donwatters
Well done, Clive. A perfectly logical review of the facts...with video support yet. You should send a link to the FIA, Bernie, all team principals and every F1 website and blogger you can identify. There's a huge outrage over this...and rightly so.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

Clive
Unfortunately, the FIA has made it very clear that the only opinion they are interested in is Ferrari's. If they are prepared to so blatantly insult the intelligence of the team owners, the sponsors, the fans and everyone else who cares for the sport, I doubt that my small voice would have any effect whatsoever.

Although I doubt very much that McLaren will even be allowed to have their appeal heard, let alone have it considered fairly, this latest travesty of justice must surely add yet more pressure on the people who can set up a separate and rival series to go ahead and do so. I have given up on any chance of the FIA mending its ways of its own accord.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

Vincent J
I am done with F1!!!!
Let me just say that I am a Ferrari fan. But I am first and foremost a fan of motorsport. This latest ruling by the FIA follows a string of like rulings that have tainted my love for the sport and diminished my appreciation for Ferrari. So out of respect for the sport that it once was, and in an effort to save myself from being so jaded as to completely give up all forms of motorsport, I am giving up F1 cold turkey.
Clive, I just want to say that your site is one of the few that I respect and that I hope you choose to cover other forms of motorsport so that I may once again read your informative and entertaining rantings. Until then, I bid you farewell!


Date Added: 07/09/2008

Lee
Unfortunately this may be the very last f1 race I ever watch! It is no longer a sport it is politics. Why do they not just scrap the race, sit around a table and decide which ferrari they place first and second, then place the rest of the field as required. Now that is better environmentally than the new regulations on energy reclamation and ferrari get to win everytime. I am sure they would be happy with that as they are clearly not a racing team.

Only the most ridiculously blinded ferrari fan would see this latest decision as correct. Especially after Massas non-penalty in valencia.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

francois
Keep going Clive - hopefully they won't try and sue you for libel :) .If there's something good that might come out of this is that the s**t will have hit the proverbial fan now and that they'll get a kicking in the press , and hence will be forced to do something to not appear so biased.Only Martin Brundle's been brave enough to describe what happened last year as a "witchhunt" - I think there'll be a few more people lining up.

I agree with your conclusion that the stewards were looking for a way to punish Lewis if at all possible - I did wonder if Lewis didn't do enough to let Kimi through again when I was watching live but there's no rules I can think of that say Lewis has to make sure Kimi's one car length ahead or something.Kimi's car was really struggling for traction quite clearly and Lewis got a run into La Source because of that - not because he ran off the course.

I said this on Ollie's BlogF1 and I say it again - I don't know for the life of me what Alan Donnelly is doing as a PR man and politician being a "chief steward" assisting the other three stewards nominated at each meeting.His PR company did work for Ferrari recently and also he's Max's right hand man.If the maFIA have any sense he (and the other three) cannot be allowed to act again as stewards , just like they sacked the stewards back at Silverstone after the Schumacher black flag debacle in '94.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

verasaki
i wondered what was taking you so long! this is great. i admit i've been watching these videos over and over and i just do not get it. when was racing officially banned from f1?

as i've said elsewhere, i'm at the point where i don't care what the fia does or doesn't admit to, they just need to make it stop. whatever is broken they have got to sort it, put aside personal interests and put together a solid and consistent rules enforcement body that is fair to every team and has enough race sense that everyone can trust. this all just feels so dirty. i can not recall ever feeling this way about this sport. ok, unfair decisions, extreme penalties, they've always happened but but after last season and thinking after valencia this may be headed in a similar direction- it's really sort of sickening. it's become the expected norm, not the shocking exception.

with the money at stake in this game you'd think all the manufacturers at the least would be screaming their heads off. conspiracy theorists would have a more sinister explanation and not one flattering to any one or anything involved in f1-and i don't refer just to ferrari, there. conspiracy theories usually get a lot uglier than just favouritism.

i personally just wonder how afraid the teams are of the fia's iron fisted retribution or if it might be a case of "well, as long as we stay in the good graces we don't have to worry." and what possible good it can serve the fia if mercedes were to actually pull out of f1 altogether? because if i were mr mercedes' chequebook keeper i'd be seriously thinking making a noisy exit bordering just to the legally protected side of a libel suit should be the next move.

i don't think it's possible for any body to enforce the rules to the letter in racing. some leeway has to be given for extenuating circumstances (ie: surrounding traffic, track conditions etc) so not every ruling is going to make everyone happy but this stuff is a mess right now.

i know f1 is privatized but is there not some sort of international overall sporting counsel that should be looking into some of this? if favouritism by nascar were in the buzz i think there might be some congressional questions being asked, like the baseball doping questions-since congress has nothing better to do.

i have my doubts about an appeal. too. i think they'll be allowed to go ahead i just think the penalty will be even worse. i'm just floored by all of this for the second season in a row and the third season since 2005. i quit champ car because it had turned boring and i'm still mad at cart/irl/champ car whoever over that. i can't imagine quitting f1 but really, the aggro is really not making getting out of bed that early a remotely attractive prospect and the fia are starting to make that debacle look like it made sense.

and am i the only one amazed that the videos still haven't been pulled off youtube by now?
Date Added: 07/09/2008

K-Man
I said it after the last race when Massa got his penalty the FIA are run by Ferrari. If Massa car had been silver in Valencia he would have had a time penalty.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

Green Flag
I am not a fan of McLaren but today's decision is beyond stupid and makes mockery of F1. Very sad, very dissappointing. Hamilton did nothing wrong and fully deserved the win. If Massa wins the title by less than 6 points it will be a hollow victory.
Date Added: 07/09/2008

Clive
You know what? There is another reason why I shall hang on in there, watching what is still the most fascinating and complex sport created by man - and that is the F1 fans. I do not believe that any other sport has such a high percentage of well-informed and fair-minded fans and they are the ones who make writing about F1 such a rewarding experience.

Each of us has our favorites and shout for them to win at every race - but we do not allow that to degenerate into insults of anyone who thinks differently from us. Respect is given and rightly so. After all, if the opposition were worthless, what value would there be in beating them?

At the very start of my previous F1 blog, I made it clear that there is one team I do not support - Ferrari. But that does not mean that I will not give them the respect and praise that they so obviously deserve. They are a fine and necessary part of the sport and have produced some of the best racing cars ever seen.

I do not believe that Ferrari are a part of the terrible decisions made by the stewards at times, the present scandal, for instance, or the absurd penalizing of Alonso for "blocking" Massa in qualifying at Monza in 2006. Like any other team, Ferrari protest when they feel that something against the rules has happened, as is their right.

No, I blame the stewards for the apparently endless string of awful decisions they have made, seemingly under the impression that they must help Ferrari to win races. And the FIA are guilty of propagating this idea, as evidenced by Mosley's previous admissions on the subject and his appointment of Alan Donnelly to be the sole permanent steward.

But I have remembered that the FIA is not F1. The sport is still magnificent in spite of its problems, it is still the arena in which men and machines can compete at the extreme edge of technology and human capability, it is still the sport that can bore you to sleep one moment and then have your heart in your mouth with tension and excitement the next.

