Why Lewis won't win his appeal

Now I'm sitting in Charles de Gaulle airport on Monday night waiting for my marathon flight to Singapore in Row Z on Air France. Should be great(especially knowing that certain people I know well in the Formula One "family" are travelling in their own in-flight "bungalow" to Singapore, courtesy of Singapore Airlines, first class). The answer to that is to get a different job, I suppose, but this is my vocation isn't it and eco comes with it(unless I start collecting air miles - but then you can never use them for one reason or another etc etc etc).

Anyway, what an interesting day we had at the Court of Appeal. Again I am short of time so a few bullet points 'til I have to go.

My hunch is that the appeal by McLaren will be thrown out as inadmissable. The McLaren lawyer, Mark Phillips, made a valiant attempt to show that the penalty handed down at Spa was a time penalty as opposed to a drive-through but he never sounded convincing on this point. Much more convincing was Paul Harris for the FIA arguing what he called the "unarguable case" that this was a drive-through and therefore not able to be appealed. If my guess on this proves correct, the rest of the day - when we heard the evidence about the incident itself - will have turned out to be a waste of time.

McLaren revealed some very strange goings-on involving the legal department at the FIA in the last couple of days.
McLaren had submitted papers in advance of the hearing making clear they were going to rely on the Liuzzi-Sutil case at the Japanese GP last year as a precedent. In this case the stewards handed Liuzzi a time penalty which was then found to be open to appeal. Responding to McLaren's submissions, Charlie Whiting phoned Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at Fuji, on Friday, to ask about that decision. Whiting then informed the legal department at the FIA that Scott Andrews had indicated in that phone call that he was mistaken about the time penalty and had confirmed, in as many words, that it should have been a drive-through(which, of course, could not be appealed).

The FIA lawyers then wrote to McLaren's lawyers at 6.30pm on Friday informing them that Scott Andrews had made a mistake. "Having checked with the permanent chief of stewards who signed the Decision in Japan, we wish to inform you that there is an error on the face of the Decision document," the FIA told McLaren. McLaren's lawyers did not take this at face value and sought out Scott Andrews who was officiating at Brands Hatch on Sunday. When informed of what the FIA had alleged, Scott Andrews was outraged. He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'", Scott Andrews wrote in a lengthy submission which was read to the court by Phillips.

What on earth was the FIA up to? Why did they make such a big effort to discredit McLaren's precedent, even misrepresenting Scott Andrews in the process, when their lawyer could have dealt with it in court? It certainly smells fishy but I suspect it will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings.

Lewis aquitted himself pretty well under cross-examination by Nigel Tozzi QC for Ferrari, attacking the lawyer, even if he overstepped the mark once or twice. Charlie Whiting was given a good going over by Phillips and was perhaps fortunate that he had to leave early for a flight to Singapore(seemed a bit odd given that we all have to go there and have known for over a week about the timing of the hearing).

All the detail on the events on the track - and this is a very, very broad summary - only underlined to me that the stewards were right about the basic point about whether Lewis got an advantage in the chicane and whether he fully handed it back before attacking Kimi into Turn 1. I always thought Lewis's driving looked iffy from a rules standpoint.

The one element which emerged very strongly is that there needs to be a much clearer and more specific law on giving back a position. As Whiting explained, there is no hard and fast rule on this and each incident is judged on its merits. The FIA needs to clear this up immediately. The best answer is to ban overtaking by the following car until after the first corner subsequent to the surrender of a position unfairly gained.

Flight time...   

Comments

[stuart]

Ed, can you tell me if this was an appeal by McLaren to the FIA why Ferrari had a lawyer there who was effectively acting on behalf of the FIA cross examining Hamilton? If Ferrari did not instigate the protest what business is it of theirs? And, if in fact, they were there to defend their driver where was Kimi? I would have thought it was up to McLaren to prove to the FIA (not Ferrari) that Lewis was correct in his actions and the Stewards were wrong to penalise him due to the greyness of the rules and the fact that Whiting twice ok'd the actions of Hamilton..as for your other disclosures about Scott Andrews, I can only say I'm disgusted but not suprised by what the FIA does....witch hunt anyone?

[A Parker]

Very disappointed Ed, that you could not change your mind over this even when the evidence is overwhelmingly against the penalty, coupled with not one F1 expert or former driver agreeing with it (current drivers with selfish motives excepted).

[Richard]

I always suspected that the FIA would prefer to rule it inadmissable because it's easier that way. However, as there's a precedent, they haven't found it quite so easy. So now it looks like they will try to change history by claiming the precedent was actually a totally different situation. It's disgusting.

ED - in respect of the FIA's attempts to invalidate the precedent, how can you possibly say "it will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings"? Surely, it has every chance of being the main event and be absolutely the determining factor in the outcome.

[Seth Long]

This is a farce - regardless of who the drivers are, this sort of behavior by a sanctioning body isn't sporting and isn't legitimate.

[Derek Smith]

The Scott-Andrews evidence is stunning but not, unfortunately suprising. What it is indicative of is up for argument but many will see this as further harming what little credibility the FiA has left. As someone whose job it was to check case papers I can say that if I had found such an error I would report it for discipline.

Ineptitude as the cause is the best one can hope for.

But there is little doubt in my mind that the result will be against McLaren despite the legal precedent.

The quotes from Whiting where he says, quite clearly, that he was of the opinion that LH's move was perfectly ok is, one would have thought, enough to cast doubt on any penalty. All that happened afterwards shows that the FiA's organisation is not up to what the teams are entitled to expect.

When one considers the professionalism of the top teams and then compares it to the FiA's: well!

The only question that should come up is whether LH cheated. All talk about whether or not McLaen are entitled to appeal a wrong decision is wrong in itself. It's a sport.

But I am confident that another nail is going to go in.

[R Moore]

The FIA caught lying?

I'm shocked!

[Jordi]

I said here before that I thought they should give the points back to LH... but I was wrong, after reading what LH said today:

-"..I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book and that's why I'm the best at my job"

I just wonder if when he was reading "The book" he missed the steering wheel buttons page.

I hope they increase the penalty for arrogant, petulant, and plain stupid.

[josh j]

Ed, wonderful information and insights as usual, and stuff we can;t find anywhere else - would love to hear more about what actually went on.

Can;t believe whiting had to leave early, and the whole thing with Scott-Andrews sounds decidedly dodgy - why was he binned anyway?? sounds to me like a worthy interview as to how he left his post at the end of last year.

