Hamilton Appeal Unsuccessful

[Baj]

****ing outrageous...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7627941.stm

[CabbageFace]

Good, bloody cheat.

[Um Bongo]

Well that's surprising!

 

Not.

[warsash saint]

"Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal'," the FIA said in a statement.

 

Why the f**K didn't they say that at the beginning instead of dragging everyone to Paris.

 

Ferrari back handers maybe ?

[Baj]

"Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal'," the FIA said in a statement.

 

Why the f**K didn't they say that at the beginning instead of dragging everyone to Paris.

 

Ferrari back handers maybe ?

They did, Mclaren argued that since the penalty was applied posthumously, it wasn't a real drive-through penalty.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

They did, Mclaren argued that since the penalty was applied posthumously, it wasn't a real drive-through penalty.

 

Christ almighty. Not only did he get a drive-through penalty but they killed him first.

 

That's really tough.

[Baj]

Christ almighty. Not only did he get a drive-through penalty but they killed him first.

 

That's really tough.

Perhaps not the best use of language...

[Weston Super Saint]

Christ almighty. Not only did he get a drive-through penalty but they killed him first.

 

That's really tough.

 

Maybe they just killed one of the Lackeys and not the driver :smt102

[Ponty]

Poor old Macca. No wonder Ron didn't bother showing his face. If anyone else other than Ferrari had benefitted from this decision I'd be defending it, but as it is it's just another piece of evidence in the "The FIA are bias towards Ferrari" argument.

 

The most peculiar part is that the FIA have justified calling it inadmissable purely because no one questioned whether a similar case resulting in a turn over last year for Luizzi was admissable or not, and therefore it wasn't actually setting a precedent.

 

It's paragraph 27 of the court transcript, if anyone can be arsed, but suffice to say it's hilarious.

[Saint Paul C]

Whilst I certainly don't think that the ICA can be properly accused of being corrupt, or having made a corrupt decision, the actions of the FIA in this matter should certainly be of concern to all F1 fans. This is not a pro-McLaren issue, or an anti-Ferrari one, for that matter, but a couple of points seem clear at this juncture:

 

1. The FIA were entirely unconcerned with the Toro Rosso appeal last year, to the extent that they made no admissibility arguments during that appeal;

 

2. In direct contrast, the FIA strongly objected to the admissibility of the McLaren appeal, despite the fact that the appeals were substantively identical with regard to the penalty that had been imposed by the stewards; and

 

3. The FIA was determined enough to ensure the failure of the McLaren appeal, that it was prepared to falsify evidence, and one of its officers was prepared to give false testimony before the ICA.

 

The issue of concern here is not whether the ICA's decision was correct, but why the FIA was prepared to act in the appalling, dishonest manner that it did here. Although I personally disagree with the ICA's decision regarding the admissibility of the appeal, I have no doubt that the members of that body acted appropriately. I do not believe that the same thing can be said of the FIA

 

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/court_appeal/judgments/Documents/ICA-23-09-08-McL-en.pdf

Edited 23 September, 2008 by Saint Paul C

[Ponty]

Max out!

 

The whole thing smells tbh.

[Michelle]

Bah fukcing humbug.

 

They ain't dubbed Ferrari International Assistance for nothing.

 

Fukcing cheating fukcers.

 

(Yes, I'm annoyed.)

[Ponty]

TBF, everone forgets the 10 place grid penalties handed out to Ferrari last year for "not receiving the memo about extreme wet tyres being fitted" and things like that. This case is less about Ferrari and more about the FIA.

[Michelle]

TBF, everone forgets the 10 place grid penalties handed out to Ferrari last year for "not receiving the memo about extreme wet tyres being fitted" and things like that. This case is less about Ferrari and more about the FIA.

 

Probably because Ferarri get penalised once in a blue moon, and others seem to regularly, and in a number of cases unecessarily.

 

Not that I don't agree with what you're saying. I just happen to hate Ferarri!

 

How's things looking for this weekend from your perspective?

[Ponty]

Probably because Ferarri get penalised once in a blue moon, and others seem to regularly, and in a number of cases unecessarily.

 

Not that I don't agree with what you're saying. I just happen to hate Ferarri!

 

How's things looking for this weekend from your perspective?

 

I don't think anyone has any idea what this weekend entails but it's safe to say that the strong teams will be strong and the weak teams will be weak, as usual.

 

It's a 60% chance of rain and combine that with it being a floodlit and maiden race on a new circuit and there are too many variables to predict anything with any degree of certainty.

 

It 'should' suit the car reasonably well but that's born out of hope as much as anything. Toro Rosso may get back to back wins for all I know!

[St Landrew]

Good, bloody cheat.

 

Such anger..! And where was the cheating occurring..? Overtaking under waved yellow flags perhaps..?

 

As to the decision. Biggest non-surprise ever. I'm sure Hamilton only turned up because it was the pride thing to do.

[Saint Martini]

I don't know if the grounds on which the appeal was denied was right but in the end Hamilton took advantage of cutting the corner and got punished for it. I don't want to get in the whole Ferrari loving FIA debate (Ferrari do seem to be on the receiving end of little gifts from the FIA every now and then) but that is not really an issue here. The question is, did Hamilton take advantage of cutting that corner? In my opinion yes, even if he let Raikkonen pass after that he went straight into Raikkonens slipstream after that to overtake him again. This is precisely where he got his advantage. If he had not cut that corner he could not have been that close to Raikkonen and it would not have been as easy to overtake him. Hamilton should grow up and behave like a big boy, he keeps whining when he should know he was wrong (if he doesn't he should check the rules again, you have to wait a corner to overtake again).