I will not be dissuaded from my love of F1 by the sordid machinations of those who administer the sport. The truth is that F1 belongs to those who care about it, not the faceless delegates to the FIA's pompous and self righteous committees. So I will continue to write about the good things in the sport and occasionally, when it is appropriate, I shall get so passionate about a bad decision by the powers that be to allow myself a rant against them.

Thank you to all of you for your kind comments and especially to my friend, Green Flag, who has reminded me of why I love this sport and why I have to carry on. I find myself looking forward to Monza already...
Date Added: 08/09/2008

verasaki
and tomorrow you're going to tell us about heidfeld and bourdais, yes? 'cause i still think i missed that part of the race. it should have been the other story of the day, not that penalty.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Heidfeld's sudden appearance in third spot was as miraculous to me as it was to you, Vera. Sure, I saw him passing the cars in front of him on that last lap but, at the time, I was not aware that he had switched to intermediate wets - something SpeedTV missed in all the other excitement. As you say, it is certainly something worth looking at tomorrow, as important an event as the unwanted interference of the stewards.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Fractal
What we saw at Spa was a wonderful examle of why we love F1. We saw 'Proper' racing; with added chagrine.
Regardless of the 'official' result; what we saw was some fine racing. Not just by the two at the front but backed up all the way through the field. A race of fortune and favour. Mostly favour I fear, but nevertheless.
I gave up with F1 years ago. Here I am still hanging in - awaiting the change...
You used a good word clive; Respect. - how far does it extend in F1? It is the key; The Teams & Drivers have respect for what they do. But the governing body that would seek to promote them has no respect for their efforts and seeks only to gain at all costs the largest slice of return. Respect does not flow both ways in this partnership. Maybe, ...one day...

Date Added: 08/09/2008

Björn Svensson
I was thinking the same as you Clive. Is this sport really worth keeping as my main interrest.

But looking at your post, and reading the other posts, my decission is taken. I'm going to stay here, just to get the chanse to see what FIA does and to have the opportunity to hit them in the gut when i feel it is appropiate.

When i read about this over att BBC, i was thinking about slamming my hand into the wall, but i then remembered i allready have two holes after some previous FIA-decisions.

This has to be the most obviously erroneous decision taken in F1 in the last 10 or so years.

I was actually amazed all the way through the racee about the fairness of all the drivers, and the spirit that seemed to have been taken on by all of them. Except some incidents in the first corner after the start, they all looked as just beeeing a bunch of great guys racing and having fun all the way to the finishingline.

That the FIA then decided to intervene and give Hamilton thid punishment just makes it to obvious that the Ferrari-FIA relation have grown way to deep.

After this i think it is all to clear that the FIA-boards and the decisionmakers all have to give their posts up, and that there should be a public election to have new members of the FIA set in place. Yes, i know this is but an utopia, but please let me at least make some humour out of this, because there's no way i can take the stewards and the FIA serious after this.

The only way to right this wrong would be by FIA to declare this punishment illegal and to let the standings stay as they were after the flag had fallen.

Thank you for this insightflu post Clive, but please do not scare me like that again. You're one of the strongest voices on the net, as was recently declared by Renault, remember?

There's a reason that we all get together here, and have our say, apart from that we love F1 we all love to read your posts. Stay on, stay strong, and scream out loud.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Many times in the last few years, Fractal, I have thought of giving up on F1. The problem is that I am addicted and it is not so easy to beat as heady a drug as this sport. But this latest travesty brought me right to the edge - I was sickened by such blatant and arrogant manipulation of a rule that had been followed to the letter by the man the stewards decided to punish.

But, in the end, it was a great race on the greatest circuit left to us. There was overtaking all the way through the field and the battle at the front was not the only one going on - which is why we missed such things as Heidfeld's change of tires for the last two laps. That is what really matters and, if the FIA succeed in their obvious intention of producing the champion they want, it will mean nothing to those who understand the sport. We know who the best drivers are, regardless of who happens to be the FIA's darling of the moment.

Thank you, Björn, for you kind comments - you and all my commenters have brought me through my moment of despair and I am doubly determined to carry on, pointing out the idiocies of the FIA at every opportunity I get.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

PeterA
I wonder if Kimi will get a fine for overtaking under yellows? This seems to be missed, too...

Great article Clive, I thought it was bang on. I am first and foremost a Formula One fan - I have no real interest in Red v. Silver. I was hoping Kimi won or we had the sort of finish we had, minus Kimi's barrier excursion - both men raced hard and reasonably fair but the penalty for that, if you're in a silver machine, is a penalty. If you race hard and fair in a red car, there's no point - they'll find a way to make you win anyway.

Massa did not deserve this win anymore than Hamilton deserved the penalty. I was suspicious of the Valencia 'fine' but this is just blatant Red-ism.

The fans, once again, have suffered. Bugger the Red vs Silver, I was going to be happy with whatever happened *on the track*. The FIA have ruined it.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Jon
I am just as shocked as the rest of the F1 supporting world (most of them anyway) and initially was feeling the same way as a lot of people regarding the whole F1 circus...what the heck is the point if after some exceptional racing the whole thing is then decided by a few 'officials' sitting round a table with a few beers...or do they drink champagne in F1?

But then on further contemplation I totally agree:

I also don't really believe (call me naive) that it happened because of some bias towards Ferrari. I believe that it happened due to incompetence. Massive incompetence!!! All sports have referees, they make mistakes, they are only human...but usually they don't have the benefit of time to review the event.

It's all very good to point the finger and say there is a problem but until the teams and drivers grow some balls and stand up and say something or the fans get together and make a statement change is very unlikely.

Like in every other sport you win some you lose some...luckily in the long run if you deserve to win you generally do, so chins up, replay the race and enjoy it, don't be put off by the incompetence of a very few people - we still have the possibility of some more GREAT racing before the end of the season!!!!

One question...where do you find the regulations relating to this whole gaining advantage issue?

Love your work Clive! Very thought provoking as the responses prove. I am always looking forward to the next insight into the F1 world!!!
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Toby
I agree that the penalty for Hamilton is farcical. But I do have some objections to your assessment of your stills, Clive. Firstly, if you watch the video, and I believe you can see it on your second last still, Hamilton is re-entering the track after going wide for whatever reason at Pouhon. Raikkonen has followed him off there. No advantage gained, no conspiracies there for me. The problem was that the telecast was showing replays, and cut back just as you see Hamilton regaining the track.
Secondly, the second still is taken from an angle that makes Hamilton look further in front than he actually was. This matters when comparing Raikkonen's move into the first part of the chicane as "Coulthard-esque" (had a nice giggle at that one! Mind if I use it?).

The rest is as you say, a dodgy bit of swerving from Raikkonen, that "accidental" touch at La Source and so on. I just don't think people should rip into Kimi for defending the line, especially not just a few weeks after giving Massa a pasting for not doing the same.