But I have to say that I'm still rather baffled by the fact that you still think lewis was in the wrong!!!!!!! I mean, the un-written rule is that you give back the place, and he did, the fact that he overtook at the next corner was simply the fact that kimi was in such bad shape, had less traction coming out of the bus-stop as well as the fact that he had to brake earlier.

Not to mention the fact thatthe more I watch it, the more it looks to me like kimi was actually the one in the wrong pushing him out on the bus stop!

I do trust your opinion, which is all the more why I find it so hard to accept you of all people on this subject having that opinion.

Anyway - once again - wonderful nuggets of information!!!

Also - was there no debate about the fact that the stewards ruled on the point that he simply left the track, nothing else is in the rulebook, and yet most of the other drivers also left the track at one time or another but where never punished - surely that would be mentioned by Mclaren lawyers, no??

The further this goes the crazier it gets. If it does get thrown out as inadmissable, there should be a riot on place de la concorde

[Xeron]

I cant stop laughing, where can I get the whole transcription of the Court? I can't believe Hamilton said that, no, no, I dont believe Jordi that's too much!

[Canadian]

Great article with interesting news - even if you are wrong about the incident meriting a penalty - You must have been watching a different race

[Weasel]

Boing boing goes the Kangaroo Court - again.

C'mon, you don't really expect them to admit to gross incompetence by their hugely underqualified race stewards now do you?

[mawskrat]

saturday night dirt track racing is where it's at,F1 that's not racing it's just throwing money around

[LAK]

I'm in disbelief! How can the FIA say something this big, I'm glad they were caught and hope this puts the ball in McLaren's Court, even though it has nothing to do with the actual case. I agree with Josh J, I believe Lewis did not cut the chicane on purpose, he did it to avoid colliding into Kimi.. I won't try to prove my point because I know nothing about driving an F1 car.. I just wish that if Lewis deserves the points, that they give it back to him and treat him justly! The FIA have chosen to twist things around which brings us to the question of their credibility, very sad indeed..

[McCheets]

A PARKER

“…with not one F1 expert or former driver agreeing with it…”

In the build-up to the qualifying session for the Italian GP on ITV, Alex Wurz expressed his support for the decision.

JOSH

Drivers are not required to give back the place, they are required to give back the advantage obtained. In either 2001 or 2002 a number of drivers cut the chicane at the end of the lap at Suzuka, not overtaking anybody in the process. Some drivers slowed down in the first sector in order to nullify any advantage obtained, whilst others did not. The latter were handed penalties.

[Tim]

Stuart - I'd also wondered why Ferrari had a QC at the hearing.

But I'm not sure we can read too much into it. The incident at the Bus Stop involved one Ferrari driver (Kimi Raikkonen) and the other (Felipe Massa) has a legitimate interest in the verdict, as does Ferrari as a constructor.

Presumably, were the Court of Appeal to overturn the stewards' verdict it is possible they could also determine that Raikkonen was actually at fault and penalise him in some way. Kimi hasn't attended the hearing to give his account but it appears he doesn't need to - most of the reports about Lewis' attending have suggested that it was optional.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that there is provision under English law for parties other than the claimant or defendant to join proceedings as "interested parties" so it isn't a peculiarity of the FIA.

On this basis I think there is a justification for Ferrari to be represented at the hearing.

[Anon (but who is not here and in denial that he is still posting. He shall stop now.]

Mr. G.- you mentioned Lewis crossed the line, Jordi says he did- come on, you have to tell us, what did he say?

[Paul]

"The best answer is to ban overtaking by the following car until after the first corner subsequent to the surrender of a position unfairly gained."

What happens if the car infront decides to back off on the next straight before the first corner, hindering the progress of the following car who can't pass? Such a move could decide a title decider.

[Pierre]

Ed,

Unfortunately I am losing respect for you as a journalist by the day.

You have an excellent blog, with some truly fascinating stories and insight into F1, but then fail in your duty as a journalist to do some proper investigative journalism. It's almost as if you are trying to earn back some brownie points with the FIA after your very anti-Mosley stance during the coverage of the Spanking/Hooker affair.

I am not talking about whether or not you think Lewis gained an unfair advantage or not.

I am talking about the discovery that the FIA have made (in your words):

"such a big effort to discredit McLaren's precedent, even misrepresenting Scott Andrews in the process"

You add that you suspect it will be "no more than a sideshow".

WRONG.

You should be writing about this scandal in the main Sports section of the Times newspaper, not just in your blog. If what you have said is true, it is outrageous and the reading masses should be made aware.

It would be proof that F1 is corrupt, and that the FIA cannot be trusted.

A short comment in your blog, pushed under the carpet, is not appropriate.

Perhaps you are intending on giving this issue the exposure it deserves, but couldn't yesterday as you were rushing to catch up flight. I sincerely hope this is the case.

Pierre

[F1-Insider]

Blow me down, yet again the corrupt fundamentals of the Max Mosley FIA are exposed.
So used are we to the corrupt dealings of the FIA even the editorial of this blog can put into print, 'this is nothing but a sideshow'.
Ed. I (we) expect better, it's your job to investigate this further and expose to us all these wrongs and help us to get it changed.
I am disgusted at how the FIA operate - what did Mosley say about this? So much time over such a little thing (must have got that from one of his women in the dungeon), he should have kept his mouth shut rather than influencing the case.

I really am getting fed up with how F1 is ruled.

Fix fix fix fix fix fix

[A Parker]

Jordi, respect now gone. Shame.

[Gary M]

Oh, MCHEETS, I do wish you would change your name. It is impossible to take anything you say seriously with a name like that.

Have you bothered to read any of the coverage from the appeal? The part you may be most interested in would be the transcript from the recorded radio conversation between the McLaren pits and Charlie Whiting. After being asked if Lewis had done enough Charlie Whiting clearly said okay, not once but twice.

During the Italian Grand Prix Massa was advised to give give back position to someone he had overtaken in a similar manner and he promptly did thus escaping a penalty.

So If Lewis really did gain an advantage why was he not afforded the same treatment? If Charlie Whiting has instead advised the McLaren pit to give back the position to Kimi again and wait until the next corner then they would have done so and still won the race. But he never, why? Well that one is easy to answer, at the time Charlie Whiting, the race director was of the opinion that Lewis had given back any advantage he had gained by swerving off the track to avoid a clearly determined Kimi.

