Belgium 2008 GP - Court of Appeal Thread

[gcdugas]

Shir0 could you boil down all that legalese for us simple folk. Just tell me why the Race Director's word is not final. Can the stewards arbitrarily nullify the directives that come out from Race Control during the race?

Suppose that a team was being black flagged by Charlie Whiting during a race and the team blatantly replies back: "We don't care what you say, your word is not final and we are not coming in" and afterward that same car causes a fatality. Their logically sound defense in all this is that they wanted to hear from the stewards whose word is final. Is that your idea of running a race? If so, then why even have a Race Director? All you need is the stewards.

Either Race Control and the Race Director's word is final and binding or the whole thing is a farce. You can throw ten thousand clauses and paragraphs of legalese up as a smoke screen but it still boils down to that.

[andartop]

Yep, it was the same championship when MS won with 6 victories and only 2 points more than KR who won 1 (one) race. You think new points system (imposed by FIA) helped him?
And what about last year when they DQ'd McLaren team but no the drivers?

Thank you timbo, both very good points. How different things might have been if the FIA had not built up this whole conspiracy AGAINST Ferrari in order to HELP McLaren!!! Just think that with the good old points system (when drivers used to have a good motive to actually win the race and not settle for second) LH would have 63 points by now against Massa's 67!!!
And LH would not have been the wunderkind who almost won the WDC in his first year in F1, but a CHEATER who might as well deserve to have his superlicence suspended!!!
There are of course innumerable scenarios one can think of. Imagine Macca and Lewis winning both championships last year and the whole spy-saga coming to light AFTER the end of the championship. What would everybody feel like then?
How much of a difference selective perception makes indeed! If the FIA spoils the fun once in a while with dubious rulings (like in every other sport), there are a whole lot of people in this forum doing it just as well AFTER EVERY SINGLE RACE...

[gcdugas]

The lesson in all this? Dirty politics prevails over honest competition. Now that we all know the rules of engagement, let the games begin!

Pssssst Heikki, crash Filipe Massa out late in the Brazilian race if he is still in contention for the WDC. Make it look like a race accident. Use one of DC's patented "ambitious braking maneuvers" going into a corner or swerve into him during a blue flag when you are being "lapped" after that "damned wheel nut" took so long to get back on in an "emergency late stop". Do it on the next to last lap before Ferrari can figure out what happened and respond by having Kimi or one of the STR cars take Lewis out of the race. Make it look good Heikki.

[shir0]

Shir0 could you boil down all that legalese for us simple folk. Just tell me why the Race Director's word is not final. Can the stewards arbitrarily nullify the directives that come out from Race Control during the race?

Suppose that a team was being black flagged by Charlie Whiting during a race and the team blatantly replies back: "We don't care what you say, your word is not final and we are not coming in" and afterward that same car causes a fatality. Their logically sound defense in all this is that they wanted to hear from the stewards whose word is final. Is that your idea of running a race? If so, then why even have a Race Director? All you need is the stewards.

Either Race Control and the Race Director's word is final and binding or the whole thing is a farce. You can throw ten thousand clauses and paragraphs of legalese up as a smoke screen but it still boils down to that.

hey, gcdugas! how'r ya?

I
I'm sorry i couldn't make it any simpler without further confusing stuff as simplicity lends itself to further subjective opinions. And before I make any further comments, I would like to state for a fact that my comment on your post was:

Unfortunately, the race director's word in this case isn't final. And the fact that "that the Race Director gave McLaren the OK once not to mention that he did it twice" is not "ALL THAT MATTERS".

When I said "in this case", I meant the Belgian GP stewards' contested decisions.

Now, if you promise not to label me as mocking you with my reply, I will try to simplify things:

Let's take the F1 Sporting Code again. I don't have to say again that "this set of rules in the code WAS APPROVED BY ALL TEAMS INCLUDING MCLAREN even before they were put in use for this season", but ther you, go...I said it again.

Now for the meat of my argument...

The Race Directors' Authority only falls under these categories as quoted from the F1 Sporting Code:

The race director shall have overriding authority in the following matters...:
a) the control of practice and the race, adherence to the timetable and, if he deems it necessary, the
making of any proposal to the stewards to modify the timetable in accordance with the Code or
Sporting Regulations ;
b) the stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations ;
c) the stopping of practice or suspension of the race in accordance with the Sporting Regulations if he
deems it unsafe to continue and ensuring that the correct restart procedure is carried out ;
d) the starting procedure ;
e) the use of the safety car.