A final thought, and my main point. There has been a precedent of this before. In 2005 or 06 at Suzuka, Alonso cut the final chicane to get past Klien, ceded the place, retook it into turn 1, then was told to cede it back again. Seemed he was deemed to not have given the place back "properly", or "enough", or some other thing that isn't in the actual rules. So the FIA could argue that they are consistent on this ruling, but the clincher for me is Charlie Whiting. Same guy (Whiting), very similar situation, but according to McLaren, they asked if Hamilton had done enough, and Whiting told them yes, just as he'd said no to Renault. His opinion is only a strong guide, yes, but an extremely experienced one that had called for Alonso to cede the position twice only a few seasons ago.

While the penalty is baffling and we all know why it REALLY got handed down, I think Charlie Whiting needs to be held accountable for his actions, not just the Race Stewards, and certainly not Lewis Hamilton OR Kimi Raikkonen.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Barry
I have looked & thought about this. When I watched it, I believed & still do, that Lewis backed off for the reason of the rules. But there is a nagging feeling that somewhere its written that you have to give back the place from the corner you just gained advantage from & also not contest the next corner either (having done what Lewis did & that was be along side for the following straight)
But the bus stop, 1 corner or 2?, right is 1 & the left - going out is the second. Because the initial “escape from collision” was on the entrance..
Wonder if McLaren will have their day in court..
Will the Championship be sorted after the last race
One thing, F1 will survive if Ferrari dont.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Lonny
Let me say first of all, what the heck is the purpose of that stupid chicane anyway? I hate chicanes. Either leave the track alone or if you really must slow the cars, put in a proper turn. Silverstone has done the best job of reducing speeds without resorting to stupid chicanes. Second, I am no Hamilton fan, but this is rediculous. Not only was he forced off in the first place, but clearly gave the place back. Then Kimi spun off anyway so any imagined advantage was null and void. NASCAR has the right idea about this: they never change the result of a race. Even if you fail tech, they fine you, penalize you points, confiscate your car, but never take your placing away. If they can't resolve it before the finish, the result stands.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Journeyer
Clive, looking at the stills, it seems that although Kimi was well ahead of Lewis, he hadn't cleared Lewis' car completely. Therefore, Kimi still actually had a right to keep the inside line.

'Apart from the fact that this was impossible, the distance to the next corner being so short, why is he expected to give way when Raikkonen has not?'

Actually, I think it WAS possible, given F1 cars' braking abilities. Lewis was expected to give way because Kimi's squeeze was legal in that his car stayed on the track at all times. It was a hard move from Kimi, but a fair move.

'Nowhere in the rules does it say he has to let the car in front have enough of a gap to break the tow - he must merely hand back the place he gained.'

Nowhere in the rules either does it say that giving the place back would automatically mean you're free from penalty. It's the matter of HOW you gave the place back up (was it a genuine slowdown or was the advantage not fully returned by the offender) that counts. And that part, sadly, is fully subject to the stewards' opinion. And that needs to be changed.

Lastly, as for the Pouhon run-off, I believe the FIA consider the run-off to be completely different from the chicane shortcut in that it's actually a longer route round than the actual track, unlike shortcutting a chicane.

Toby, you said: 'I think Charlie Whiting needs to be held accountable for his actions, not just the Race Stewards'

But Charlie Whiting has no say in the stewards' decision, and therefore cannot be held accountable. His opinion is no more valuable to the stewards' than ours.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Journeyer
But my bigger beef here is, regardless of whether the stewards were right or wrong, the FIA handled it all wrong. I went into detail on this on the Sidepodcast show yesterday, and I said that the stewards shouldn't take that long in deciding races (no more than 30 minutes after the race, ideally), and that their logic for making such decisions, as well as the evidence used in making said decision, must be released to the public. That way, doubt is removed from their decisions.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Dusty
I watch more motorcycle racing than I do car racing, and the F1 stewards could learn a lot from the two-wheeled world: be invisible. I can't remember the last time a decision taken by a motorcycle race steward had any effect on a race outcome. It's becoming a weekly affair in F1.

I don't have the historical background that so many of you have - has this type of meddling occurred in past eras of F1?
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Andy
Great post - I was going to post something to my blog, but after re-reading it, it was so full of anger and unbalanced I decided to sleep on it.

There has been some suggestion that Max Moseley should step in as a PR move to try and restore some credibility with the fans. What is also farcical is the fact that Mclaren have to first apply to see if they are allowed to appeal. In practically any sport, you are legitimately allowed to appeal any decision made by the steward/referee/umpire/official. In some cases it is limited by the amount of times you can appeal a decision (such as Tennis 'Hawkeye' calls), but still you are always allowed to appeal a decision.

What the FIA should strive for is transparency - as some other commentors have pointed out, there is a precidence for not completely conceding the place with Alonso, but there is also a precidence for dangerously releasing a car in the pitlane.

There should be a permanent group of stewards, and they should be named and their qualifications laid bare. Preferably they should include former drivers who can give informed opinions (That is the only reason I tolerate James Allen, as Martin Brundle makes up for him tenfold).

I am still incenced that yet again our sport has been thrown into turmoil by faceless idiots.

As for Monza? will I watch? I don't know. I love F1 too much to simply throw my toys out of the pram, but after the last few years my faith has worn very thin.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Peter: I actually think that it was wise of the stewards to ignore Kimi's infractions of the rules during the battle. He had been punished sufficiently by fate and no purpose would have been served by penalizing the Finn in the next race, apart from spoiling what is becoming a fascinating contest between three of the best drivers in F1.

Had the stewards exercised as much common sense regarding the incident at the Bus Stop chicane (oh now we can mourne the passing of the old Bus Stop indeed), there would be no need for the uproar that their idiotic penalty has caused. As it is, they have merely added more fuel to Ferrari-bias fire.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Jon: You win some, you lose some, eh? Would that were so. The problem is that our impressions of FIA steward decisions over the last few years are that they are strongly biased towards Ferrari and against any team that challenges them. It has been suggested that Keith Collantine and Doctor Vee compile is list of stewards' decisions for the last five or ten years so that we can see finally just how many have gone which way. I heartily approve of this idea for it would show whether our impression is correct or it is just a case of winning some and losing others.

Naturally, I suspect that the great majority of debatable decisions would be shown to have gone Ferrari's way - but I am open to correction on this.

The FIA's sporting regulations relevant to F1 can be found on their site at this address. They are in PDF format and can be downloaded without charge.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Corey
I don't have much to say on this issue. I was always concerned that Hamilton would get a penalty for this because he was in the slipstream after letting Raikkonen pass. However on investigation of the sporting regs for F1 there is nothing to suggest what distance he should have given back or what speed he should have been carrying and I agree completely with you Clive. He did all that was required within the rules and until these ambiguous rules are rewritten then these things will continue to happen. I am not one for conspiracy theories but what happened yesterday along with this statement from GPUpdate.net left a bad taste in my mouth

"I have often said that the race is not over until the official results are published and that was the case today," said Domenicali.

I always thought races were over when the drivers crossed the line. Anyway I will always remember this as one of the most exciting races in F1 and also for being one of the worst decisions in F1
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Journeyer
"I have often said that the race is not over until the official results are published and that was the case today," said Domenicali.

He said that? Youch. Domenicali's morphing into Luca di Montezemolo right in front of our eyes... Let's remember, LDM was the young, fresh-faced team principal that was supposed to usher in a new era of reform at Ferrari. But on his return as Ferrari president, LDM kept up the politics, albeit in a more... subtle manner. And it proved to be more of the same.

