- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
All I can say is that you reap what you sow.
Didn't his father teach him not to lie?
Didn't his father teach him not to lie?
Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix 2009
- Thread starter GT4 genius
- 606 comments
- 29,199 views
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Actually, it's just gotten worse ... the whole team has been disqualified. Having retired on the first lap, Kovalainen won't really feel the effects of it, but one has to wonder what would have happened if he'd had a good race.
The penalty is pretty harsh, but I guess the stewards are really trying to send a message with this one. I don't think anyone has lied to the stewards before - if only by omission, as Hamilton did; he did not mention the team had told him to let Trulli re-pass him - but it's pretty obvious they don't want to encourage this kind of behaviour.
The penalty is pretty harsh, but I guess the stewards are really trying to send a message with this one. I don't think anyone has lied to the stewards before - if only by omission, as Hamilton did; he did not mention the team had told him to let Trulli re-pass him - but it's pretty obvious they don't want to encourage this kind of behaviour.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,602
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
I did say in my post that both Hamilton and McLaren were disqualified.
I wonder how many more Fantasy GP points I will get for Trulli's 3rd place!
I wonder how many more Fantasy GP points I will get for Trulli's 3rd place!
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,735
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Utterly bizzare.
I would love to see the fully transcripts of both the radio chatter and the stewards meetings, as I can see two possabilites.
The first being that LH specifically told the stewards that he was not told to yield to Trulli, and that the radio chat proves he was told to. If that's the case then the punishment is totally warranted and he was simply stupid to do so.
The second is that is was not he simply did not mention to the stewards that he was told to let Trulli past (in that he may not have been asked the question directly), so it miss-communication. In which case the punishment seems a bit harsh.
To be honest without the full transcripts of both its hard to know which is the case, but the first one would be a bit strange given that LH has repeatedly said to just about everyone (and it was my understand) that he had been told by McLaren to let Trulli re-pass.
As for people not being honest with stewards in the past.......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article673144.ece
.....its happened many times before, and its always a stupid thing to do.
Regards
Scaff
I would love to see the fully transcripts of both the radio chatter and the stewards meetings, as I can see two possabilites.
The first being that LH specifically told the stewards that he was not told to yield to Trulli, and that the radio chat proves he was told to. If that's the case then the punishment is totally warranted and he was simply stupid to do so.
The second is that is was not he simply did not mention to the stewards that he was told to let Trulli past (in that he may not have been asked the question directly), so it miss-communication. In which case the punishment seems a bit harsh.
To be honest without the full transcripts of both its hard to know which is the case, but the first one would be a bit strange given that LH has repeatedly said to just about everyone (and it was my understand) that he had been told by McLaren to let Trulli re-pass.
As for people not being honest with stewards in the past.......
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article673144.ece
.....its happened many times before, and its always a stupid thing to do.
Regards
Scaff
Last edited:
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
And it was on McLaren's website. Since Sunday.
When are we going to just get a 🤬 race that we can 🤬 well sit down and 🤬 watch and, when it's 🤬 finished we know who 🤬 finished 🤬 where?
Lest we forget, these first two races are still provisional until the FIA decide to disqualify Brawn, Toyota and Williams for running diffusers that they've said are legal all along. Which will, by my maths, give Alonso the win from Buemi and Bourdais.
Why did the FIA change the technical regulations? To allow all positions to be settled on the track. Fat. Chance.
When are we going to just get a 🤬 race that we can 🤬 well sit down and 🤬 watch and, when it's 🤬 finished we know who 🤬 finished 🤬 where?
Lest we forget, these first two races are still provisional until the FIA decide to disqualify Brawn, Toyota and Williams for running diffusers that they've said are legal all along. Which will, by my maths, give Alonso the win from Buemi and Bourdais.
Why did the FIA change the technical regulations? To allow all positions to be settled on the track. Fat. Chance.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,602
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
- 10,837
- Belgium
- bramturismo
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I believe Metar -or maybe it was Blake - said that because the Brawns, Williams and Toyotas are not running under appeal, their results are safe.