QUESTIONS:
i) Can you see anything at all that even hints to saying that "the Race Director can hand out penalties nor decide who to penalize with a drive-through"? I can't.
ii) Is there a rule anywhere in the entire current sporting code which SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT that the racing director can hand out drive-through penalties? NO.
iii) Is there a rule anywhere in the entire current sporting code which SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT that the it is the STEWARDS' discretion to hand out three-types of penalties (drive-through, Stop-and-Go, 10-place grid demotion)? YES.
iv) Is there a rule anywhere in the entire current sporting code which SPECIFICALLY SPELLS OUT that the racing director can "make a directive" NOT TO penalize drivers? NO.

The only logical conclusion then, for the ML/LH case, the Race Director has no authority over the stewards since it was the stewards who decided to hand out the penalty. The Race Director's word in that case, is not final.

Now...your example scenario:

Suppose that a team was being black flagged by Charlie Whiting during a race...

Checking what I've typed above...well, what do you know...? Behind door letter "B" says: b) the stopping of any car in accordance with the Code or Sporting Regulations. And what flag does the Race Control (thus implying the Race Director) use for stopping any car from participating further in an on-going race? Riiiiiggghtt... BLACK FLAGS.

He has the authority to black-flag cars. Now if any one protests a black flag, it's no use. He has, and I quote, "OVERRIDING AUTHORITY" on the above listed. Even if you appeal a black flag ruling to the ICA, the race director still wins.

Still, to be technically specific, the rules say that the Race Director does not give out orders for what I've listed above, by himself. Instead, it's the CLERK OF THE COURSE who gives out the orders, upon agreement of the Race Director. The Clerk of the Course can, stop races, black flag cars/drivers, decide on the start/end time of the race, how the race is started (running start behind safety car, grid start, pit start, etc) and when to employ signal flags and safety cars.

As for your last sentence, I can only say that I'm not the one who's making things up. It's all written down and agreed upon beforehand by ALL COMPETING TEAMS.

[gcdugas]

shir0 you must be a lawyer. All communications to the teams during a race come from Race Control. Yes the stewards might report to Race Control that car X is due a penalty for pitlane speeding or whatever but it is Race Control that still sends the message.

If I understand what you are trying to say, every word that comes from Race Control could be questioned by the teams thus: "Charlie, are you speaking for yourself or do you have the stewards to back that up?". Does Charlie have to preface all communications with a disclaimer: "Yes the move is OK but my opinion isn't what matters in these instances according to rule X, clause Z, section Y. For that you need to see the stewards who are not available to speak even though the Race Director's position is the sole liaison between the FIA and the teams during the race."

"My name is Charlie Whiting and I approve this message... but the stewards might not." Is that what you shir0 are saying? Can't you see that you are only digging yourself in worse if you hold the position you do? It is logically incoherent and self contradictory.

And if you want to stress that this is "what the teams have approved", a whole lot flows under that bridge. What the teams approved in the Concorde Agreement was that the TWG would write the regs and the sole role the FIA would have is concerning safety. Does mandating V8s have anything to do with safety? Maybe displacement but only maybe due to power output. But Vee angle, bore centers, camshaft locations, alloys, CG height, engine weight etc. were all foisted upon the teams without regard for the due process and delineated role of the TWG. The quali changes of 2003 were foisted upon the teams the same way. The narrow car with grooved tires were done in open disregard to the TWG. Toyota had a V12 ready to race and the FIA then unilaterally ruled them illegal in 2001/2002. In 2002 DC's McLaren used pit to car telemetry to "fix" a problem with the oil system at Monaco thereby enabling DC to finish and win the race. Sauber then invested millions on such a system only to have the FIA unilaterally outlaw them without regard to the TWG's input. The FIA has totally abused the "safety clause" agreed upon by all the teams so don't start that line of argument. The FIA has no role in writing "cost cutting" rules either. The engine freeze was another abuse that ignored the proper role of the TWG.

The only voice the teams hear from the FIA during the race is that of the Race Director. It is up to the FIA to make sure that whatever info he relays to the teams in reliable and authoritative.

[shir0]

shir0 you must be a lawyer.

You think so? ooo..I sure hope I was! [-o< ...Then I could buy myself that M3 I'm always ogling in the show room...

Unfortunately, I'm not...

All rubbish quotes I've been throwing around here are just that: quotes from the CURRENT SPORTING CODE. You just have to read them and understand what it says there to the letter. That will be the most intellectually honest and unbiased way of viewing things. Still, nothing in this world is perfect.