And it looks like Domenicali may just keep that trend up.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Toby: Thank you for taking the time to express your views in so detailed a manner - I appreciate anyone's comment when they disagree with my viewpoint because it is only through reasoned and fair debate that we might reach agreement.

It also gives me the chance to address some of your concerns regarding the incident in question. You are quite right to say that the video cut back to live recording after a replay of the incident at the chicane and we do not see the cars going through the first half of the double-apex corner, Pouhon, as a result. You say that, in my second last still, Hamilton is re-entering the track, presumably after overcooking the first section of Pouhon. That may be true - I cannot remember whether he did or not and the video does not show it.

What it does show is Hamilton on the track while Raikkonen is heading off it and on to the run-off area. Lewis appears to be in the normal position for taking the second section and the video shows that he stayed on the circuit all the way through that section. It also shows Raikkonen taking the wide line through the run-off all the way through the bend, until he is able to re-join the circuit without bumping over a curb - and immediately behind Lewis.

I do not see how you can justify your statement that Raikkonen followed Hamilton through the run-off area since it is clear that Lewis did not go on to the run off through the second section. Other commentators agree with me that Kimi gained considerable speed through his use of the run-off and the video seems to support that view. I am well aware that unfair use of the run-off areas has gone unpunished by the stewards in the past and wrote about this in my post Controversies at Fuji - Part 1 last year. My point regarding the Pouhon incident is merely to illustrate the fact that Kimi's gaining of an unfair advantage has not even been looked at by the stewards, whereas they have chosen to penalize a very debatable infraction by Hamilton. That looks far too much as if they are seeking a way to take the win from McLaren.

Agreed that the second still makes Hamilton appear to be slightly further ahead of Raikkonen than he was. But the lead is still a good deal more than "a nose", as stated in comments on other blogs. If we extend the line of the leading edge of Kimi's front wing, we can see that it is level with the forward section of Hamilton's sidepod. That is rather more than the lead Kimi had when he forced Lewis to take to the run-off through the chicane.

If it was fair for Raikkonen to close the door to the second section of the chicane with so slender a lead, Hamilton would also have been entitled to move over to the right and force Kimi on to the infield at the entry to the chicane. It would have been an immediate accident, however, and Lewis took the wiser option of giving Kimi room.

My conclusion is that Lewis behaved sensibly and fairly throughout the incident and so did Kimi, although he was much tougher in presenting Hamilton with the option to crash or take the run-off.

It is a shame that our memories of Coulthard are likely to be spoiled by his apparent tendency to make wild and unlikely overtaking movements this year. He has had a great career and done some fine things in and for the sport. But the very fact that you knew immediately what I meant by "Coulthard-esque" shows that he has become the epitome of the accident caused by over-optimistic overtaking. Use the expression if you wish but let's remember how good he has been too. ;)

The Alonso/Klien incident is very similar to the Hamilton/Raikkonen one apart from one thing. The stewards actually did not realize that Fernando had already given back the place he gained when they issued the instruction for him to do so. He was thus required to allow Klien to pass a second time, clearly another injustice perpetrated by incompetent officials. The matter of "gaining an advantage" was not mentioned at the time because it had not yet become a buzzphrase in F1, as it has this year.

As regards Charlie Whiting, contrary to what people are saying, he does have an important influence on stewards' decisions. If we read the stewards' ruling on the incident at Spa, we find this statement as an opener:

The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director and having met with the drivers and team managers involved, have considered the following matter, determine (sic) a breach of the regulations has been committed by the competitor named below and impose the penalty referred to.

Strangely enough, the Race Director is a fellow by the name of Charlie Whiting, a function that he fulfills at every GP. It seems that it was he who brought the matter to the attention of the stewards after having assured Ron Dennis that Hamilton's actions had been entirely legal. One is tempted to think that, as in Hungary last year, Big Ron has acted correctly only to have a hornet's nest erupt in his face.

You are quite right that Charlie needs to be held accountable for his actions.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Barry: The notion that a competitor is required to allow two corners to pass before having another go at the car in front is entirely incorrect and not stated in the regulations. I think the idea started as a guess made in one of the hundreds of comments Keith Collantine's post on the incident and it has been taken up and accepted as gospel by others since. It is, of course, nonsense.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Lonny: The present Bus Stop chicane at Spa was substituted for the old Bus Stop last year. Although everyone hated the old version when it was first introduced, over the years it became an instantly recognizable feature of the circuit and was often an overtaking point for the really brave; in time, it became accepted and eventually loved.

The original chicane was named the Bus Stop because that is what it looked like - a sudden sharp left and right leading into a very short straight section followed by a jink right and left again. It looked ridiculous and was only just negotiable by F1 cars. But, as I say, it produced some great moments of overtaking as well. The new chicane is a much more standard version and does not require half the driving skill necessary for the old version. The only reason for it retaining the now-hallowed name of The Bus Stop is that it is a substitute - and a poor one at that.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

verasaki
i thought it was named such because at some time during the history of the track (back when it actually was a public road when the race wasn't on) it actually was a bus stop. or at least close to where the bus stop was. i may be wrong.

i've sort of been waiting for alienora to weigh in because, while i know that historically this all should have just been a racing incident and quickly forgotten, i'm just not sure about an actual "regulation". i checked the regs on the fia site and aside from an obscure clause about an "incident" involving more than 1 car will probably be reviewed post race i didn't see anything that obviously applied to shooting the chicane.

i've heard the stewards think hamilton should have waited to make his next move. i find that to be a really bizarre opinion without a reg to back it up. how long do they think he should have waited? measured in time, feet, miles-what?
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Journeyer: I do not dispute the fact that Kimi had the right to claim the entry to both the first and second sections of the chicane. My point is merely that, had Hamilton asserted his rights as the man ahead, he could have squeezed Kimi on to the grass before the first section. Kimi would then have had the same option as he presented to Lewis in the second section - take to the run-off or cause an accident that takes us both out.

As I have pointed out in an earlier comment, if Hamilton had stood on the brakes going into the second section, Kimi's left rear would have connected with Lewis' right front, with results that we have all seen in the past. Sorry, but Lewis had no sane option but to take to the run-off.

I agree that the wording of the rule allows any such incident to become a matter of opinion. This is just another example of how badly-written are the rules and the FIA should sack whoever wrote them and pay Alianora an enormous sum of money to re-write the book in clear and simple English that allows no nuances of interpretation. Fat chance of that, unfortunately.

Again, as I mentioned earlier, I pointed at the Pouhon incident purely as an example of unfair advantage being gained. I know that the stewards ignore this and will continue to do so until a car passes a Ferrari by using the run-off in such a manner. As I have pointed out in previous posts in this blog, it is an area that needs to be ruled on now, before some incident sparks another farcical storm in F1.