[St Landrew]

Hmm, I just wonder what would have happened if Raikkonnen had been overtaking Hamilton. Mind you, fat chance of that happening on a damp track.

[Sheaf Saint]

I don't know if the grounds on which the appeal was denied was right but in the end Hamilton took advantage of cutting the corner and got punished for it. I don't want to get in the whole Ferrari loving FIA debate (Ferrari do seem to be on the receiving end of little gifts from the FIA every now and then) but that is not really an issue here. The question is, did Hamilton take advantage of cutting that corner? In my opinion yes, even if he let Raikkonen pass after that he went straight into Raikkonens slipstream after that to overtake him again. This is precisely where he got his advantage. If he had not cut that corner he could not have been that close to Raikkonen and it would not have been as easy to overtake him. Hamilton should grow up and behave like a big boy, he keeps whining when he should know he was wrong (if he doesn't he should check the rules again, you have to wait a corner to overtake again).

 

This seems to be the crux of everybody's arguments regarding it, but I disagree. Did you see how much faster Hamilton was in latter part of that lap? I have absolutely no doubt that he would have taken Raikonnen at La Source anyway whether he cut the chicane or not, he was that much quicker in the conditions.

 

Also, and this one seems to have been completely ignored by a lot of experts, if you watch the replays of the incident, Hamilton so completely out-braked Kimi that he was actually ahead on the track at the point that they turned in to the corner. So if this is the case, was the advantage not Hamilton's in the first place? You could argue that Kimi illegally gained an advantage by deliberately squeezing Lewis off the track. I'm sure Maclaren would have argued this in their appeal, were the FIA not so completely spineless as to deny them that right in the first place.

 

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Do the FIA not realise that the whole world now believes them to be corrupt? (as if we all didn't beforehand anyway) Are they so blind or stupid that they think F1 fans will just accept the decision?

[Pancake]

This seems to be the crux of everybody's arguments regarding it, but I disagree. Did you see how much faster Hamilton was in latter part of that lap?

 

Was discussing this with my Dad on the phone the other day. He is of the opinion that Lewis did nothing wrong, as the fact that Ron et al checked with "Race Control" that it was now fine for Lewis to attack again after conceding meant it was all lawful. My point to him was that Lewis didnt NEED to take Kimi at that corner. Lewis had so much extra speed on that lap that he could, quite easily, have let Kimi go into the next corner ahead (I remember years ago, the old "1 corner before attacking again" was a good rule of thumb for this knid of incident) and then gone at him there. But no, Ron told him it was legal to go, even when he was 100% sure. Lewis just obeyed the instruction from the team.

 

IMHO.

 

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. Do the FIA not realise that the whole world now believes them to be corrupt? (as if we all didn't beforehand anyway) Are they so blind or stupid that they think F1 fans will just accept the decision?

 

Sustitute the words FA and Football for FIA and F1 there and you have the same issue. All modern sports with that much money involved are biased to different teams/individuals at certain times. Still sucks though....

[Ponty]

The thing is; every other driver (save Heikki) believe the penalty was just and that there was an advantage gained by crossing the run-off area. Now either Hamilton is so hated that everyone else likes seeing him stuffed or there was a genuine advantage. You decide.

 

Oh, and no one play the jealousy card please. That's akin to James Allen playing the racism card.

[St Landrew]

...this one seems to have been completely ignored by a lot of experts, if you watch the replays of the incident, Hamilton so completely out-braked Kimi that he was actually ahead on the track at the point that they turned in to the corner. So if this is the case, was the advantage not Hamilton's in the first place? You could argue that Kimi illegally gained an advantage by deliberately squeezing Lewis off the track.

 

I'm not sure it is being completely ignored by the experts. Niki Lauda, and many other ex-racers were actually citing your very point that Hamilton had easily out braked Raikonnen, and was in fact, ahead at the corner. But was squeezed so far to the outside of the corner, that the only place to go was to cut the chicane. He wasn't cheating. He just didn't want a coming together of the cars. The forced chicane cutting gained him the lead which he would probably have had if he hadn't been squeezed off the track in the first place, but he surrendered it. Also Lauda suggested that there was no appreciable slipstreaming after the chicane - Hamilton was just the more capable driver under the conditions, and showed it by not even having to brake hard for the next corner. He didn't even accelerate hard out of it, as Raikonnen tapped his gearbox at the exit.

 

What did happen what that Raikonnen passed Hamilton in front of a spinning car, a couple of corners later, with waved yellow flags in the background. IMO, he was rattled by Hamilton's ability to go much faster, and showed it by loosing all control just yards further up the road. But then the FIA trotted out the rule that a driver must surrender one full corner before attacking again. Well forgive me, but that one popped up like the offside rule did when Van Horse scored against Saints at OT in 2003[?], and even WGS didn't even know of the change that had happened during pre-season. That rule sparked just as much controversy too.

[Saint Paul C]

Interesting article from the Daily Mail

 

FIA Lies in court

[Arizona]

It's a f*cking outrageous decision, but it would be soooo sweet if Hamilton still wins the Championship.

 

TBH though, this is nothing to do with Massa. I've never been a Ferrari fan, but nobody can deny Felipe deserves this years title. After a terrible start he has just blitzed Kimi ever since the French Grand Prix. If it weren't for that engine blow in hungary, he'd pretty much have it in the bag already.

 

Still want Hamilton to win tommorow though, or at least finish second behind Coulthard.