The Lawyers Debate 22/09/2008 The big talking point today is McLaren's case at the FIA Court of Appeal. Although we will not hear the verdict until tomorrow, apparently, some news has filtered through already.Lewis HamiltonPerhaps the most important snippet is that the appeal will be heard and not thrown out on a technicality. Some thought that, since the 25 second penalty was a substitute for a drive-through penalty (which cannot be appealed for obvious reasons), McLaren's appeal might be dismissed. Word is that this argument has been talked through and it has been agreed that the penalty imposed after completion of the race can be appealed.So now the lawyers will start on the incident itself, examining the facts to see whether there was justification in the stewards' findings. The famous radio conversation between Dave Ryan of the McLaren team and Charlie Whiting, the Race Director, went as follows, according to Autosport:Ryan: 'Do you believe that was okay? He gave the position back.'Whiting: 'I believe it was. Yes.'Ryan: 'You believe it was okay.'Whiting: 'I believe it was okay.'There has been some discussion, thanks to Mosley's comments on the matter, as to whether Charlie was the right person to consult or whether McLaren should have sought clarification at all. The inference is that McLaren should know the rules without having to harass the Race Director during the race. But that ignores the fact that these particular rules are not written and are subject to confusing precedents. It was the fact that McLaren did know how debatable were the conventions that led them to seek clarification.I must admit that I did not think the case would get as far as being heard. Perhaps I was being cynical, but the most likely outcome seemed to me that the Court would avoid the issue as they did with the "cool fuel" episode at the Brazilian GP last year. Now that the matter is going to be debated, I cannot see how the Court could possibly uphold the decision of the stewards. Whatever advantage was gained by Hamilton in the incident was given back according to the convention as understood at the time - even Charlie Whiting agreed on this. Any subsequent "clarification" of the convention is irrelevant to the case and cannot be taken into account, especially as what precedent there is shows that Hamilton and McLaren interpreted things correctly.But my cynicism leads me to add that this is an FIA Court and, as seen in the Ferrari documents verdicts in 2007, its decisions are not necessarily based upon logic. That verdict used Mosley's opinion as its foundation and we might expect this latest case to be decided in the same way, therefore. The main hope for McLaren has to be that Mosley is not in charge of proceedings this time and so cannot influence decisions as he did last year. It remains to be seen how much notice the Court will take of Mosley's stated opinions as reported in the press.So, aside from being potentially an important case in terms of this year's championship, the matter is also significant in its relation to how we perceive the FIA's impartiality. From the point of view of public relations only, it would be beneficial to the FIA if the decision were to go in favor of McLaren. Some would argue that such a verdict would impair the authority of the stewards but it seems to me that this is questioned already. Far more important is it that the FIA be seen to be fair and logical in its governance of the sport.