All communications to the teams during a race come from Race Control. Yes the stewards might report to Race Control that car X is due a penalty for pitlane speeding or whatever but it is Race Control that still sends the message.

For communications, I guess, yes. Race control "sends the message". Now, it's up to the teams (who, I'm supposing, had the wit had read the "SPORTING" regs) to know, based on the regs, who decided what.

If I understand what you are trying to say, every word that comes from Race Control could be questioned by the teams thus: "Charlie, are you speaking for yourself or do you have the stewards to back that up?". Does Charlie have to preface all communications with a disclaimer: "Yes the move is OK but my opinion isn't what matters in these instances according to rule X, clause Z, section Y. For that you need to see the stewards who are not available to speak even though the Race Director's position is the sole liaison between the FIA and the teams during the race."

I'll grant you, you're right that he's (the race director) the team's liaison to the FIA officials AT A grand prix event and DURING the grand prix event. But he, too, is subject to the same "SPORTING" regulations I've been mentioning all over this thread. It's from that Code of Sporting Regulations that he gets his authority from. Anything other than what's in that code, is not part of the "SPORTING" Code and thus cannot be used for any arguments to resolve any disputes within the sport.

The other alternative, as you did point out, was for the teams to order their drivers to turn F1 into CARMAGEDDON. Heck, Id still spend two hours sitting in front of my TV and watch that spectacle. It'd sure be one snuff film worth recording.

And if you want to stress that this is "what the teams have approved", a whole lot flows under that bridge. What the teams approved in the Concorde Agreement was that the TWG would write the regs and the sole role the FIA would have is concerning safety.

Isn't the Sporting Code drawn up to uphold "safe", "organized" and "fair" conduct of the race?

Does mandating V8s have anything to do with safety? Maybe displacement but only maybe due to power output. But Vee angle, bore centers, camshaft locations, alloys, CG height, engine weight etc. were all foisted upon the teams without regard for the due process and delineated role of the TWG. The quali changes of 2003 were foisted upon the teams the same way. The narrow car with grooved tires were done in open disregard to the TWG. Toyota had a V12 ready to race and the FIA then unilaterally ruled them illegal in 2001/2002. In 2002 DC's McLaren used pit to car telemetry to "fix" a problem with the oil system at Monaco thereby enabling DC to finish and win the race. Sauber then invested millions on such a system only to have the FIA unilaterally outlaw them without regard to the TWG's input. The FIA has totally abused the "safety clause" agreed upon by all the teams so don't start that line of argument. The FIA has no role in writing "cost cutting" rules either. The engine freeze was another abuse that ignored the proper role of the TWG.

And I quote the emoticon to the left: "Eh?"

Honestly, I dont want to comment on what you said for three reasons:
1) I do not know what you're talking about...(honestly, either I don't care, or even if I want to care about "TECHNICAL" Regulations, I won't have a slightest clue as to what it will be saying)
2) I have not read the current and previous "TECHNICAL REGULATIONS" at all...
3) I have not yet read the any of the Concorde Agreement(s) in FULL. Only the current one and the new one that has been recently signed but only partially...I don't even know how many there have been of those up to this point...

The only voice the teams hear from the FIA during the race is that of the Race Director. It is up to the FIA to make sure that whatever info he relays to the teams in reliable and authoritative.

Then I guess it's UP TO THE TEAMS TO PROPOSE TO THE FIA ANY CHANGES THEY WANT IN THE CURRENT SPORTING REGULATIONS.

Not me, not you, not the fans, not the TV Networks.

Although, I must say, there are people here who truly believe they can write up the "PERFECT" Technical and Sporting Regulations for F1. How about ringing Bernie and all F1 Team principals so you can talk about proposals for a new series? Formula 0 perhaps??

[WhiteBlue]

now, let's take a step back and consider that this is just a Max and Bernie show to do something for the botteom line. So we all can relax and take it easy. The undertaker will do his act, and sooner or later "the hero" will emerge. why not have another hero each race? the stock market recognises F1 as an entertainement business for several years. why should we be surprised that entertainment takes priority over sport. after all we did not have a noteworthy F1 scandal in 2008. Spankie's adventure being private not counting.

[mcdenife]

gcdugas wroter:
The only voice the teams hear from the FIA during the race is that of the Race Director. It is up to the FIA to make sure that whatever info he relays to the teams in reliable and authoritative.

And that, really, is the real issue here for who else can or do the teams go to for direction during a race, whose is the voice of the FIA during a race. In effect the Race Director IS the ref during a race.