[Derek Smith]

In my job as a police officer I have had to attend the scene where bodies have been dead for weeks and on one, particularly memorable, occasion months. I know about bluebottles feeding on the corruption and getting fat.

I had to attend the pm of a woman and her two childen who had been burned to death.

Another time I had to block a sewer as the residents of a premises we were raiding had flushed evidence down the loo. And on top of that until I knew better I went in lifts with groups of police officers. So you can see where awful smells are concerned I'm about as professional as you can find so I feel my opinion should carry some weight.

The circumstances surrounding the FiA's submission on what Scott Andews supposedly said stinks.

[Gary M]

Tim, Even with your plausible explanation I am still incredibly uncomfortable with the notion that a Ferrari QC was cross examining Lewis Hamilton.

I thought that this was an appeal by McLaren to the FIA, This is not a legal case where Ferrari are somehow involved. There is no apportion of blame to be decided, there is no enquiry into what happened. All McLaren are doing is trying to prove they did not get any advantage. Ferrari may well gain something if the appeal is overturned, why on earth would they be allowed to cross examine Lewis? It is more than odd, it actually stinks.

I would love somebody who understands this process in full detail to explain exactly why Ferrari should be allowed there. Ed, no way you can find out? It may well be that I am wrong and this is actually more than just an appeal against a decision made against McLaren. Just that I thought that was exactly what is was.

With the news of the FIA actually getting caught misleading the judges and, well, let us not beat around the bush here, l**** to try and stop McLaren's appeal going ahead. Ed, are you still on the "Nothing fishy going on" side of the fence? If you are I would imagine it is getting lonely on your side of the fence from what I have been reading today.

[Nick Caulfield]

I was taking a look at the Comment Central feature on saving words http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2008/09/vote-to-save-a.html

It's some fun and it seems that some words are not as uncommon as Collins Dictionary would have us believe but I would love to find a use for

"apodeictic - unquestionably true by virtue of demonstration"

Can anyone here think of a use for it?

I fear though that too many people will have been able to "vaticinate" the result of this hearing

[McCheets]

GARY M

I was just pointing what the rules state, and highlighted a previous case to point out that a driver can be deemed to have gained an advantage without actually having overtaken somebody.

I have no idea what you were trying to prove, but I hope that it makes you feel better about yourself!

[Jordi]

- what did Mosley say about this? So much time over such a little thing (must have got that from one of his women in the dungeon).

Best line in the blog for months! LOL, thank you F1-insider

[Stelmara]

@ F1 Insider

I could not agree with you more when you conclude your post with the words: Fix fix fix.

The email that has been revealed says it all, this together with McLaren not believing what the FIA representatives had sent for a moment (hence their sending a team to seek information direct from the horses mouth) demonstrates to the entire world just how corrupt (and are seen to be) the FIA are.

I feel that this filthy lie of an email, is far from a side show, very surprised Ed Gorman of the Times feels this way, just proves yet again just how rotten the governance of F1 is and how many now just accept it (me, not ever, standards cost nothing and right is right and wrong is wrong).

I'll be watching the race on Sunday as it's timing and location will be a great spectacle but as for the sport I am sorry to report it has died for me following the defunct presidents perversions were revealed and the FIA's response to them together with the obvious ani McLaren rulings that come as the FIA (we all know whom from) deem fit.

Before anyone asks No it's not that time of the month, I just want to see a fair sport, run fairly by fair morally minded people. Is that really too much to ask in 2008 from probably the world's richest events?

[David Jones]

Could anyone please tell me why Ferrari had a legal representative at the McLaren appeal?
I don't understand this as I understand that this appeal is about McLaren penalty and nothing else.

Ed could you advise what the FIA rules say about this?

[Richard]

PAUL - "What happens if the car infront decides to back off on the next straight before the first corner"

Good point, well made. We could go even further, and question what would happen if there was a third car following closely that didn't cut the chicane. Would that driver be able to overtake if the driver in front of him has to falsely hold back in order to comply with this rule?

I always said this was a silly rule, rushed in with no thought as to the consequences, the worst of which is that it will discourage close, exciting motor racing.

[Tim]

Gary M - I take your point on feeling uncomfortable about Lewis being examined by a Ferrari QC. I initially felt the same way but, on further reflection, it isn't that unusual and it doesn't necessarily mean anything sinister is going on.

As I said previously, I'm not a lawyer but I have been involved a few court proceedings including some where "interested parties" have been joined, i.e. persons or organisations who have a legitimate interest in the outcome of a case. By "legitimate interest" I mean where the outcome of the case is likely to impact materially on the party in question. There's a clear argument that Ferrari and BMW Sauber both have an interest in this case as it would stand to lose championship points if the penalty is overturned. Ferrari in particular could argue that the drivers and constructors titles could both turn on the six points Lewis and McLaren are seeking to gain from their appeal.

Another reason for Ferrari to be represented is that one of its driver was involved in the events that lead to Lewis' penalty. In presenting its case, McLaren were always likely to refer to Kimi's part in the incident so it makes sense for Ferrari to have a voice to ensure that the other side of the story is heard. This is especially true if the Court of Appeal could potentially decide that Raikkonen had been at fault and issue him with a penalty.

Witnesses who are called for cross examination are liable to be cross examined by the representatives of all the relevant parties, not just their own. McLaren's lawyers should have known this, which should have informed the decision to put Lewis on the stand. I suspect that McLaren felt it was worth the risk and Lewis appears to have given a robust account of himself.

[David Jones]

Derek Smith
I think a case should be taken out against whoever it was who sent this lie to McLaren. This was obviously sent to sway the case in the FIA's direction.
To say this stinks, with the greatest respect for a former copper is an understatement of the highest order. How more criminal can the FIA get?
Don't know about others but I can't help thinking a certain person is getting a lot of joy out of all this as he knows if anyone questions him about it he can just call them stupid and they'll go away, after all even the Times (Ed) are now saying well this isn't very important, it's just a sideshow

[Xeron]

Don,t worry Gary M if Ferrari is there they might have the right,I want to know all the details as well, it's so exciting!

[tiptoe]

I think too much emphasis and complain is going into the spa affair and in fairness FIA has not changed at all, it is the same FIA with the same obtuse rules book that can be interpreted either way.
I just want to point out that this is the same FIA that did not punished LH last year in japan, the same one that punished FA in hungary and could not say what article of the rules book he had offended (I think the punishment was well deserved though).
If you did not complain then, why are you complaining so much now?, you see, to discredit the FIA only when its decisions don't suit your needs does not look fair.