As regards Charlie Whiting, my reply to Toby shows that he not only has influence in stewards' decisions but he is actually that instigator of this particular stewards' investigation. It is perhaps this unsavory business that sickens me more than anything else in the whole matter.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Dusty: It pains me to say it but this kind of meddling has been going on for at least the last decade in F1. But it also seems to be increasing in frequency, to the extent that it seems now that not a race can go by without some sort of controversy over the rules and their application erupting. I am ashamed of the image of my favourite sport this presents to the world.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Andy: What can I say? I agree with everything you have said.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Corey: Ferrari's statements on the matter have been quite interesting. They are very careful not to question the judgement of the stewards but Domenicali's reaction to the suggestion that it was all started by a protest from his team proves to me that he was not responsible. He is a good man, Domenicali, and I suspect that this questionable victory tastes as sour to him as it does to everyone else.

But he is also the manager of a team that has to produce the goods. When points are offered on a plate, no sane team manager turns them down.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Journeyer (again): To be fair, Domenicali is in an unenviable position. As a Ferrari man, he has to toe the political line and that means doing nothing to incur the wrath of Luca.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Verasaki: You may be right about the origin of the name Bus Stop; I have written from memory only and would be the last to claim infallibility on that score. ;)

There is no doubt that it did look like a bus stop, however, and was aptly named, considering how the cars had to almost stop to make the first section.

I, too, have been waiting for Alianora, because I know she will bring chapter and verse from the regulations and her views will be authoritative as a result. You guys are keeping me so busy this morning (and I still have to write about Heidfeld's amazing last lap!) so that I do not have the time to go digging for the relevant section of the regs. It is in there, however, and has been referred to in the comments to other blogs.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

verasaki
my bad, i meant alianora, of course. sorry. my bad grammar is surpassed only by my dismal spelling-
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
I hadn't noticed the mis-spelling, Vera, until you pointed it out. If you can forgive my typos, I can certainly appreciate your comments, whether or not they contain the occasional slight error.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Pootle
It's typical that the first race I miss in a while, turns out to be an exciting race. Purposefuly missed this gran prix as I've really gone off F1 because of the boring processional races, I find that it's a shame that external factors, such as rain is needed to make the sport exciting again. I catched the highlights so, it's all good I guess.

You're definitely correct, Hamilton didn't deserved to be penalised but such is the bias to Ferrari in F1 that it the outcome was obvious from the start. The season wouldn't be anywhere as close as it is right now if it won't for the FIA making it so.

A shame, really, it spoiled a great race and yeah I'm pretty much off F1, even when good racing happens (eventually) it's spoiled by farses such as this.

Excuse my spelling.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Kajik
We, the one's who have been closely following F1 for decades, have seen a fair share of absolute erroneous and truly controversial rulings / penalties by the sports governing bodies.
Yet, this decision is of such blatant disregard to the book of rules and thus a serious threat to the few & last remaining credibility's the sport has, namely, the honest virtuosity of proper head to head dueling in adverse weather, thus equalizing conditions.
All parties must call on the powers that be to refrain from telling the public that black is blue. We have all seen the facts, a flawless and stellar driving to the exact letter of the rule-book.
Racing stewards Nicholas Deschaux (France), Surinder Thatthi (Kenya) und Yves Bacquelaine (Belgian) need to be banned for all times from the sport for having signed this, "the worst ruling in the History of Formula 1" (Nicky Lauda).My fellow F1 aficionados I call on you to refrain from discussing the ruling and thus giving it credence, but instead to lodge your protest with all parties involved, the Mosley & FIA, Ecclestone & the empire, the racing teams and the media....let's not have the wool pulled over our eyes!
Bernie tell Max to behave and hand back to the kid what is rightfully his!!
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Green Flag
On re-watching the Hamilton/Raikkonen episode many times - I recorded the race - I believe that Lewis did gain an advantage by allowing Kimi to pass him and immediately tucking into his slipstream, so enabling Lewis to overtake him again. But the rules don't disallow this. Lewis followed the re-pass rule to the letter if not the intended spirit of the rule, and so a penalty was not warranted. F1 is all about stretching the envelope of each rule without tearing that envelope and this time Hamilton executed that perfectly. I would like to think that had the positions been reversed Kimi would have done the same; would the anti-Ferrari brigade have accepted that, though?
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Pootle: I understand exactly how you feel - it is getting so that every GP is either monumentally boring or spoiled by the officials after the race. What excuses can I give? None, but let me at least extend the hope that the sport's problems will begin to be solved when the new regulations come into force in 2009. That must be true, surely. Mustn't it..."
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Kajik: I fear all our anger and despair is wasted - the FIA have proved impervious to reason and common sense in the past and there is nothing to indicate that they will change now. Our hope must be that Max Mosley does indeed resign at the end of 2009 and a new president prepared to clean up the sport be appointed.

It is a slim hope indeed but, unless the teams revolt, I can see no way for things to change.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Green Flag: I must admit that I find it difficult to believe that the incident would have been investigated at all, had the positions been reversed. But, if they had and the same decision been made by the stewards against Raikkonen, I think many of McLaren's fans would have been like yourself, demanding justice rather than unfair decisions to suit their team. Most of us are supporters of F1 first and a particular team or driver second.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Journeyer
Clive,

'The Stewards, having received a report from the Race Director' means that they just wanted to know Charlie's version of events in writing. He didn't necessarily start the investigation. But if he did, he would've only stated what happened out there, not whether Lewis or Kimi were guilty. Only the stewards can decide that.

As for Stefano, this is what you said:
'To be fair, Domenicali is in an unenviable position. As a Ferrari man, he has to toe the political line and that means doing nothing to incur the wrath of Luca.'

Here's how it was 35 years ago:
'To be fair, di Montezemolo is in an unenviable position. As a Ferrari man, he has to toe the political line and that means doing nothing to incur the wrath of Enzo.'

Catch my drift, Clive? ;)
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Sorry, Journeyer, but I have to argue this one. Any investigation by the stewards has to be started in one of three ways: either the Race Director calls their attention to an event that he thinks needs looking at, or they decide off their own bat to investigate something they've noticed, or they receive a protest from one of the teams.

You are right to point out that the wording of the document does not make it clear why the investigation was started but that does not exclude the strong possibility that it was Charlie himself who began it. And the point is moot anyway because it shows clearly that Charlie does have an influence on the stewards' deliberations, thereby proving incorrect the assertion that he has nothing to do with it.

As for Domenicali and di Montezemolo, I believe that you have stated the case exactly. Nobody at Ferrari steps outside of the political line unless they want to end up on the street in very short order!
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Haggis
I'm thoroughly disillusioned with Formula 1 now. Sunday's race was the first race I hadn't been able to see live all season (was on a plane). I'm glad I didn't watch the race as I'd feel very cheated now. As it stands I'm disgusted. Especially as it looks like any appeal will be thrown out without being heard.

I take time out to watch the race, qualifying and often practice at every grand prix. When abroad I always find a way to catch the action, even if I don't understand the commentary (though the same can be said sometimes of ITV's input!)

This coming Saturday, I was looking forward to the qualifying session at Monza (which I hold dear as the first GP I attended in person). At that race in 2006, we returned to our hotel looking forward to a close race between the title deciders. It was only when we returned to the circuit that someone we were chatting to told us that Alonso had been penalised for "holding up" Massa, while being metaphorically miles in front of him.