[axle]

And that, really, is the real issue here for who else can or do the teams go to for direction during a race, whose is the voice of the FIA during a race. In effect the Race Director IS the ref during a race.

Bingo - if he isn't then the teams are self policing and that's not really fair either.

Please FIA sort out a referee for the races (I believe you had one once )

[gcdugas]

The only voice the teams hear from the FIA during the race is that of the Race Director. It is up to the FIA to make sure that whatever info he relays to the teams in reliable and authoritative.

Then I guess it's UP TO THE TEAMS TO PROPOSE TO THE FIA ANY CHANGES THEY WANT IN THE CURRENT SPORTING REGULATIONS.

Not me, not you, not the fans, not the TV Networks.

This is the greatest blame shift I have heard since Bush said that "bad intelligence fooled him". Are you an FIA shill? Why is it up to the teams to get the FIA's house in order? It is the FIA's responsibility alone to see to it. How can you, a supposedly sane person, even think of blaming the teams for the FIA's internal inconsistencies and their self contradictions?

As to my other comments about the TWG etc., those were put forth to show that the FIA has zero regard for any written instrument that binds or limits them and that the FIA simply does as it wishes unilaterally and without accountability. You were making the assertion that the FIA gets its legitimacy from the fact that the teams signed on to the sporting regs. I was citing the FIA habit of breaching anything written as a way of calling into question the FIA's equity if not their legitimacy as well.

[shir0]

Then I guess it's UP TO THE TEAMS TO PROPOSE TO THE FIA ANY CHANGES THEY WANT IN THE CURRENT SPORTING REGULATIONS.

Not me, not you, not the fans, not the TV Networks.

This is the greatest blame shift I have heard since Bush said that "bad intelligence fooled him". Are you an FIA shill? Why is it up to the teams to get the FIA's house in order? It is the FIA's responsibility alone to see to it. How can you, a supposedly sane person, even think of blaming the teams for the FIA's internal inconsistencies and their self contradictions?

man... now I'm really confused...

You people say that the teams can't trust the FIA to police itself nor bring its house into order. People claim that the FIA has been biased and making unclear rules so they (FIA) can bend/break them and then hide behind the confusion.

I just assumed, for the sake of argument, that it's true since you and most people here had been saying it over and over and over and over and over and over...

With that assumption, IMHO the one logical and reasonable (and the quickest) thing for the teams to try and resolve some of the issues with unclear rules and procedures would be to make the proposals themselves. Why would they wait for the FIA to do it for them when the FIA hasn't done anything to that effect since time immemorial, as you've been insisting?

I'm not shifting blames...I'm just floating suggestions here.

As to my other comments about the TWG etc., those were put forth to show that the FIA has zero regard for any written instrument that binds or limits them and that the FIA simply does as it wishes unilaterally and without accountability. You were making the assertion that the FIA gets its legitimacy from the fact that the teams signed on to the sporting regs. I was citing the FIA habit of breaching anything written as a way of calling into question the FIA's equity if not their legitimacy as well.

Again, there were no part in all of my posts above and in previous pages of this thread, saying "that the FIA gets its legitimacy from the fact that the teams signed on to the sporting regs".

The regs are there so the parties involved can have something to hold on to, at anytime a dispute arises.

I'm also saying that if the teams are questioning the same sporting regs because of unpalatable decisions and rulings made based on those regs, then they can have those regs changed. They can form a working group, independent of the FIA, with a goal of "making all regulations, rules and procedures are as clear as possible". It doesn't matter if that would result in a document 3-feet thick so long as it's very clear.

Surely, with more than >100M Euros floating around per team, they can hire a group of competent enough lawyers and racing specialists to help forge the document. Hell, they can even have the Concorde Agreement modified to include saying that any breaches of the agreement by the FIA or the teams will result in a 500M Euro fine and any breach can be taken to the EU court of law (or whatever international court in Europe who has jurisdiction). That would surely hinder the FIA from the "habit of breaching anything written", as you said.

Taking a wild guess now: The reason I think why the teams wouldn't do it is that they'd be severly restricted themselves. And no one within that community wants that. Not in an undertaking with a lot of opportunities to earn more $$$$.

Still, that's not to say that they can't do it. They can. And I believe people in this business are all intelligent enough not to know this. the fact that they still haven't done so up to this time, reinforces my guess in the previous paragraph.

I'm also not defending anyone...not the FIA for sure. I'm citing facts, based on the written rules and written decisions. I'm not conjuring things out of ether. Also, even if it's true that the FIA does breach their own rules, it doesn't logically follow that you have to do the same.