BTW. LH gained advantage by cutting the corner, he should have been more patience. It was a pity for him because he would have taken over KR sooner or later and in actual fact the move did not affect the outcome at all but for the sanction imposed.

Ferrary has the right to be at the hearing because the outcome is going to affect them, this is an standard procedure and not a reason to get your knickers in a twist.

[Gary M]

MCHEETS, Maybe you are not aware but your name could be mistaken for a play on words. It is quite hilarious to think but if you can imagine taking the Mc from McLaren and combine it with the word Cheat you actually get McCheats which is not too far removed from your name. Although I would imagine your name is actually spelt McCheets. Are you of Scottish descent by any chance?

Anyway, I am sure you get that all the time, a common misunderstanding I guess. Hope you are not too offended.

Cheers.

[tiptoe]

RICHARD
What do you propose as a rule then?, that drivers can cut chicanes or even go cross country skipping half a circuit and not being punished in the name of exciting motor racing.
There has to be a rule and the one proposed (wait until the next corner to overtake again) clarifies the matter IMO.

[McCheets]

RICHARD

I hope that I understand the point you are making.

I recall an incident in Canada involving Ralf Schumacher and (I think it was) Raikkonen. One passed the other at the end of the lap by cutting the final corner, and immediately backed off to give up the place. During the mayhem, Montoya, who was closely following, passed both of them.

[David Jones]

Excellent article just published, see: http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20792.html

Does anyone think this is not just another case of the corrupt FIA in action?

[Derek Smith]

Tiptoe,

I fear the 'clarification' would appear not to have been all that transparent to you. The new rule that Whiting has created since Spa actually says that it should be the next corner but one. Still, I'm not criticising you for your error: after all it is such an easy mistake to make. Whiting did so and he's the one who should have known.

And further, I'm with Richard on this one. The point of F1 is close and exciting racing. Rules which limit such opportunities should be limited, clear and fair. The one on cutting the chicane is rather absurd. Monza had the best idea in that a car would have to negotiate time consuming barriers to regain the circuit. Simple, effective and fair.

[McCheets]

RICHARD

Further to my previous posting, here is the incident.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99EmExlI-Co

If memory serves me correctly, the incident was not investigated. Montoya did nothing wrong, but then at the same time neither did Raikkonen.

[Richard]

MCCHEETS - yes, that's exactly the kind of scenario I was talking about. Would it be fair to the third driver if he had to hold back as well? Probably not.

It could become even more complicated if the third driver was from the same team as the leading driver, because the leader could slow down, thus making the second guy do the same to avoid overtaking, and the leader's teammate could go past unimpeded.

And what about this scenario:

Driver A is three seconds ahead of Driver B going into a chicane. Driver B is one tenth quicker per lap than Driver A, and there are ten laps left. Driver B barely brakes for the chicane so is ahead of Driver A on the next straight. Driver B gives the place back but is now so close to Driver A that he passes on the following lap. The new rule hasn't been broken but Driver B is now able to win the race when he wouldn't have been able to if he hadn't cut the chicane.

It can also be used tactically by the leading driver to avoid being overtaken. If Kimi had driven Lewis off the chicane on the last lap, Lewis would have been prevented from winning because the rules would have prohibited overtaking until after La Source i.e. after the chequered flag.

I'm sure there are many more scenarios where the rule is open to abuse, so it can't be a good rule to implement.

More rules will only make the racing more processional, and this is supposedly what the FIA are trying to address. I think they're sending out some very mixed messages.

I think the old rule works well enough as long as each incident is looked at fairly and consistently. The main problem I think people have with the Spa incident was that a marginal incident resulted in such a heavy penalty.

Perhaps drivers should incur some kind of cumulative penalty for breaches, with penalties becoming harsher with more breaches?

[Angiox]

A nice solution:

OK. It was a drive throgh, but LH won on the track. So FIA can decide to give him back the trophy and penalyse him in the next GP with ten places of the grid (i.e. Singapore)

What do you think?

[McCheets]

GARY M

People do question the phonetic similarities between Cheets and Cheats all the time - no offence taken!

To answer your question, there is a strong likelihood that my heritage is Scottish. Does that pose a problem?

Incidentally, does the 'M' in Gary M represent an abbreviated form of McLaren?

If my memory serves me correctly then you are living in Australia - are you something of a night owl? If I have mistaken you for somebody else then please accept my apologies.

[A Parker]

Richard, exactly, the original rule of giving back the advantage by letting the car repass seemed perfectly understandable and acceptable. This "new rule" as DC has called it, is stupid, made up to justify an unfair penalty, and not at all sensibly thought through.

Lewis did all that was required and should still be deemed the winner at Spa.

Doesn't anyone else like me, find the drivers who have commented and supported the penalty, quite revolting in their opportunism and dishonesty?

Isn't anyone else like me really disappointed in Ed for feeling that he cannot reverse his opinion supporting the penalty in the face of all the evidence?

[A Parker]

Tiptoe, there WAS a rule which Lewis abided by: giving back a position after cutting a chicane and gaining an advantage. Then they decided to make up a NEW RULE so that Lewis could be penalised. If you can't see what a load of rubbish this whole penalty is after, presumably, reading all the arguments, well what can I say? If you were so concerned about drivers cutting chicanes, why aren't you out there trying to get all the other drivers who cut chicanes to get penalties? Or in your world, is it only Lewis Hamilton who should be penalised for rule breaking?

[Richard]

TIPTOE - I have no desire to discuss this with someone who chooses to put silly and dim-witted sarcasm into my mouth.

I've posted some of my objections to the rule (for Mccheets attention) and when you see them, you may see that it could raise more problems than it would solve. Then again, maybe you won't...

[Nick, Bedford]

Your piece on Movers & Shakers asked what those two were up to, and I think we've all now been treated to the blockbusting script they hatched. Formula 1 is no longer about Motor Racing or Sport, it mechanised WWF Wrestling, its money, TV ratings and BIG business. So lets get down to the script for sunday shall we ?!

[17 points in two races]

Funny, once more, RD racing against his driver, LH must be thinking on Sangay... and not in Spa

[CHIUNDA]

Tim - McLaren are not seeking to "gain" from the appeal - rather it is Ferrari who are seeking to gain. McLaren just want their points back.