The Monza qualifying this year clashes with the Liverpool v Man Utd game, and after the last two races (the Massa dangerous pit-lane incident and the Hamilton "advantage" incident) it is clear that the result of the action will not be clear until the stewards have made their decisions later.

Therefore, I'll abandon the idea of watching the qualifying. I'll watch the big game instead, then check the results of quali once the stewards have decided how they're going to help Ferrari this week.

At least with football you know who has won at the end of the match.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Steven Roy
For once I disagree with something Clive said. I agree with the overall point of the article but I disagree Lewis sliptreamed Kimi when he switched sides behind him. There is no slipstream effect until you are at least a couple of car lengths behind the car in front. Think of the rooster tails produced when it is wet and mentally superimpose it on the video. Given the distance behind Kimi that Lewis is the air at that point is heading up and back towards him and incredibly turbulent. So he may have sat behind Kimi for a short time but being that close he was not slipstreaming.

My second point is that the only reason Lewis was able to make the pass into La Source was Kimi took a very wide slow entry into the corner. It was a ridiculous line to take with a driver so close behind him.

Like others I am outaged at this latest decision but I refuse to be driven away from my sport. I would rather do something, anything that would drive out the people responsible for corrupting it. Christine at sidepodcast posted a link to a petition http://www.petitiononline.com/belgp08/petition.html protesting the decision. Please sign it even if you don't believe it will affect this decision. My hope is that enough people sign it to attract the attention of the press and that in the future such decisions will notbe made as frequently.

Ferrari may not be involved in the decision process but Max's personal choice as his deputy is on the Ferrari board and I believe was Max's official representative at the race. Quite how this can be viewed by the FIA of not at least being a conflict of interest is beyond me.

Apologies if anyone has addressed these point in the comments but I haven't had time to read more than the first half of the comments but I will read the others later. Please sign the petition.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Green Flag
I believe the Belgian stewards would have made the same bad decision had Hamilton been racing a non-Ferrari driver. However, since most race wins these days are unfortunately contested only between McLaren and Ferrari any penalty against one benefits the other. I don’t believe the FIA intends to advantage Ferrari when they penalize McLaren but it’s usually Ferrari that’s in a position to benefit from a McLaren infringement. If McLaren infringed less Ferrari would benefit less. That’s not to say that Sunday’s decision was not shameful, but McLaren and Hamilton have pulled some egregious stunts of late that fully deserved the penalties levied. For what it’s worth I notice few complaints from BMW and their supporters that Heidfeld was promoted to second.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Haggis: I only wish there were something I could say to put the other side to what you say. My problem is that I agree with you to a large extent. I will say that you missed an incredible GP, however (isn't it always the way when one cannot get to a TV?). The tension and excitement of the last three laps were such that I thought I was going to have a heart attack.

The euphoria induced by at last watching a GP worthy of the name lasted only the hour or so that it took for news of the stewards' enquiry to filter through. Without that, the Belgian GP would be hailed as the race of the year. And, come to think of it, it was still the best we've seen this season and we should not allow some unknown officials to take that away from us.

They can make the championship something not worth happening but they can never take away the spectacle and drama of what happens on the track. Perhaps we should remember that and refuse to pay any attention to the inexplicable behaviour of the stewards post race.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Steven: Sorry to disappoint you, old friend, but we still agree! The only reason I mentioned slipstreaming was because so many supporters of the penalty are dragging it in as an excuse. In point of fact, Lewis was directly behind Kimi for so brief a time (thanks to the Finn dodging about so much) that he will have gained very little from any tow.

And your bafflement at Raikkonen's move to the left is equal to mine. It was akin to Massa's ceding of the corner to Hamilton in an earlier race this year - and the little Brazilian was accused of a lack of fight as a result. If you're in front and approaching a corner, you grab the inside line, forcing the other guy to go outside, where his chances of getting by are very slim indeed.

I do have a theory on why Kimi opted for the normal wide entry into La Source but I'm saving it for my next post when I'll have a closer look at the Finn's driving at Spa.

As for the petition, I signed it the moment the link appeared in a comment on Keith's blog. ;)
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Green Flag: You make a very good point in your statement that it is inevitably a McLaren/Ferrari battle at the front these days and so we tend to see decisions as being between the two of them. Doctor Vee has a very interesting post up at the moment regarding that very issue - a thoughtful look at what may really be going on. Well worth a read.

As for BMW supporters, I would happily see Nick demoted to the third place he earned were justice to be done to Hamilton.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Alianora La Canta
There is a regulation covering the incident. However, Article 30.3 a) is extremely vague. It says:

"During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track". If you cut a chicane, you do not use the track and can therefore be given a penalty under Article 16. However, there is no reference to what happens if you give a place back, or indeed any reference to what happens if you gain nothing from the excursion. The number of people who could theoretically have been punished under the regulation as written is staggering...

Also, Raikkonen could have been charged with forcing Hamilton off the track under Article 16.1 (which thanks to Green Flag I now know very well :) ), since Hamilton's only alternative to cutting the chicane was to crash into him.

Personally, I think the decision was more ineptitude than bias - in my blog entry on the subject of the Hamilton/Raikkonen incident, I've spotted at least nine breaches of the regulations that weren't even investigated, let alone punished. One of these was Kovalainen crossing a white line out of the pit lane. That is not the mark of a stewards' office sufficiently competent to carry off a bias. Whether the stewards would have made biased decisions had they been capable of making them is a separate question entirely.

I've just had a thought - how do the drivers sort out exchanging trophies, now that it appears that (subject to appeal) all three drivers on the podium have the wrong item of silverware? It isn't exactly a change-around that the FIA would want to crow about...
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Alianora La Canta
By the way, I've just signed the petition, and it's now up to 17542 signatures. That's a lot of people in just over 24 hours...
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Alianora La Canta
In fact, it's second only to a petition about Facebook in petitiononline.com's rankings for currently-open petitions. I can only hope that this outcry has the same effect as the one after Brazil 2003 - and that McLaren have someone who is in a position to provide as solid a proof of Hamilton's correct behaviour as Jordan's Mark Cormican did back then.
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Clive
Brilliant, as ever, Alianora, and thank you for providing us yet again with a clear, fair and logical view of the incident and relevant regulation (or lack thereof). I strongly recommend that readers take a look at Alianora's post on the subject because it deals in more detail with the regulatory aspects of both the race and the incident.

It seems to me that the stewards' decision to investigate was a mystery and their verdict was incompetent. With so little regulation on which to base any decision, it is unbelievable that they went ahead with an opinion that changed the result so dramatically.

Unlike Alianora, I can think of no other reason for the stewards' involvement than a desire on the part of the officials to change the result of the race. Incompetence may have produced such an absurd verdict but the initiation of the process must have come from deliberate intent.

As for the silverware, I would guess that FedEx are going to be quite busy delivering oddly-shaped packages around Switzerland this week... ;)
Date Added: 08/09/2008

Alianora La Canta
It gets worse. One of the stewards is French. This would be fine except that the rules for selecting stewards forbid any steward from being the same nationality as a competitor. Renault is French. One of the stewards is French. Therefore, the French steward's decision is technically invalid. This breaks the unanimous verdict necessary for any penalty to be handed out. This makes both Hamilton's and Glock's penalties invalid, without need to refer to anything else.