The FIA can't be held accountable for one of the teams doing something like this. They took action as soon as they had new evidence. It'd be a problem if they'd been sitting on this stuff for a week before deciding to take action, but they only just found out about it over the past day or so.
- 29,373
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is just stupid - rules maybe rules, but the bodies that enforce the rules also have a responsibility to the fans to do so in a timely fashion and proportionately. This punishment is neither of those things, and it further damages the reputation of the sport as a spectacle worth watching. Where's the point in moving races into night time or dusk in order to attract more viewers, while at the same time rendering the result of the race irrelevant by after-the-fact application of disproportionate penalties?
I think a final race result should stand, and the punishment applied to following races - if an incident occurs on the track that is debatable, then the punishment can be applied later (i.e. a grid penalty in the next race). But if it is unequivocal, then black flag the driver and take him out of the race. If the officials can't make up their minds in time, that is their fault - but as it stands, this tinkering with the results of the race is setting a terrible precedent for the sport and is making a mockery of the fans who actually watch (let alone pay to go to) the actual races...
I think a final race result should stand, and the punishment applied to following races - if an incident occurs on the track that is debatable, then the punishment can be applied later (i.e. a grid penalty in the next race). But if it is unequivocal, then black flag the driver and take him out of the race. If the officials can't make up their minds in time, that is their fault - but as it stands, this tinkering with the results of the race is setting a terrible precedent for the sport and is making a mockery of the fans who actually watch (let alone pay to go to) the actual races...
- 36,697
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
And it was on McLaren's website. Since Sunday.
When are we going to just get arace that we can
well sit down andwatch and, when it'sfinished we know whofinishedwhere?
Blame McLaren for trying to be big cheaty mccheats. If they hadn't tried to cheat, Trulli would be third and Hamilton 4th, and the stewards could continue to sit about drinking tea and eating cookies.
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
DYR - Doing something like what? Hamilton said, live on air as he was interviewed in Parc Ferme:
This was on Sunday, just after the then-podium-sitters had received their trophies. McLaren carried this on their website the same day. Quite how the FIA have just got this "new information" escapes me
I'd also like to submit to Occam's Razor:
1. Driver receives 25s penalty from stewards. Team told that penalty is equivalent of a Stop-Go penalty and cannot be reversed (Spa-Francorchamps, 2008).
2. Driver receives 25s penalty from stewards. Team told that penalty is equivalent of a Stop-Go penalty, but it is then reversed (Melbourne, 2009).
This was on Sunday, just after the then-podium-sitters had received their trophies. McLaren carried this on their website the same day. Quite how the FIA have just got this "new information" escapes me
I'd also like to submit to Occam's Razor:
1. Driver receives 25s penalty from stewards. Team told that penalty is equivalent of a Stop-Go penalty and cannot be reversed (Spa-Francorchamps, 2008).
2. Driver receives 25s penalty from stewards. Team told that penalty is equivalent of a Stop-Go penalty, but it is then reversed (Melbourne, 2009).
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Since when does the BBC hold the power to award penalties? Hamilton received the penalty because he didn't tell the stewards he had been instructed to let Trulli back through. It doesn't matter what he said to the BBC, SpeedTV or anybody else: he lied by omission when called upon to give his account of the events to the stewards, who felt that both he and McLaren knowingly withheld that information, and punished them accordingly.
- 29,373
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
This is what I thought the case was, and the way it should be, but...
... do the FIA not realise that they've missed the boat already on this one? What happens if they decide that Brawn are indeed using an illegal part? It would go down as the single biggest PR disaster in the history of the sport if a brand new team were stripped of their first win (not to mention 1-2) in the first race of a new season because the FIA couldn't decide before the race happened if the cars were legal or not... craziness.
Of course, the race result could heavily bias their decision...
- 87,582
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
DYR - the question is did McHamilton say something different to the stewards? If so it's intensely stupid, given that Hamilton said, live on air in two of the biggest F1-watching regions (and possibly more - I didn't get the German feed) that he was told to let Trulli past. And if he didn't, it's intensely stupid of the FIA to "obtain" this "new information" 4 days after it was broadcast to those regions.
