The decision

That’s it then, the result we all expected. The FIA have decided that McLaren’s appeal is inadmissible to be heard, on the grounds that you can’t argue against a drive-through, which Lewis’ 25 second penalty basically was. Game on for the championship!

This case is yet another off track intrigue that has taken up a lot of time and interest away from the actual racing, but it was a pretty compelling case nonetheless (and we Brits seem to like a court case for some reason or other).

So it’s time to move on.

Lewis has said that he’s just focusing on this weekend’s first ever F1 night race, and that’s probably not a bad thing for us to do too.

Talking of which, Red Bull have done a pretty cool – and rather expensive looking! – Singapore Grand Prix circuit guide, which you might want to take a look at.

Bear in mind that this was made before Vettel’s win the other weekend, which makes this video’s ending rather amusing.

‘Who’s going to win?’ asks Webber. Well, it definitely won’t be you mate. But it could be him.

Comments are now closed

Ever since Lewsi Hamilton signed up for McLaren, the team have been constantly punished for an endless array of ‘Minor’ infringements.

Ferrari,on the other hand, could wade into the crowd firing machine guns and all they’d get is a £40 fine. Can F1 not see that the world has changed??

Report this comment

Do I remember rightly a few years ago Schu in a red car being disqualified some hours after the end of the race on technical grounds (plank worn too thin)? I thought at the time it was the FIA trying to engineer a closer championship, as Schu had a runaway lead and it was making it hardly worth tuning in on Sundays. It *could* be a similar thing here: the FIA trying to make it all ever so close and crucial on the track for guaranteed tense and exciting must-see television. Just that these best intentions appear to the world at large to be potentially biased? I don’t know, but it makes you wonder what’s really making the world go round – misguided out-of-touch old duffers or shady sinister, or even corrupt, wheeling and dealing? (See also the ‘no Silverstone GP beacause the facilities aren’t good enough but Donnington (a hut in a field) is – don’t tell me Bernie’s not got a very very good (£) reason behind this very thin sounding story!)

Whatver your opinion of recent events, you have to admit that F1 isn’t being done any favours. To cliche a little: the sport is the real loser.

Report this comment

Also – what we could really do with is a table of F1 events with column headings: Race, Incident, Involved driver/teams, Penalty applied (or lack thereof), Context (e.g. championship lead at the time). Then we could do some proper actual analysis of how consistent the FIA have or haven’t been over the years with their penalty givings, as things have changed (e.g. with the introduction of race director) rather than all this picking from our collective selective memories!

I would love to put this together but haven’t the time to do the data collection – anyone available? Better still, does such a database/analysis already exist somewhere? Ideal World Theory would suggest that the FIA themselves should use something like this to make decisions.

Report this comment

So Lewis got some points taken away i dont have a problem with that.Health and safty gone mad

I do wonder whats going on with the sport when Ferrari,are aloud to run over there own pit crew and there driver gets to start the next race .

FlA wake up

Report this comment

Right desicion, There is no way Lewis could had overtaken Kimi IF he would had stayd on course.

Massa for champion, he has best possible “wingman” on whole series! (unless Kimi doesnt do a miracle, again)

Report this comment

Report this comment

Some people miss the point. The penalty for driving into the path of an oncoming vehicle in the pit lane is a drive through, or if it was near the end of the race a 25s penalty. The stewards found Massa guilty just as they found Hamilton guilty.

2 incidences that if found guilty have same minimum penalty of a drive through or if near the end of the race 25s added to the times. The only difference was one was a Ferrari the other wasn’t. The rules were changed for Ferrari, creating an exception. So when people say the decision was unfair, they are pointing out that one team receives special privileges.

Take a leaf out of IR, when the checked flag drops that’s the end.