Tiptoe - maybe we should have a look at your knickers. And Richard didn't propose those ridiculous cross country rules - you came up with the words.

One day F1 will be like WRC - a championship that used to be exciting until FIA plastic surgeon-ed it. Then i won't have to be upset about stupid posts on internet blogs

[David Hodge]

So the FiA rejects the appeal. Can't say I am surprised although the Tony Scott-Andrews revelation is yet more proof of the FiA looking only at their narcissistic view of the world instead of facts. This will probably go the same way as the "somebody complained about McLaren in garage 5" saga and will all be forgotten in a few weeks, such is Formula 1.

I have such a nasty taste in my mouth at the moment concerning all of this. I only hope Lewis can now win every race and McLaren take the constructors championship.

[Pierre]

So Mclaren have had their appeal rejected...

I ask myself again:

What is the point of having a position such as that of Race Director "Charlie Whiting", if any decision made at the time is easily over ruled? Let's say McLaren did commit a foul, surely if they have sought clarification from the race offical and he has agreed to it, then that is the end of the matter? Seems hardly fair to McLaren if later on, he says, I got it wrong so I have reversed my decision!! Can you imagine a similar situation in any other sport? Example a referee seeing a replay of a penalty he had given, which resulted in a goal that won the match. Then deciding after the game, to reverse the decision?? It just doesn't happen - so why is this different?

Disillusioned but not surpised.

[Richard]

Well I'm sure no-one is surprised to see the appeal has been thrown out.

So what's the difference between this case and the Sutil/Liuzzi one where a precedent was set ruling it admissable? It seems no protocol needs to be followed in Max's kangaroo court.

The FIA has made itself look incompetent, and it has treated the fans as fools for following what was always going to be a charade.

The fact that they had to manipulate the words of their own steward in order to maintain an inadmissable ruling speaks volumes about those behind the decision, and is further proof IMO that the rules are applied selectively.

[PTM]

Well the jury is out the appeal has been rejected! Surprise, surprise!
A major loss for all true F1 fans.
A victory for all the petty haters.

[madgixer]

my biggest gripe is, why cant you appeal against a drive thru? ou can appeal against everything else, but not a drive thru. Anyone know why?

[TB]

1) Do you people (JORDI, MCCHEETS, TIPTOE) really think RICHARD can read, comprehend and then process what your saying.....His ignorance and bias is quite sad..
Dare i say JamesAllenesque!!!

A PARKER can you please change your name because i cant take anything you post seriously because i keep on thinking of you as some kind of Jacket or coat..Cheers

[Yeoh Lian Chuan, Singapore]

Some comments posted ask why Ferrari could attend the appeal.

The short (legal) answer is the rules allow them to.

Rule 21 of the ICA rules states that
"the ICA may hear any competitor in a major FIA Championship ... who so requests and who could be directly and significantly affected by the decision to be taken. It is the responsibility of such parties to send a written request to the ICA for a hearing."

Ferrari's attendance was thus quite proper.

Similarly, it was entirely proper that the ICA dismiss McLaren's appeal for inadmissibility. Notwithstanding the Scott Andrews brouhahaha, it was always quite clear in law that a drive-through penalty was not appealable.

[Lisa]

I think the reason Ed believed the whole Scott Andrews issue would be a sideshow is because he believed the appeal, as has happened, would be rejected on the grounds of drive-throughs not being subject to appeal. Given that the panel did not therefore consider the submissions from the teams and FIA, it *was* just a sideshow.

[Alex]

David Jones is spot on... why exactly did Ferrari have a lawyer there, who was allowed to cross examine Lewis ? I thought McLaren were appealing a FIA decision, not a Ferrari one ? Silly me, that is one and the same.

Ferrari are happy to win by cheating with the totally corrupt FIA. It will continue as long as we sit around and do nothing.

Just reread this....
He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'"

Apart from a few pathetic Alonso/Ferrari fans, with their own sad agendas, does anybody really buy this pathetic sham ?

[TINTIN]

Good blog Mr Gorman, such a shame so many of the posters are blinded by Hamilton-lust.
Lewis broke the rules got caught and lost a few points ~ it shouldn't stop him winning the title.
The FIA have strange and bewildering way of working (many times at loggerhaeds to the world and the benefit of the sport it would seem) but the end result this time was correct.
For the sake of the sport and blogs I hope Lewis signs for Ferrari. How will those with anti-Ferrari pro-Lewis fixations cope??? Homes for the bewildered may have to be set up.....

[Big Phil]

Justice has prevailed, penalty stands

[Carlos]

?

[Alisonnic]

Obviously the FIA needs to clarify some rules to avoid this sort of thing happening again. Here are some suggestions to get things started:

1. Any McLaren passing any Ferrari under any circumstances shall be required to give back the place immediately or be excluded from the event.

2. Any car outqualifying any Ferrari shall be given a 10-place grid penalty. (This should prevent outrageously unfair behavior such as Fernando Alonso blocking a Ferrari at Monza from hundreds of meters ahead a few years ago.)

3. In the event that some car other than a Ferrari should, despite the above precautions, win an event, such car shall be excluded and its driver banned for three races.

That should do it, don't you think?

I've been a fan of Formula 1 since 1963, when Jimmy Clark and Colin Chapman brought a lovely little Lotus over here and nearly won the 500. Skulduggery took the win away from them then, and my disgust at that sealed my preferences: F1 yes, American racing, no.

I've stuck with F1 through endless machinations by the FIA to give Ferrari advantage after advantage, but this is too much.

I'll be looking for a new sport, because I won't be watching F1 ever again.

[russ mckennett]

Ed.....you are as bad as the fia.Why have a trial if the crime is not admissable.
The whole thing is weird.
They all have a lot of money but no brains.and no morals.Ive seen every televised race since 1988 and if im thinking of finding another hobby it MUST be pretty bad.F1 is my life but its making me feel dirty..............

[DAVIDN]

Isn't it time to move on and acknowledge that the FIA simply never lose a case. The accusations and conspiracy theries are now completely irrelevant. Let Lewis and Philippe get on with what they do best and race hard against one another.........................

[Carlos]

Let's forget it now an move on....
Lewis Hamilton's name is on that World Championship Trophy
"Winner 2008"
He's just a born racer...unlike interesting Kimi uuuuuuuuuuuummm!!!

[Carlos]

Will Kimi get a penalty for ramming Lewis up the backside in a tantrum because he passed him....come on ref
yellow card!