Now, I'm just guessing, again, that the next suggestion would be to replace the FIA???


Take it easy, man!...Reading too much between the lines sometimes is a problem in itself. Too much "imaginative involvement" is found to be correlated to anxiety attacks...


<cringing to brace myself for a violent reaction>

[gcdugas]

<cringing to brace myself for a violent reaction>

Sorry to disappoint you. I think we have all heard enough. In your view it seems to you that if you, shir0, throw around enough words and confusing smoke we can all dismiss the fact that you defend the fact that what a team hears from the FIA on the radio from Race Control does not have to be reliable. And if it is unreliable it somehow is the teams' responsibility to amend the internal flaws of the FIA. And now, not only do you want the teams to bear the blame for the FIA not having its own house in order, you want to saddle the teams, "who all have 100M Euros", with the cost of writing up to a 3 ft. thick stack of "clear regs". Two things, anything that thick won't be clear, and it is still not the teams' job to make sure the FIA is consistent, fair, reliable and honorable. The FIA fills a role. A contracted role, they are not organically necessary. If they can't do that, then find someone who can...

...which brings us to the one thing you did say that was a good idea, replacing the FIA. BTW that means retaining 0.001% of the personnel. Maybe just Sid Watkins who is the only worthy soul in the whole mess.

[Scotracer]

<cringing to brace myself for a violent reaction>

Sorry to disappoint you. I think we have all heard enough. In your view it seems to you that if you, shir0, throw around enough words and confusing smoke we can all dismiss the fact that you defend the fact that what a team hears from the FIA on the radio from Race Control does not have to be reliable. And if it is unreliable it somehow is the teams' responsibility to amend the internal flaws of the FIA. And now, not only do you want the teams to bear the blame for the FIA not having its own house in order, you want to saddle the teams, "who all have 100M Euros", with the cost of writing up to a 3 ft. thick stack of "clear regs". Two things, anything that thick won't be clear, and it is still not the teams' job to make sure the FIA is consistent, fair, reliable and honorable. The FIA fills a role. A contracted role, they are not organically necessary. If they can't do that, then find someone who can...

...which brings us to the one thing you did say that was a good idea, replacing the FIA. BTW that means retaining 0.001% of the personnel. Maybe just Sid Watkins who is the only worthy soul in the whole mess.

Here, here. I agree. Prof Watkins is the real God of F1

[shir0]

Prof Watkins...OBE. "For God and the Empire". That sums it up considering where....nevermind.

It is a great idea, I'll concede.

It'd sure be a big help if a doctor of medicine is in the helm. Fans with anxiety attacks will be a thing of the past.

However, I'm not so sure this would go well with him:

Now that we all know the rules of engagement, let the games begin!

Pssssst Heikki, crash Filipe Massa out late in the Brazilian race if he is still in contention for the WDC. Make it look like a race accident. Use one of DC's patented "ambitious braking maneuvers" going into a corner or swerve into him during a blue flag when you are being "lapped" after that "damned wheel nut" took so long to get back on in an "emergency late stop". Do it on the next to last lap before Ferrari can figure out what happened and respond by having Kimi or one of the STR cars take Lewis out of the race. Make it look good Heikki.

Then again, it will be an opportunity for Gary Hartstein, et al, to practice tracheotomy and restarting "stalled" drivers' hearts, at the side of the track!. Oooo...look! A medevac chopper!!!

[Project Four]

Hi shir0, I raised the STR issue as like I stated before FIA misrepresented / gave a totally inaccurate account of their (FIA) chief steward’s views and opinion during the FIA governed appeals process.

I highlighted this fact, no I will rephrase that, this reported event within the media on the first day of the appeal. Now as you say this may be ‘my view’ as the transcript of the meeting has not (to my knowledge) been published, but this incident was widely reported and has not been contradicted by the FIA, so IMHO I belief that there is some truth in it.

So we have the FIA setting the rules for the sport, refereeing the sport and then presiding over any appeals process. And, still they have to give inaccurate accounts of their own officials within their own appeals process to win an appeal which was inadmissible anyway, as according to their rules their Stewards decision at the race was inadmissible anyway.

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.

Therefore then why was this rule not being applied also within the F1 Sporting Regulations

12,5 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.


I think gcdugas summed it up perfectly

The only voice the teams hear from the FIA during the race is that of the Race Director. It is up to the FIA to make sure that whatever info he relays to the teams in reliable and authoritative.

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.

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