Report this comment

What a load of crap. If Massa wins the championship by less tha 6 points I will be so angry. I see no reason why McLaren shouldn’t sue the FIA for gross miscompetence. I guess that Jean Todt and Stefano Domenicali threatened to put a video of Max on YouTube or something if McLaren won…

Report this comment

I have to say having watched the whole thing numerous times (including the fantastic in car stuff) I’m not so sure Hamilton was in the right, but I think it was a 50-50 call, another day, another race he might have gotten away with it and all the Ferrari fans would be complaining instead.

Ultimately, the championship will (hopefully) be decided on the track with no FIA interference. However, they do have a habit of making sure that a season has a close finish if they can help it, unless there’s a runaway winner. Does anyone remember Irvine being disqualified for illegal barge boards in the penultimate race in 1999 and that was overturned preventing Hakkinen from winning the championship that race? Or the FIA mucking about towards the end of Alonso’s first championship win? As Bernie always says F1 is in the business of entertainment, until that mission statement is revoked and the sport and competition put back on the agenda there’ll always be a slightly dirty taste with every champion. Schumacher was a money man’s dream fast and brilliant but with so maany controversial decisions going his way, it’s hard to feel that there wasn’t some behind the scenes FIA tinkerage to get what they wanted, same with Villeneuve, Hill, hakkinen and Alonso. Too much politics not enough sport.

Also does anyone know why a Ferrari lawyer was allowed to be present to argue against McLaren at their appeal? Are other teams representatives are normally allowed to be present at the hearings? or were there extenuating circumstances allowing this for this particular appeal?

Report this comment

Sameer said… en/headlines/news/detail/ 080924103718.shtml

This is Disgusting

no, it’s not. financially, $1M, or 500K pounds, is chump change to them. more importantly, they knew the appeal was inadmissible before they left spa. they were willing to pay this price in order to take a chance at recovering the lost points, but more so to simply not go down without a fight.

i think they made the right decision to attempt an appeal, and the fia was right to deny it. had the appeal been heard, i hope we can all agree it had some pretty terrible odds of succeeding, and i think that’s right as well. not because i’m a fan of this or that, but because the governing body should not reverse themselves every time there is a close call such as this. does FIFA use instant replay to review every play, constantly overturning the referee’s decisions?

i do hope the sport improves as a result of this, with clearly written rules enforced fairly and consistently by highly trained, regular officials. however, this remains a sport of human participants, and therefore prone to error. that’s fine, too. the last thing f1 needs is to become even more boring.

Report this comment

For all the mclaren fans believing the FIA is biased towards ferrari.. for even smaller mistakes Schumacher got wanked.. or even put in the back of the track.. Hamilton got away with dangerous acts in Monza, remember pushing trulli and webber off the track on tottaly wet gras? Gestures (fist shaking) to a slower driver in front of him even if he wasnt doubling him? And let us not forget that Mclaren has been performing poorly since 2000 (or even before) but a miracle has happened last year.. putting them on the front rows again (hmm after the spy-scandal, how odd). Ferrari has been fighting for the title for 12 consecutive years now, leading to rules changes and what not.. so please drop the act

Report this comment

Bonkers. Fact is; Hamilton let Raikkonen through after cutting the chicane/corner and a then, just (quite literally) a few corners later, Hamilton went off avoiding a BMW recovering to the circuit. Raikkonen spears through to regain the lead but throws it off immediately to let Hamilton back into the lead again to win. Therefore, despite the chicane-cutting nonsense, Raikkonen was presented with a clear opportunity to win the race but threw it away. And its all recorded for all to see. And, no, I’m not a McLaren fan. Or a Ferrari fan. And I don’t believe the FIA have a pro-Ferrari bias – although I do think (its obvious) they have a policy to artificially ‘balance’ the championship results to the end of the season. Why do the FIA feel the need to keep making their bureaucracy felt at every opportunity when its at the expense of why we tune-in to watch (the racing)? I suppose they can’t help being (largely) French…

Report this comment

While i admit i’m rooting to Lewis, i can see why the penalty was awarded. My thinking though is that if a penalty was awarded AFTER the race, it should have been a grid penalty, for the next race, rather than retroactively changing the times.

Report this comment