[Carlos]

Jordi, get a life...is that how you would conduct yourself if you were young and confident?

Were you the steward at the race??

[Alastair]

Where was the outrage when Kubica was penalised for bumping into Lewis last year? Or when Lewis was lifted out of the gravel with his engine running?

[Trigster]

TIPTOE 'BTW. LH gained advantage by cutting the corner, he should have been more patience. It was a pity for him because he would have taken over KR sooner or later and in actual fact the move did not affect the outcome at all but for the sanction imposed'

Are you not contradicting yourself here? if you say Lewis would have won no matter what, then at the end of the day how could he possibly have gained an advantage?

[supercampeaobrasileiro]

i do not think ham helped his case by acting like a complete brat under questioning IMHO - you dont patronise someone by asking if someone is a racing driver (pretty obvious since he was a lawyer)then scoffing at them and saying that you know every manoeuvre in the book and are the best at what you do, or words to that effect.

If Ham wants to emulate Senna then he should learn to talk with humility and to be humble, which is precisely what Senna did when speaking, as he did all his talking on the track

[F1-Insider]

@ Pierre
I agree, regretfully Ed Gorman is loosing my respect as well and I like you see some points being gained from Mosley's FIA (Ed, I am sure many other will feel the same, the exposure of yet another example of the FIA interfering with the so called independent court of appeal is a huge scandal and should be exposed as such.

So, as most journalists had already reported the case is thrown out, what weight I wonder did the judges give to the email?

Ed and all fellow readers of this blog, I am far from being a Royalist but today I do believe we have witnessed a ***king dreadful decision by the ever corrupt F1 governing body the ***King FIA and their show court.

Anyone who watched the race in Spa will have felt amazing seeing a master at work as Lewis took Kimi, in my view fair and square (remember he was pushed and had nowhere to go but over the chicane) and how deflated they felt when hearing several hours after the event that what we saw (Lewis wining) was in fact a figment of our imagination.

I am disgusted and angry with how F1 is run and governed and how the F1 teams have allowed it to be governed this way in the first place, what on earth do McLaren have to do to win a championship with the way Mosley runs the anti McLaren FIA?

I wrote months ago that McLaren would not be allowed to win this year however good they are, Max S&M Mosley will not allow it, one way or another (watch now for blatant team orders from Ferrari - it's very unlikely we'll see the same from McLaren as Lewis is so much faster in any case).

For all the years I have been a fan of F1 today's events make me feel sick and I am convinced that we, the fans, will never see a fair F1 racing series whilst Mosley and all the other cronies (Ecclestone and so on) have moved on, even then we'll probably see clones of those that have passed through the gut of motor sport giving off the same aroma!

Maybe it really is time that McLaren decided to put all their combined resources together with Mercedes in leaving F1 and moving to the American series making them a real competitor to F1.

If McLaren/Mercedes were to do this the American series would be lifted to the stratosphere and their current take on open wheel, USA based racing could well change and we could see it becoming a world show as not seen before, there are many fantastic historic tracks around the world that have been pushed by the money men away from F1 that would welcome a series competing with the FIA F1 series including both Silverstone, Imola and Suzuka to name just three as well as many other historic countries that would embrace joining such a series.

I'd wager that if this happened and took off it would not be long at all until we saw at one or more German manufacturer entering the series and the Japanese involvement being ramped up, it just needs some serious thinking outside of the established box as today like so many others since the Mosley/Ecclestone outfit took control of F1 it is yet again demonstrated that it is no longer fit for purpose and is corrupt to its core.

Ed thoughts?
How about News International sponsoring the idea?
Lets not forget that the American market is sill by far the biggest market for at least two (maybe more) of the teams in F1.

A new world series with the backing of all those clubs who voted to oust the FIA presidential on discovery of his weird non public life. Maybe this would be the best of all world as Mosley could have hos customer car ting for F1 at say 5000 and the manufactures could advertise they engineering nous, flare and engineering skill is a all new fair motor racing at the very pinnacle of motor racing.

Don't just fir insults re this post, just for a moment think outside of the box and I would be particular interested to hear from others that have followed F1 for many years and seen its demise in so many ways over the pasts 10 years or more - think out of the box.

F1-Insider

[David Jones]

Ed

A very bad day for formula 1. FIX FIX FIX FIX today has left a very bad taste in my mouth FIX FIX FIX

[Humberto]

There are a lot of people that only want to see issues that benefit LH. Not only at SPA LH drove out of rules. In the last race he overtook at least three people without follow the rules and put in clear danger them. Is a young driver but somebody have to explain him the basic respect to his co-workers. LH is not the best at least for this reason.

[David Jones]

Ed
Can you probe to see if Charlie Whiting will be investigated by the FIA following the revelations that he told an untruth to the FIA's legal department or if he didn't will the FIA start an internal investigation to find out who did?

This is assuming you are allowed now that it appears you are reporting in a correct FIA approved manner? (I do agree with others as it is starting to look like this is how you are reporting things - please advise me and others otherwise if that's the case?)?

[Dave]

I can see this one both ways, to be honest. The people taking Hamilton's side have to understand that there *is* a case for the penalty:

* Hamilton had a choice between either slamming on the brakes and slotting in behind Raikkonen, or cutting the corner.

* If he'd slammed on the brakes, he definitely wouldn't have been anything like as close to Raikkonen as he was; he'd have been several seconds behind.

That doesn't mean that I agree or disagree with the stewards, but there are perfectly good reasons for them to make the decision they did, even if people don't agree with it.

[David Smith]

Stuart asks why Ferrari were represented at the Appeal.
I should have thought the answer was obvious when the FIA apparently condones its DG's out of hours activities and practices dissemblance in respect of Tony Scott Andrews' evidence.
No doubt if McLaren appeal further some mechanism will be found to fine them another 50 million.
Call this a sport - not in my book.

[Richard]

I recently came across this article from 11 years ago, almost to the day.

http://www.iht.com/articles/1997/10/28/prix.t_3.php

Regarding the sentiment it contains, it could have been written yesterday. I found the final paragraph particularly poignant.

Can anyone think of another sport where there is such a mistrust of the actions and decisions of the governing body over such an extended period of time? To all those in denial that the FIA act improperly, I ask you, can it really be the case that with all the smoke we've seen over so many years, there's no fire?