Love the FedEx comment, by the way :)
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
And one of the drivers (Bourdais) is French. Is there no end to the incompetence of the FIA?
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
Arnet is having his comments refused by the site for some reason the Mad and I have been unable to trace. His comment on this post was sent to me by email and is as follows:

And there's the rub. Even if Hamilton was wrong in his maneuver, which I believe he wasn't at all, and he finished ahead of Kimi, then perhaps the "drive-through" penalty would be appropriate. The reality is, Lewis never snatched the victory from Kimi, Kimi blew it as only he does. So the response from the stewards should have been "at the end of the race, he gained no advantage."

The other thing is, it is a complete travesty that not only are the stewards ill-equipped/experienced to weigh in on something as technical as Lewis' momentum down the straight, but they are guided in their decision by Donnely. It stinks. Here's what James Allen said about the pass:

Lewis was much faster than Kimi at that point of the race because the McLaren keeps heat in its tyres better in those conditions, as we saw in Silverstone, especially on the harder compound. But you have to take account of the performance difference which existed between the two cars at that point anyway. On a normal dry track, Lewis’s gesture of easing off by 6km/h would have put Kimi well ahead by La Source. It’s just that the Ferrari was not able to take much advantage of Hamilton’s gesture, so it seemed an insufficient gesture.

Eggsmacktly!! This is something that those dolts/stewards wouldn't know because they are officials, not experts in the field. The guy that Max fired and replaced with his right hand man and Charlie Whiting would have known this and acted on that information. It's not Lewis's fault that the Ferrari and Kimi suck in the rain. "I better give him a break. It's raining and I'm faster so I should slow down to make it fair."
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
Clive, I must disagree with your view "I actually think that it was wise of the stewards to ignore Kimi's infractions of the rules." If rules can be overlooked, or reinterpreted at the whims of stewards, or those who dictate to them, the stewards gain power over the results of the race. This is, in effect the problem. All rules must be cut and dry all the time, and if possible, the stewards must sent packing. There is plenty of evidence and data recorded
during a race to make decisions on what has happened.
There is a bigger picture that has not come to light. When things happen repeatedly they are usually more than coincidence. Draconian decisions to level astronomical fines, the absolute lack of any responsibility of the FIA toward maintaining a perception of fair play, the total lack of transparency, the video of Mosley...etc. are symptoms of something much larger going on behind the scenes. There must be personal vendettas and / or power struggles motivating this. Why is Ferrari gaining from these decisions on a regular basis? Did they cut a deal when there was the threat of a breakaway series?
How do finances work in F1? A $10,000,000 fine doesn't seem to effect McLaren performance wise? I read a couple of years ago that Mr.Agnelli (sp) had died. He was said to have been the broker of support between Fiat and Ferrari. At that point Fiat wasn't doing well and was supposedly pulling back from heavily financing Ferrari. Despite this, no change to Ferrari's great performance. During the dealings between the factions threatening to set up a breakaway series, Ferrari were reported to have made a preferential deal with the FIA, vis-a-vis the other teams in relation to percentage of money earned so as to be enticed back to the F1 fold. Could this be the point that Ferrari becomes the “chosen” to Mosley or do things go back further?
The FIA is run behind an iron curtain. Ferrari will forever seem dishonest so long as the FIA maintains their current politics. If they (Ferrari) are on the level, what is going on now is terrible for their reputation, and I would think they would want an end to it as much as anyone else?
This may sound like a conspiracy theory but without conspiracy theories, conspirators would run everything, wouldn’t they? :-)

Date Added: 09/09/2008

Lonny
Unfortunately, as we have seen in the past, in a year no one but we few true fanatics will remember the details of this event. All the average fan will remember is that Massa won the race, and perhaps began his run to the championship. In the long run results are remembered and circumstances are forgotten. I will repeat, NASCAR has it right, if a penalty cannot be imposed in time, the race results stand. All kinds of other hell may break loose, but the results stand. Richard Petty won his last race with an engine that was some 20-25 cubic inches oversize, he lost money, driver points, owner points, and some of his equipment, but he kept the win and the trophy. All anyone remembers today is that The King has 200 wins.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
Nick: You're quite right, of course - rules are rules and they should be applied consistently and fairly regardless of events after the offence. I think my point in agreeing with the stewards in ignoring Kimi's infractions was that the rules he broke had been offended against by nearly everyone in the race and a completely fair application of penalties would have left us with a three or four car result list. My dislike of penalties that carry over from one race to the next also had something to do with my statement.

You are right in principle but, as Alianora has pointed out, the rules are so vague and unspecific on this particular matter that they have to be applied by opinion and circumstance. That is a weakness found again and again in the F1 rulebook and we should petition the FIA to employ Alianora to re-write the book so that everything is clear and beyond argument.

Your conspiracy theory is fascinating and it would go a long way to explaining some of the strange things that have happened in the past. I am tempted to expand further upon it in a post but am unsure that I really want to lift the cover of a sport that increasingly looks wormy, even with just the facts we know. It may be that my remaining illusions enable me to continue to watch and comment on F1 - do I really need to destroy my innocence and gullibility completely?

I don't know; it's a close call between wanting to know the truth and the survival of my love for the sport. I'll have to think on that one...
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
Lonny: Yes, the future will read just the statistics of the race and care nothing for the realities of the actual event. It is only the core of F1 devotees who will argue forever over the stewards' decision and resent the theft of a perfectly legitimate win from a deserving driver. The book will list the result without comment.

There is much to be said for the NASCAR system of letting the results stand but I do think there are cases where the winner should be stripped of his victory - where clear and premeditated cheating has supplied the win, for instance. But never should a rule that relies entirely upon opinion be the cause of altering results after the finish. Let the result stand and the size of the fine be argued out afterwards.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Steven Roy
Nick Goodspeed,

Ferrari was 'chosen' by Mosley almost immediately he was elected. One of the first statements he made was that F1 needs a strong Ferrari. Max's Deputy who is chosen and appointed by him is Marco Piccinini who used to run the Ferrari team and is still on the board of directors. Since Max has become persona non grata Piccinini has been his official representative at F1 races. To me that seems like a conflict of interest. Additionally on the World Motor Sport Council the F1 teams are represented by Jean Todt who used to run Ferrari and is still on their board of directors. Karting is represented by a gentleman whose name escapes me but who was Piero Ferrari's childhood friend. No other member of what should be an august body has any connection past or present with any other competing F1 team. Members of the WMSC are appointed by Max.

Bear in mind until very recently Max's strings were being pulled by Bernie and Bernie is only interested in money. The fastest way for Bernie was to convert unethused fans of a shambolic Ferrari into enthused (spending)fans of a successful Ferrari. Bernie has in the past sad that he organised Schumacher's move from Jordan to Benetton despite Schumacher not being keen on it and Tom Walkinshaw prefering to sign Martin Brundle so don't be surprised in a few years when it turns out Bernie was the prime mover in Schumi and the dream team's move to Maranello.