Clive
donwatters I felt from the very begining of this fiasco that Charlie Whitings imput would clear McLaren of any penalty. I'm very glad to see that my thoughts may hold true. In reality, it's the only fair judgement to make. Date Added: 22/09/2008
John Beamer Clive - where have you read that the appeal will be admissible?My understanding is that they argue this first and then argue the actual case. The FIA then goes away and decides what its verdict is. It may still rule the appeal is admissible.Autosport has an article which is confusing titled McLaren: Appeal Admissible but this is only the McLaren team arguing that the appeal can be heard rather than the FIA ruling the appeal is admissible. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Steven Roy I have yet to see anything that suggests that the appeal will be heard which is utterly ridiculous at this hour. But then this is the FIA. I dread to think what stupid decision they will arrive at.If there was any justice involved they would be questioning the stewards, their supervisor, whatever idiot appoints them and their terms of engagement. Date Added: 22/09/2008
John Beamer Just to confirm - autosport says that the FIA will decide this evening whether the appeal is admissiblehttp://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70786Let's see what happens Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive Don: As the monkey said, that remains to be seen., paticularly in view of the fact that it seems to have been Whiting who started the stewards' investigation. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive John: Hmmm, you may be right. Reading the Autosport article again, I see that it does not actually state that the decision regarding admissibility has been made. My fault, although that is a very misleading headline. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive Steven: John is right in that the admissibility decision has not yet been made. So my cynicism could still be proved correct... Date Added: 22/09/2008
Becken Clive,Brad Spurgeon has written a terrific report right from the courtroom:http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=503Reading the report, I cant understand how, in a LOGIC WAY, Lewis could lost this appeal. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive I've just read Brad Spurgeon's report, Becken, and it fills me with dread. Everything resembles the "spygate" hearings too much and we know how the verdict went then. Clearly, the FIA is not interested in justice, it wants only to be proved right in a stewards' decision that was obviously in contravention of the rules as understood at the time.Even the arguments over admissibility show this. There is a precedent in the Liuzzi case of last year, as pointed out by Keith Collantine, and that is ignored. If the FIA can make up the rules as they go along, in what sense are their championships anything more than an award to the team and driver they happen to like best? Date Added: 22/09/2008
John Beamer What I find absolutely disgusting is why is Ferrari trying to defend this. Sure this should be a case of working out if the Stewards have acted properly. The defense should be provided by the FIA and not Ferrari. Ferrari is only the beneficiary of the stewards' decision and no more. Date Added: 22/09/2008
John Beamer That IHT post is fascinating - a must read. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive Agreed, John. Ferrari were very careful to say at Spa that they had not lodged a protest and that it was Whiting who started the investigation. Now they suddenly have a whole legal team at the hearing to prove the stewards were correct in their judgement? All it does is make the FIA seem in Ferrari's pocket.Agreed that the IHT post is excellent. And ominous. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Steven Roy Brad Spurgeon's piece is incredible. How can you have a trial with two prosecution teams and one defence.Charlie Whiting is making himself sound like a complete idiot. He saw it at the time and was absolutely certain that it was OK. After the event he has change his mind completely. That stinks. Luca Baldisseri 'proved' to his own satisfaction that the McLaren could not out-accelerate the Ferrari despite everyone seeing that is exactly what happened. Is that guy playing with a full deck? WHat kind of moron sets out to prove the opposite of what any idiot can see actually happened?The FIA which has punished several drivers for causing avoidable collisions is now saying that drivers cannot take action to avoid a collision if they might gain an advantage which ten seconds later they give back.How do these people look at themselves in a mirror? Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive How do they look at themselves in a mirror? The same way they judge motor racing incidents - with eyes tight shut. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Peter Boyle Strong questions need to be asked about Whiting'sjudgement let alone impartiality:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article4806012.eceWhiting provided "evidence" based on an uncorroborated report of telephone conversation with the relevant steward at Fuji attempting to discredit the precedent of appealing a time penalty in lieu of drive through in last 5 laps (Liuzzi /Sutil).Mclaren spoke the (fuji) steward afterwards and obtained testimony that Whiting's description of the (fuji) steward'sviews: ---Scott Andrews said that he was “extremely surprised by the content” of the FIA's e-mail, which he described as “grossly inaccurate and misleading”.----Sounds to me like a bloody fox has been caught covered infeathers and wearing a hen house guard uniform.What the heck is one of the principle witnesses doingbuilding (i.e. fabricating) the legal case. Further the same witness appears to have assured Mclaren theywere ok, and then triggered the entire stewards inquiry.It quite simply sounds like entrapment followed by perversion of the course of justice. Just as well therearen't millions of pounds at stake, or it might go to a real court. Ermm...In my view this question is even worse than the question of who invited Ferrari to defend the case on behalf of the FIA!Peter Date Added: 22/09/2008