[The Joker]

Newsflash

It has just been reported that the FIA President was seen in Chelsea. London smiling at the time of the FIA court of appeal announcement regarding the Spa 2008 fiasco.
It was not certain if a happy looking Mr Mosley 87, dressed in a grey raincoat was heading for an urgent appointment in Chelsea or Euston or had just left one...........

More reporting from Samfoxy news to follow.......

Ed, well we have to laugh and should you publish this I am sure it will lighten the more a little on this sad day for F1

[Jason Emerick]

The original decision of the Stewards and its appeal are badly tainted and should have been thrown out on a number of grounds.

McLaren confirmed with Race Control (Charlie Whiting), during the incident, that Hamilton's "handback" of the position was absolutely correct - in effect obtaining FIA sanction on the spot for Hamilton's actions.

The behavior of the Supervisor of Stewards (a close Mosley associate) in his communicating with Hamilton after the race was odd, to say the least. His role in the decision-making process of the Stewards levying their penalty should be looked at carefully - and will not be.

Mosley's public comments, while this appeal was in process, about punishing the "conspirators" who outed him, gives at the very least the appearance of bias against Ron Dennis and McLaren - who Mosley has made no secret are one of the objects of his conspiracy theories. He should be called to account for possibly attempting to influence the appeal process - and he will not be.

The situation surrounding the FIA's completely false characterization of Tony Scott Andrews communications at the hearing warrants an investigation of its own - and won't get one.

The question of why Hamilton and McLaren had to answer to cross-examination by a Ferrari lawyer when they are appealing an FIA decision is significant. The two entities are, at least on paper, supposed to be seperate and, because of Massa inherited the victory thanks to Hamilton's demotion, Ferrari can hardly claim to be an objective and un-biased party to any evaluation of the Steward's ruling. Why were they at the hearing in any capacity but as an observer at all?

Any one of these would be at least cause for discussion. Taken together, they constitute a very strong argument that the FIA can no longer make any claim to being an open, transparent "honest broker" as a regulatory body over F1.

It is hard to comprehend how the sport can go forward under the auspices of this tainted and now very suspect FIA headed by a man who has publicly stated that he intends to use the organization as his instrument of personal retribution. This decision, and all of the serious irregularities and improprieties surrounding it, indicates that his vendetta may have already begun.

Given that Bernie formed a new umbrella organization of all of the teams at Monza, those of us with long memories wonder if we are about to see a replay of the FOCA/FISA war as Formula One seeks a new sanctioning body to replace a seriously compromised and now openly biased FIA.

Meanwhile, it would appear that the races and the Championships are now more in the hands of the lawyers than of the drivers. That is a very bad thing if you are trying to continue to be a fan of this "sport".

[Robin Lawson]

The FIA decision today seems very odd to a non-petrolhead. Reading their rules as provided to Editors today on their website
"Paragraph 5 of Article 152 of the International Sporting Code provides as follows:

Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal."

The question is whether "driving through or stopping.." is the same as a "Drive through penalty". The former is in present participle which indicates that the act actually takes place. It is obvious that the act of driving through or stopping cannot be unwound after the event, any more than Reading's "goal" against Watford, or Liverpool's non-goal against Stoke. In the case in point the act did not - it was a retrospective 25 sec penalty, which in my view should have been open to appeal, as it could be changed back just as easily as it was changed forward.

FIA needs to remember the word appeal doesn't just have a legal connotation. They need to make the sport intelligible so that it has appeal to viewers. I won't be turning on again.

[Ed Gorman]

Hello Pierre and F1 Insider
Just in case you haven't noticed, the e-mail WAS the main subject of my reporting in the paper today. I only scrabbled a version for you guys on the blog while waiting for my plane because I thought it was important you saw it first.
Have a look here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4806012.ece

[I'm not english (TG)]

And the answer is: because he ain't right!

[Simon Brock]

This was supposed to have been an appeal by McLaren to the FIA Court of Appeal to decide on the 25 second penalty imposed on LH at Spa hours after the race had finished. Instead we have Ferrari rather well represented at a proceeding to which they should not have been present, as they had not lodged a complaint and in fact Stefano Domenicali(Team Principal) had even stated following Spa that he thought there had been no infringement, so what the hell were they doing cross examining LH and stirring the pot on this issue, particularly since there is a direct conflict of interest as they are the beneficiaries of the outcome. For the court to have been seen to be completely impartial in an issue that only involved McLaren, LH and the FIA stewards, then to my mind the presence of Ferrari in aggressively arguing for the penalty to be upheld (or the appeal deemed inadmissible which comes to the same result) is totally unfair to the central appellant's case. The three stewards whose flawed decision was being contested were not present, and therefore not accountable for their actions. How absolutely ridiculous that the three people who caused this problem were not in court to defend their decision making process, and yet the team that would directly benefit from a failed appeal were there in court effectively arguing the case on the stewards behalf. That's how it looks and that's how it played out. By the way, the email to McLaren in which the FIA had lied about what Tony Scott Andrews had said to Charlie Whiting in a conversation, and the cynical attempt by them to influence events by it's use, is a lot more than a sideshow; it's something that should be vigorously investigated for the fraudulent and illegal manipulation that it evidences. At a minimum, it shows beyond any question of a doubt that the FIA is anything but impartial, that it's procedures are badly flawed and that a "sport" that is as capital intensive and widely followed as F1, desperately deserves a governing body far more honest, open, transparent and impartial than the FIA.

[JoseBelgica]

Whining, whining, whining. snif snif snif
Get over with! If Hamilton is a good driver he has to prove it during next four races. Massa is coughing on his neck. Focussss

He did not complain against FIA when Fernando Alonso was penalized in Hungary 2007. Why now?

[A Parker]

What is it with this "Lewis Hamilton should be humble" crap? Since when was it a requirement of an F1 driver to be humble?

BTW, I don't think Hamilton is arrogant. I think he is honest and straightforward and very down to earth, but not a bull****ter! As Ed said in his report, he conducted himself brilliantly in court. Cojones, balls, whatever you call them, LH has them in abundance!

[McCheets]

RICHARD

When Montoya pulled off the move, the first thing that came to my mind was something like, "he can't do that". Then I asked myself what he did wrong, and couldn't think of anything. Yet I still felt that Raikkonen was dealt a bad hand - he lost his position to Montoya because of Ralf's failed attempt at overtaking. But then again, similar outcomes can happen elsewhere on the track from failed overtaking manoeuvres, and often do.

