Offence' the 'Breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.'

While post-race debate focused almost exclusively on whether Hamilton had gained an advantage when he cut the chicane and if he then surrendered it, the 'offence' for which the stewards declared he had been punished made the issue totally irrelevant.

Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations' makes no mention of whether an advantage had been gained and instead states that 'During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits'. The near-identical Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code adds that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race'.

In other words, Hamilton was purely and simply punished for leaving the racetrack when he cut the chicane.

Such a vague and all-encompassing stipulation in the rulebook gives the stewards considerable latitude. In effect, it allows them to punish any and every driver in the field on every occasion they leave the tarmac. However, given that Hamilton was far from being alone in leaving the race track on Sunday then their decision to focus exclusively on the McLaren driver's whereabouts is bound, once again, to prompt talk of bias and witch-hunts.

Were the stewards to have been inclined to maintain a consistent line then they would, for instance, have had to punish Kimi Raikkonen for leaving the racetrack at the Pouhon corner as he strived to retake the lead. Likewise, Nico Rosberg, with whom both Hamilton and Raikkonen nearly crashed before the Finn temporarily regained the lead of the race as he overtook both cars under a yellow flag, should, if the stewards' application of the rules was consistent, have suffered an identical punishment to Hamilton for sliding off the track and on to the grass.

Technically, as the team cannot dispute that Hamilton left the racetrack, the citation of Articles 30.3 (a) and chapter 4 Article 2 (g) leave McLaren with no room for manoeuvre or appeal.

However, their legal team is instead bound to focus upon the line in the stewards' ruling that reads 'Fact - Cut the chicane and gained an advantage'. In fact, the question of whether Hamilton gained an advantage remains a matter of dispute rather than 'fact' - the only 'fact' is that it is the stewards' opinion that Hamilton gained an advantage. By claiming otherwise, and seemingly basing their right to impose a penalty upon their claimed 'fact', the stewards may have made an error that will enable McLaren to contest their ruling.

For while McLaren cannot argue against the fact that Hamilton left the track, they can argue against the assertion that it is a fact he gained an advantage and the rights of the stewards to claim it is a fact and act accordingly. Were the stewards to be found wrong in doing so then the legitimacy - as well as the accuracy - of their ruling would then have to be called into fresh question.

[casper]

The qualifications of the three (stooges), I mean stewards. Constrast this to Charlie Whiting and Nikki Lauda's statement that Lewis's actions were correct and should not be penalized.

The stewards who imposed a retrospective 25-second penalty against Lewis Hamilton two hours after he finished the Belgian GP in first place have been identified as Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelaine.

Of the three, Deschaux is arguably the most well known figure, albeit despite apparently having no experience of being a racing driver. The 37-year-old has spent his professional career in administration, and was appointed the President of the French Motorsport Federation last year after previously holding the position of legal director, executive vice president, and then general secretary within the body. It was Deschaux who announced earlier this year that the French GP had been given a reprieve and would remain at Magny-Cours for at least another year.

Thatthi is the chairman of the Confederation of African Countries in Motorsports who has only previously leapt to prominence when it was revealed that he had expressed formal concern about the long hair and scruffy look of four-time world rally champion Sebastien Loeb in May.

In an email to Morrie Chandler, the president of the World Rally Championship, that was leaked to Reuters, Thatthi complained: "I watched the WRC Mexico highlights last night and I have to voice my opinion on the poor appearance of Sebastien Loeb on WRC-TV".

"He was unshaven, scruffy looking and with unkempt hair! It is wrong....when the FIA gives him global TV coverage to millions of viewers and to many children worldwide he is a hero and role model.

"I know there is a level of personal freedom one is allowed but I feel he is taking this too far and someone should talk to him or his team about this."

Bacquelaine, meanwhile, is the chairman of 'Societe de Promotion du circuit de Spa-Francorchamps' - a position that apparently confers on him the position of race steward.

[Rob W]

"I watched the WRC Mexico highlights last night and I have to voice my opinion on the poor appearance of Sebastien Loeb on WRC-TV"....

"I know there is a level of personal freedom one is allowed but I feel he is taking this too far and someone should talk to him or his team about this."

This just in..

Driver: S. Loeb.
Fact: Hair unkempt.
Ruling: Breach of Aricle 422a: Failure to driver maintain appropriate hairstyle.
Penalty: Ten point deduction from the driver's WRC points.



R

[axle]

Now what do we have here? A Ferrari cutting a chicane vs. a McLaren...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM[/youtube]

Have a guess what action was taken...

Quite CLEARLY and advantage was gained here as MS kept the lead.

[Rob W]

Yeah, as I said. They didn't exactly explain it well to avoid the ten of thousands of annoyed fans who might otherwise have seen their point. (Nor the top industry analysts like the ones who will no doubt speak out in the coming days.)

Right or not, I can't see many people in motorsport not seeing this as another event of FIA meddling.

R

[smithmd4]

As an F1 fan, I didn't agree with the penalty resulting in what I witnessed in my extreme AM grogginess in the US. It was a marginal call I thought, and when it's that close, let 'em play.