Of course you just know that had Hamilton NOT let Trulli past, he'd have been docked an unappealable 25s for passing under the safety car. Trulli may have put all four wheels off the track but, as we know from Spa, the border lines don't apply to anyone not in a silver car (where McH was punished for that offence, but no-one else was)...
I never thought I'd say this, but bring back the banana-faced German cheat. At least when he was winning everything we knew who'd actually piggin' won the race. On the day the race happened.
And with regards to the appeal and provisional status of Brawn/Williams/Toyota results.
Of course you just know that had Hamilton NOT let Trulli past, he'd have been docked an unappealable 25s for passing under the safety car. Trulli may have put all four wheels off the track but, as we know from Spa, the border lines don't apply to anyone not in a silver car (where McH was punished for that offence, but no-one else was)...
I never thought I'd say this, but bring back the banana-faced German cheat. At least when he was winning everything we knew who'd actually piggin' won the race. On the day the race happened.
And with regards to the appeal and provisional status of Brawn/Williams/Toyota results.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I don't know much about law, but I do know that the FIA would most likely need proof Hamilton was instructed to pull over and let Trulli through. And for that, they probably wanted transcripts and/or recordings of the order given by McLaren.
To suggest that the FIA has it in for McLaren is a joke, and one that I am tired of hearing. All this so-called "evidence" of wrongdoing is supplied - which is specious at best, I'll say - but nowhere has there ever been given a motive for them to have it in for the Woking outfit.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,735
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Round and round we go....
EDIT: Ahh, on James Allen's blog:
"Apparently the The FIA will publish the radio traffic on the FIA and F1.com websites at around 1-30pm today, the first example of this since the new transparency policy was introduced."
And what about the transcripts of what was said at the stewards enquiry?
One without the other is useless.
Regards
Scaff
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
- 7,177
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74153
Very interesting. And a good defense through a very narrow line. I'm surprised there's no mention of that "I was off the racing line and a bit slow because I was checking SC instructions in my wheel display" ... neither to say it's a false rumour nor to say it is true.
Very interesting. And a good defense through a very narrow line. I'm surprised there's no mention of that "I was off the racing line and a bit slow because I was checking SC instructions in my wheel display" ... neither to say it's a false rumour nor to say it is true.
- 10,837
- Belgium
- bramturismo
*EDIT*
Just forget it, I can't be bothered to bite my nails on this case any further...
Just forget it, I can't be bothered to bite my nails on this case any further...
KSaiyu
(Banned)
- 2,822
This new?
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_stewards_decision.aspx
It has excerpts of the radio transmission and a more detailed explanation from FIA.
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_stewards_decision.aspx
It has excerpts of the radio transmission and a more detailed explanation from FIA.
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
Wow, I don't keep up with the news for less than a day and its already got confusing.
I hope for the sake of the casual followers of F1 that Brawn aren't declared illegal and proceed to win the championship, at least it would give us something to distract us from all this nonsense.
Is it me, or does it seem like ever since 2007, the arguments have just gotten worse? There have been plenty of rediculous penalties and multiple arguments before but this is seriously getting out of hand. Its almost become every other race there is some penalty or other which is controversial in some way or other.
I can imagine Hamilton fans will be getting sick of this constant debating over his driving.
I hope for the sake of the casual followers of F1 that Brawn aren't declared illegal and proceed to win the championship, at least it would give us something to distract us from all this nonsense.
Is it me, or does it seem like ever since 2007, the arguments have just gotten worse? There have been plenty of rediculous penalties and multiple arguments before but this is seriously getting out of hand. Its almost become every other race there is some penalty or other which is controversial in some way or other.
I can imagine Hamilton fans will be getting sick of this constant debating over his driving.
- 29,373
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
After listening to the radio chat and reading the FIA statement, I'm quite appaled by this decision - Hamilton has been shafted big time.