Peter Boyle Also, this question about Whiting's approach is clearlythe smoking gun Mclaren schooled Hamilton to makesure the press had caught by emphasizing it as he came out:----------As he emerged from the day-long hearing, Hamilton, [...] made clear that he saw this as the most important element of McLaren's case. “Did you all catch on with the e-mail?” he said.----------- Date Added: 22/09/2008
Steven Roy I just read the Times column. Charlie Whiting has now not only made himself look stupid he has now shown himself to be a liar.Just out of curiousity how can he be allowed to leave early because he has to go to Singapore when everyone else in the room has to go there. Would it not have been more sensible for everyone to go there a couple of days earlier and had this farce there.How can Alan Donnelly who is not a qualified steward conduct the driver interviews and then the other three muppets just sign the paperwork? That is corrupt. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Clive I have been questioning Charlie Whiting's impartiality ever since Stepney's info about sending the movable floor details to the FIA. The trouble is, I did not really want it to be true. Now that it looks as though it was so, I find it a real shocker. It looks as though the FIA is being revealed as the corrupt and incompetent bunch they are. Date Added: 22/09/2008
Stuart B I can only agree with all of the other comments...what were Ferrari doing there? Why do they act as the prosecution as well as the FIA. I thought this was an appeal of the Stewards decision not something for Ferrari to be involved in...why wasn't BMW Sauber there defending their inherited place? I don't know how Ron puts up with this blatant FIA/Ferrari bullying. If Lewis wins the Championship it'll only be that much sweeter. Date Added: 23/09/2008
Pink Peril Two words - Kangaroo Court.If this appeal is overturned, I'll eat my hat. Seems like the FIA is only interested in making themselves look stupid - oh and favouring Ferrari of course. Not in justice or logic. Pathetic.And yet, I bought my tickets for the 2009 Oz GP last week. Tell me, why do I continue to support these mongrels with my $$$? Will I ever learn? Date Added: 23/09/2008
Steven Roy None of us will ever learn Peril. The one good thing is Max and Bernie have to die before us so one day we will get F1 without them screwing it up Date Added: 23/09/2008
Gusto Lewis in the Lions Den,I`ve not felt this sadness about F1 since May 94,Word`s fail me Date Added: 23/09/2008
Journeyer 'The one good thing is Max and Bernie have to die before us so one day we will get F1 without them screwing it up'Of course, Steven Roy, we're assuming that F1 isn't already screwed up beyond repair by the time they're gone. Date Added: 23/09/2008
Nick Goodspeed Even if the FIA have no choice but to give back the win to Hamilton, they will probably find an other way to make sure Ferrari win. When you are as willing as they are to compromise your credibility, and in the position they are in with their ethics, you do what ever you want to. A despot is a despot! If Max & co lose, they will just be all the more compelled to get McLaren in some other fashion.. In the end will we see Hamilton parking his car by the side of Interlagos to let enough cars pass to give Ferrari their second title in a row?cyNick Date Added: 23/09/2008
donwatters Well, Clive, you were right. The FIA just ruled that McLaren cannot appeal the decision. What a farce. Date Added: 23/09/2008
Steven Roy Details at http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70792The appeal is inadmissable despite Charlie Whiting making a liar of himself trying to prove there was no precedent. He proved there was a precedent but it is still not admissable. Date Added: 23/09/2008
Clive Yes, the appeal has been ruled inadmissible, just as expected. I have written a post on my disgust at the whole thing and can only try to shut out all thoughts of the FIA, Max and Bernie when watching races in future. Maybe the fans should keep a record of who really wins the GPs and award a trophy to their champion at the end of the year... Date Added: 23/09/2008
Alianora La Canta Well, we're trying to keep track of the penalties dished out on the FIA Penalty Tracker, but it's proving a pretty labourious job. If some of you can lend a hand by adding incidents when penalties have been issued and/or when controversial incidents haven't been penalised, it would help us establish the real champions of given seasons. Date Added: 23/09/2008
Clive It's a great idea, Alianora, and I shall help whenever I can. Date Added: 23/09/2008
donwatters I'd be more than happy to contribute to a fund for the trophy. Date Added: 23/09/2008
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