As a Ferrari fan, I was screaming at Kimi to turn into Lewis so Flip would take the WDC lead!

The bit people are arguing about which confuses me is the Charlie Whiting thing. Where is it documented that Maca checked with Charlie with confirm Lewis paid back the spot? If only the sporting director can refer an incident to the stewards, someone is full of it. And from what I've seen, it's the stewards who are mildly retarded while Charlie's rulings seem to be respected as fair even if they aren't agreed with.

[Crabbia]

Now what do we have here? A Ferrari cutting a chicane vs. a McLaren...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5UnPeyzcHM[/youtube]

Have a guess what action was taken...

Quite CLEARLY and advantage was gained here as MS kept the lead.

not quite the same situation, MS was out on inters (which were significantly worn) and De la Rosa was out on slicks, so he was obviously quicker and subsequent to the end of this clip DLR passed MS. MS was just trying to hold him up, naughty but not the same thing that happened this sunday. please check your posts for relevance in future.

i'm not saying i agree with the stewards on this one. on the face of it he did get alot of drive going off the track, (you can see him avoiding the grass and staying on the tar when he's off) but its a very marginal call.

That being said as a ferrari fan my only argument would be he was impatient. he was clearly quicker. As such he didnt have to take him on the next corner, he could have waited, which i think that is what the other 21 drivers would have done. maybe just a little inexperience showing through.

[axle]

Don't tell me to check relevancy when you're ignoring it...

MS gained an advantage from cutting the chicane, in this case he defended his lead by doing it. That's the relevancy, because the stewards did NOT penalise him being even more blatent.

[myurr]

not quite the same situation, MS was out on inters (which were significantly worn) and De la Rosa was out on slicks, so he was obviously quicker and subsequent to the end of this clip DLR passed MS. MS was just trying to hold him up, naughty but not the same thing that happened this sunday. please check your posts for relevance in future.

i'm not saying i agree with the stewards on this one. on the face of it he did get alot of drive going off the track, (you can see him avoiding the grass and staying on the tar when he's off) but its a very marginal call.

That being said as a ferrari fan my only argument would be he was impatient. he was clearly quicker. As such he didnt have to take him on the next corner, he could have waited, which i think that is what the other 21 drivers would have done. maybe just a little inexperience showing through.

If anything the MS situation is far worse as there is no question that he gained an advantage, yet Lewis is the one who is punished. And if the previous posters text is correct that Lewis was punished purely because he left the circuit full stop, then that makes it the most ridiculous and wrong ruling in the history of the sport.

[Crabbia]

Don't tell me to check relevancy when you're ignoring it...

MS gained an advantage from cutting the chicane, in this case he defended his lead by doing it. That's the relevancy, because the stewards did NOT penalise him being even more blatent.

yes, from your 30 second clip he gained and advantage, but what happened in the next corner? DLR was much faster. find a clip of the same thing only longer and then argue. You'll see DLR took him in subsequent to the end of your little clip. so there was no real advantage gained. also that weekend was a weekend frought with penalties and MS himself had a grid penalty. as i said. not the same, not relevant. i notice you didnt have any arguement about the tire difference. where you ignoring that? dont get upset, just do your research bud before you post.

[axle]

OMG....

What happens in the next corner....MS defends strongly again, this time legally but very very strongly.

The point is that the advantage is gained the MOMENT he comes back on track from the chicane and DOESN'T give up his place. The next corners don't matter, cutting the chicane was the only way he could have kept the lead at that point, so an advantage was gained that is against the sporting code, yet goes unpunished.

If what happened later on mattered the stewards would have not given Lewis his penalty as Kimi gets the lead back....

It's 100% double standards.

[Crabbia]

MS didnt finish that race. That event occured 3 laps before his track rod broke so he didnt finish. thats why no action was taken. unless you want him to be docked points.

If you dont wanna see that its irrelevant i'll argue with you on your shameless lack of facts in your post. i can also go dig up little u tube clips and pollute an otherwise decent argument. keep it to the point please.

[myurr]

Okay okay, whatever. I think it's relevant, but it's not terribly important.

As it now appears that Lewis was punished not because his leaving the track gave him an advantage over Kimi, but purely because he left the track - do you still think this is a fair judgment?

Should this be the case, obviously.

[Crabbia]

No. I think legally can be argued but the fans dont need that crap. The FIA is up its own arse and they're forgetting the fans want to get back to the gladatorial days of Senna and prost, and they talk of the spectacle of formula 1 but they're missing a big opertunity in LH to get that back. No1 can argue that he has the strongest will to win in F1 and he's got the big brass ones to back it up.
Sorry i'm ranting a bit.
to sum up:
I think legally they have a point because in leaving the track he did gain an advantage.
I think he did enought to mitigate that advantage even if he did recieve one.
So they should have left it.
i was watching it with no commentary so in my little bubble i saw nothing wrong withn it at all.
And truth be told if they pulled that call on a ferrari i would sh*t a chicken.