One minute he is told "allow the Toyota through" (a team order, erring on the side of caution), which he acknowledged and obeyed. Then, 30 seconds later, he is instructed to "stay ahead" (presumably to allow them to check with the race director where they stand), to which he immediately responds "I've let him through already", to which his team respond by telling him to stay where he is until the end of the race, again which he does. However, when questioned by the stewards later, "Did you make a conscious decision to let Trulli pass?", Hamilton allegedly answers "No...". Is this Hamilton trying to cheat in order to get 6 points instead of 5?? I think not...
It seems abundantly clear from the radio transcripts that Hamilton and McLaren made every effort to play fair, and that Hamilton himself received conflicting messages, which left him with the impression that letting Trulli pass had been a mistake. Therefore, it could easily be interpreted that letting Trulli pass had been 'unintentional'... but perhaps Hamilton hasn't done himself justice by denying that he consciously let Trulli through when physically he did, but I'm far from convinced that this denial constitutes cheating/lying when it is plainly obvious that Hamilton was trying to play by the rules at the time - so much so that he wrongly gave back the place - but by the time the team order to "stay ahead" came, it was already too late.
It's a double slap in the face for Hamilton - not only does he get shafted by his team for "erring on the side of caution" and letting Trulli unjustly reclaim 3rd, he's also declared guilty of cheating, even though the evidence available clearly shows that he literally went out of his way to play by the rules.... It's a truly awful decision, and it's an embarrasment to the sport.
One minute he is told "allow the Toyota through" (a team order, erring on the side of caution), which he acknowledged and obeyed. Then, 30 seconds later, he is instructed to "stay ahead" (presumably to allow them to check with the race director where they stand), to which he immediately responds "I've let him through already", to which his team respond by telling him to stay where he is until the end of the race, again which he does. However, when questioned by the stewards later, "Did you make a conscious decision to let Trulli pass?", Hamilton allegedly answers "No...". Is this Hamilton trying to cheat in order to get 6 points instead of 5?? I think not...
It seems abundantly clear from the radio transcripts that Hamilton and McLaren made every effort to play fair, and that Hamilton himself received conflicting messages, which left him with the impression that letting Trulli pass had been a mistake. Therefore, it could easily be interpreted that letting Trulli pass had been 'unintentional'... but perhaps Hamilton hasn't done himself justice by denying that he consciously let Trulli through when physically he did, but I'm far from convinced that this denial constitutes cheating/lying when it is plainly obvious that Hamilton was trying to play by the rules at the time - so much so that he wrongly gave back the place - but by the time the team order to "stay ahead" came, it was already too late.
It's a double slap in the face for Hamilton - not only does he get shafted by his team for "erring on the side of caution" and letting Trulli unjustly reclaim 3rd, he's also declared guilty of cheating, even though the evidence available clearly shows that he literally went out of his way to play by the rules.... It's a truly awful decision, and it's an embarrasment to the sport.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
If he went out of his way to play by the rules, then why did he make no mention of the team telling him to let Trulli back through in the original hearing? Why did he change his story at all? It's not as if this is a case of Hamilton amending his story after telling it for the purposes of clarity; the suggestion is that he told them one thing - something along the lines of being distracted by a message relating to the safety car - and then several days later, he told another story entirely. How do you account for the fact that he lied by omission to the stewards as to what happened? Any racer with half a brain would simply repeat what happened to the stewards, see Trulli reinstated to third, and said racer walks away with five points and a solid fourth place. The actual contents of the radio messages are not what Hamilton is being penalised for: he got disqualified because he withheld information from the stewards. That's the sticking point here: for whatever reason, Hamilton lied when he was called to give an account of the event, and because of that, another driver was unfairly penalised and Hamilton gained a place for it.
- 29,373
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
You have to ask yourself why Hamilton would cheat. Why would Hamilton and McLaren make a deliberate and easily falsifiable claim - knowing full well that the radio conversations would be scrutinised - for the sake of one single World Championship point - in the first race of the season? It doesn't make any sense, and it is thoroughly inconsistent logically with their demonstrated behaviour on track. Why would a team and driver so concerned about "playing it by the book" suddenly turn all cloak and dagger? Is it not considerably more likely that the FIA have taken Hamilton's testimony in the hearing to mean something other than what he intended it to mean?