I can see both drivers' arguments in such a case. However, as Montoya stayed on the race track at all times I would most likely side with him as from his perspective he gained from a failed overtaking manoeuvre ahead of him.

Of course my view on the matter may be completely different tomorrow!

I haven't read your other points properly yet - I have been at the desk for over 12 hours and do not feel like thinking right now! I will get back to you tomorrow. I am sure that what you have said is quite valid.

[Alex]

I agree with Supercampea ! Hamilton took an advantage and he knows it he should take the medicine and get on with the racing

[17 points in two races]

This year LH crashed Fernando Alonso first, after that Kimi, and now and only for you F1 fans....
Massa, Kubica or Kovalanien!!

Of course, it wasn´t his fault!!

Imagine if Kimi Or Fernando will crash LH in the next 4 races, what would you say?

And in the way he drives, its quite possible! In 10% of the races of this year he has crashed...

LH racing against LH

[Andrew]

Good morning (or whatever) Ed,
Great article by Andrew benson sums it up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7631230.stm

[Will Harris]

I'm sorry to have to do this Ed, but your writing on this subject is bizarre to say the least. You seem to find all the goings on at the FIA to be perfectly dandy. At want point will you call a Kangaroo court a flaming Kangaroo court? What do they have to do to get a bad word out of you? You're our voice, the only one of us who can get your view published in The Times. You're paid to do it, perhaps you're thinking more of future access to the movers and shakers and McLaren haters than you are about the truth and the contrivance of the FIA and Ferrari. You seem only to have recollection of your dodgy feeling watching Lewis cut the chicane, and an inability to cede that he did what he needed to do and then trounced Kimi.

I'm reminded of the line from the film Aliens, just before Vasquez incinerates herself and your namesake with a grenade. I'm sure you know the line. The more you write in this one sided way, (utterly balanced to the end, when at some point a degree of subjectivity should begin to creep in) the more that line applies.

[Mrs Bishop]

This judgement doesn't particularly matter that it was Lewis, or that if the appeal was deemed ok to proceed with it may not have changed the stewards decision.

The fact that annoys me is that the FIA were never going to let the appeal continue, and conviently made sure that the penalty was a drive through so that mclaren couldn't appeal the decision even though it was clearly a time penalty, and not really equivilant to a drive through anyway.
The rules need to be changed so that you can appeal especially seen as Mclaren have only broken a rule that needed clarification after the race.

And although all the drivers "agree" with it they all seemed to need clarification on this matter also, so it could have happened to anyone, and it should not be their fault that the rules are a complete shambles.

[Weasel]

Did anyone honestly expect any other result?

Ed, I am concerned that you are becoming cynical, jaded and losing your journalistic pit bull instinct. Has someone from the maFIA got to you? What about the Scott Andrews saga? A sideshow? I don't think so - more like absolute proof of the rampant corruption within the FIA.

It is looking more and more like the last season of F1 for me until such time as it gets out of the clutches of the Evil Empire.

[Kormak]

Precedents?

Watch this: https://bdo.grouphub.com/login

46 laps -> Alonso overtakes Klien
45 laps -> Alonso leaves Klien to overtake and overtake him again using advantage
43 laps -> Alonso was yellow flaged, he had to leave Klien to pass again finally he overtakes Klien again.

[Derek Smith]

Can anyone tell me what engine was in the TR that was driven by Liuzzi in Japan? I get confused.

[Nick]

The FIA does what Moseley does: refuse to accept any other view than their own and just ignore all the criticism. Arrogance in the extreme; but then they know that there is no one to dislodge them.

Like their president, they show contempt for race fans and just assume we will continue to make them rich.

[Philk]

As long term fans of F1 we have attended many grand prix as a familly and have spent several hours sharing a drink and good banter with fans of all teams including Ferrari after each race. Does the FIA realise that if they continue the way they are we may see the football fan mentality creeping in to F1, and all the enjoyment of attending races being lost for good as they set 1 group of fans against another. Let's hope performance and quality driving will overcome favouritism by the ruling body.

[Robin John Ayres]

Felipe Massa 2008 champion

[Mullarkian]

Lewis shouldn't concern himself with what the FIA say, after all he won the championship last year. Raikonnen won the Australian GP in an illegal car but the FIA did nothing about it; had this been a McLaren then no doubt something would have been done by the FIA to deduct points.

[Jordi]

Richard -"The main problem I think people have with the Spa incident was that a marginal incident resulted in such a heavy penalty".

Richard, I think you bring a very good point for discussion, why people feel so strongly about such “marginal” incidents. Incidents like Spa and penalties happened before, but it didn't seem to be a big problem for most people.

I think there is a combination of facts that are making this season and perhaps last season one of the craziest things I've ever witness in sports. I think that most average F1 fans are astonish and confused.

1-Hamilton and McLaren are British, a country that has been longing for a F1 glory for too long.

2-Hamilton has been pushing the rules to the limits from day one and in his short career he has been involved in many incidents, allegations, court cases, controversies etc.

3-F1 fans seem to Love or heat LH and RD, therefore take extreme views on any "marginal" incident involving them.

4-F1 rules, regulations and proceedings seem to change with the wind, adding more confusion to fans and encouraging conspiracy theories.

5- First successful mix race driver.

I’m sure you can add more things to this list, which is making these last 2 seasons a roller coaster. The question is: Is this roller coaster bringing new fans to F1 or putting old fans off?
For an average F1 fan like me, it's too much. To follow F1 today you need to have a degree in science, Law, Managerial skills, international affairs, Politics, Business and anthropology. Still, I find myself seating in front of the TV every single race.

Pierre -Let's say McLaren did commit a foul, surely if they have sought clarification from the race offical and he has agreed to it, then that is the end of the matter?

Pierre, (for what I read here from people that know more about F1 regulations than me) Withing can only give his opinion, he does not decide on those matters. This is the stewards’ job.

[Bruce Talamon]

So what happens when Lewis wins the Championship in spite of all the stuff that Max and his little friends have done?

Well, they better get used to the idea. I think young Hamilton will win even with the addition of that 150 pound weight that Max slips on his leg before each race.

Bruce
Los Angeles, California
USA

[brabazon]

Us fans are the losers again. If the appeal had been upheld and Lewis won the WDC by one point, then everyone would say that he only won it because of the appeal. If Massa wins by one point we'll all say it was because of the Spa penalty. This is not the way to run a 'sport'. Ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.