Marlboro pretty much finance the whole Ferrari operation despite tobacco sponsorship being banned and despite Ferrari and Philip Morris signing and agreement (which is in the public domain) with the other tobacco sponsors and sponsored teams to end tobacco sponsorship by the end of 2006. Every other team stuck to that agreement and gave up their tobacco money but Ferrari then decided they would keep theirs. The original agreement was motivated by Max saying he would ban any form of tobacco sponsorship and not just full branding by the end of 2006. As so often is the case the rule did not apply to Ferrari.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Lee
Lets not also forget that Mad Maxs' father was great friends of Mussolini. Mussolini was also great friends with Enzo Ferrari and it is therfore no stretch of the imagination that the Mosely-Ferrari relationship goes back quite a way.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Steven Roy
Lee,

It is totally unfair to bring Mussloini into this. Max's family were much closer to Hitler. Hitler was at Max's parents wedding which took place in a house owned by Josef Goebbels. Max's aunt was Hitler's mistress. So really he should be helping Mercedes.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
Clive, to ignore the motivations behind these self serving pirates that have kidnapped our sport is, in a way, to condone them. If the rules had been applied to the letter, and all but two or three cars disqualified, the ensuing mess would have served to disqualify the rule book. The FIA is being run by a deranged man with sick motives. The images are owned by a power mad greed monger. In the old days these type of people would be chased from the races with hammers and wrenches. They are both products of media. Auto racing, isn't even second on the list of priorities of either one of them. If you dug into your retirement fund and found these two in charge of it, would you sleep well at night? If they were in charge of your local grocery...
Auto racing and the passion for it was around long before this pair of jerks came along and will be around long after. If it is to remain pertinent, there will be changes. The rubbish will be put out and the whole formula and it's rule books will be rewritten with an eye on conserving ink.
By the way.....did anyone find it a bit cheesy of billionaire Ecclestone checking pit passes on his walk?

Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Nick. I have been writing against the corrupt administration of the sport for two years now and things only get worse. The problem is that they have so entrenched themselves in their positions that nothing short of a mass desertion by the teams to a new and rival series will solve the problem. I am sickened by the mockery of a sport that Max and Bernie have created for their own benefit entirely.

I did not see Bernie's grid walk - was he really checking pit passes? Sounds as though he's losing his marbles - if he ever had any, that is...
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
In the lead up to the race Ecclestone does his walk along the starting line area to do his glad handing. He was walking along in his troll like manner and came across someone with their parka done up and went straight over to him like a headmaster to a junior student to straighten their tie and arranged him to his own liking. This was aired on the pre-race show.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
Unbelievable. We really are watching a freak show, aren't we?
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
The problem being, in this instance, the freaks are running the show.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
It is interesting how the term "unfair advantage" has come to mean the total advantage in this latest FIA theft. The minute the rain began in earnest, there was a huge and totally fair advantage that fell upon Hamilton. The Ferrari's road handling wasn't in the same league as the MacLaren's. Use this as part of the equation and it becomes evident that Hamilton gave back any conceivable unfair advantage that he might have gained.
As a single judgement on a singe issue, who is driving what car is of little or no consequence whatsoever. The fact that it is unfair and manipulative to any that care about sportsmanship and fair play is the issue. All concerned, including the drivers make millions at their sport, at the hands of the fans and in return treat them with contempt.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Clive
I find the term "unfair advantage" interesting in that it has become the buzz phrase ever since Massa's pit lane offence in Valencia. There, it was used as an excuse for not penalising him as laid down in the rules; with Hamilton, it is now the excuse for for an entirely unwarranted penalty. But the phrase does not appear in the rules themselves - it is an invention of the stewards for their convenience and they are so overjoyed with its effectiveness that it will now be used whenever they need an excuse for a flagrantly biased decision, apparently.

The facts are as Alianora has pointed out - the only rules relevant to Hamilton's alleged offence state that drivers must drive on the track. Nothing is mentioned about what penalty should be applied in the event of an infraction to the rule, nowhere does it state that any advantage gained must be returned. So, if we are referring only to the rulebook, almost all the drivers involved in the Belgian GP should have been penalised.

To avoid such a farcical situation, it has been the convention in F1 to require a driver to give back any advantage he has gained by cutting a chicane and this has functioned well enough for years. The driver allows the overtaken driver to come past and everything is hunky dory again.

Now it seems that the stewards want to add to the convention fine nuances and measurements of the advantage taken - hence the silly arguments about just how much advantage Hamilton should have given back to Raikkonen. To say "Raikkonen would have had this much of a lead" or "Hamilton would not have had the slipstream" is hypothetical and cannot be measured nor proved.

In effect, the stewards are giving themselves the right to decide arbitrarily on a matter of opinion without a rule to back them up. Since advantage is something that cannot be measured, they are asking the drivers to compete without knowing what is legal and what isn't. They may have achieved their object of taking a win away from McLaren this time but they are storing up trouble for the future and making a mockery of F1 in the meantime.
Date Added: 09/09/2008

Nick Goodspeed
I have read that McLaren will go on with there appeal but if it fails will be punished further. What sort of fascism is this? How can they punish them further? Another $10,000,000 or take away previous wins? Perhaps out them back 10 places for the rest of the season.
This isn't racing! It's a soap opera!!

Date Added: 10/09/2008

Clive
Standard FIA policy, I'm afraid, Nick. Whenever an appeal against a penalty does not succeed (and there have been very cases where it has), the FIA Appeal Court increase the penalty, presumably to punish the appellant for daring to question the stewards' ruling. Whilst there is some question over whether the driver or the team would incur any such increased penalty in this case (I suppose that it should be the team, in view of the fact that it is the one appealing), any increase is unlikely to be as draconian as the ones you mention. It could still make the difference between winning and losing the championship, however.

This is one of the reasons why McLaren did not appeal against any of the penalties imposed upon them last year for alleged offenses on and off the track. So well known is it that the Appeal Court increase penalties rather than annul them that it would have been foolhardy for the team to risk any increase on penalties such as the $100 million fine.
Date Added: 10/09/2008

chunter
I am extremely glad I watched the recorded race (this, the Thursday after) before I read this segment. I didn't take a long look at the stills, it was clear in motion at normal speed that Hamilton did not gain an advantage at New Bus Stop.

I was only left wondering why Bourdais was not penalized for punting Trulli in the back, or at least, I wondered why cars haven't been deliberately colliding with his gearbox all season from frustration. I think about four or five drivers could have easily been penalized for avoidable contact in La Source, and most of the field could have been penalized for maintaining or gaining advantage in the assortment of asphalt runoffs.

I'm glad people are willing to complain loudly when obvious mistakes are made.
Date Added: 11/09/2008

Clive
I guess someone has to do it, Chunter. ;)

I'm glad you mentioned that it was clear from normal speed viewing that Hamilton had no option but to cut the chicane and then gave back more than the advantage he'd gained. When there are controversies like these, we tend to look at the video over and over again, in slow motion and stop frame, until we forget that the whole thing took no more than a couple of seconds. It is far too easy to sit in judgement and say he could have done this or that - in real time, we are often talking the impossible.
Date Added: 12/09/2008