Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

[peter]

[Ian]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

It doesn't look good for McLaren, does it? It would be awful if Hamilton was party to any deception. Let's hear what McLaren have to say.

On another matter - it looks like heavy rain is inevitable at some points over the next three days, which will really mix things up. Any money on a Force Inda win?

Ian

[peter]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

It doesn't look good for McLaren, does it? It would be awful if Hamilton was party to any deception. Let's hear what McLaren have to say.

On another matter - it looks like heavy rain is inevitable at some points over the next three days, which will really mix things up. Any money on a Force Inda win?

Ian

Do you think the merc is not going so well this because they did not get the right blue prints this year should have had the brawn one not Ferrari for this season.

I saw the weather was not going to be good this weekend so my money would be on jb or vittel think the red boll should be good this weekend in the wet. If it does rain and the Ferrari is the same as last year in the wet it will because of count the spins not the laps.

never mind we get a bit of a lay in this week but will still be up for the free practice tomorrow morning

[JSR]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

Blimey, I didn't see that coming.

Rarely the optimist, I saw Brawn being kicked out and Hamilton getting the win - this is the exact opposite!

According to http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/7978186.stm

Re:

BBC commentator and former F1 driver Martin Brundle said: "This does not look good for Hamilton or McLaren.

"Hamilton passed Trulli as he was off the road. Hamilton clearly wondered then, to give him the benefit of the doubt, if he had passed under the safety car conditions and was trying to let Trulli back through.

"There was a point when he was doing just 15mph in his McLaren and Trulli had no option but to repass him.

"I think Lewis then saw half a chance of a third place instead of a fourth, went up to the stewards and didn't give them the full story.

"Now they've matched up his comments (to them) to radio content between him and the team, and other information they've gathered, and they've decided that effectively he was telling fibs."

So, even if it wasn't a blatant lie by Hamilton, it seems to have been a lie of omission in an attempt to get one more point (6pts rather than 5pts). That's a high-risk game for such little reward and the gamble didn't pay off.

McLaren are not appealing, re:

"We are disappointed by what has happened but in the circumstances we are not going to appeal," said McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh.

He added: "There is no implication that Lewis lied to the stewards. "

I'd disagree with that last bit. Whether Hamilton lied or didn't lie isn't the question, there is clearly the "implication" of a lie of omission. If he didn't lie, they should appeal. If your best driver is effectively called a liar, and you don't back him up by appealing, then the "implication" is there for all to see.

If, as it seems, Trulli did no wrong and the penalty was imposed due to Hamilton's lie of omission, then it's no wonder they've been pretty harsh on both him and McLaren.

Trulli said -

"I have always been honest and it has paid off.

"It was a controversial end of the race and it was hard for anyone to understand, but I never lied. I was honest in my statement and I never changed it."

Whatever else we take away from this, the message is clear - truth is rewarded, lies are penalised. As it should be.

(I'll bet Ferrari are happy! )

[peter]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

I also did not see that one coming like you I was waiting for Lewis to pick up the win by default. Hope we will hear more of this over the weekend ie what was said on the radio.

[Ian]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

I wonder if Hamilton regretted allowing Trulli back in front. There is no doubt that Trulli went off of his own accord. I'm not sure what the ruled are when under the safety car when this happens. So after the race, maybe McLaren decided to contest Trulli regaining the place even though they made the decision to let him past.

Ironically, they did the 'safe' thing (and let Trulli back) and have now suffered a negative consequence! If McLaren, as it seems, were not 100% forthcoming with the facts, then that's bad. But I do think the whole thing is Trulli bizarre

Ian

[peter]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

But I do think the whole thing is Trulli bizarre

Ian

That almost hurts. we must be in a good mood today

[JSR]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

I wonder if Hamilton regretted allowing Trulli back in front. There is no doubt that Trulli went off of his own accord. I'm not sure what the ruled are when under the safety car when this happens. So after the race, maybe McLaren decided to contest Trulli regaining the place even though they made the decision to let him past.

Ironically, they did the 'safe' thing (and let Trulli back) and have now suffered a negative consequence! If McLaren, as it seems, were not 100% forthcoming with the facts, then that's bad. But I do think the whole thing is Trulli bizarre

Ian

Yes, it does seem that this whole fire started as a spark of misjudgement.

If Hamilton had continued on his way, not slowed down, and Trulli just came back on track wherever he was, then it would probably have worked out better. Yes, someone might have accused Hamilton of overtaking Trulli under the safety car but, as it was Trulli's fault, I'm sure they'd win that one.

It seems that Hamilton did the decent thing and slowed to let Trulli regain his place, so as not to be accused of overtaking under the safety car, and then - in hindsight - regretted not making most of the opportunity and so claimed that Trulli had overtaken him (forgetting to mention that he'd let him through by almost stopping).

Someone at McLaren (or even Lewis himself) should have said "it's only the first race of the season and we're five points ahead of the Ferraris - that's a good day's work" and not cause a fuss over it.

What I find bizarre is that we're not discussing a hot-headed decision made during the race (which is what normally happens), rather we're discussing the decisions and events made by either McLaren or Lewis after the race - when they should have had cooler heads.

The penalty was rather harsh, but I think it's the right one because if drivers and teams think they can get away with lying, twisting the facts, omitting important details, etc, then the Stewards will never be able to make a balanced decision ever again. Lying to skew the results of a race in your favour, must result in harsh penalties. They have to send out a clear message that such a thing will not be tolerated.

[devilgas]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

and i was so looking forward to this season. don't forget there's still the diffuser hearing on the 14th so everything could still be turned upside down.
news in..... results of malaysia gp due thursday 9th april...maybe.

personally, i think it's a bit harsh that LH is dq'd because the stewards couldn't decide at the time. usually if you've been given a 25 sec penalty then that's due to an infringement of the intepretation of the rulebook. either there was an infringement or there wasn't. it was deemed that there was, so the 25 sec penalty should stand regardless. VMM / LH erred on the side of caution in letting trulli re-take the place and get landed with this result. seems they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.
i'm kinda getting the feeling the FIA are levying the same amount of attention to VMM as the refs did for england in the last 6 nations.

now, about the 1966 world cup.......

[peter]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

Here is the report of why they have now thrown him out of the results.

http://www.itv-f1.com/home.aspx#

[JSR]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

personally, i think it's a bit harsh that LH is dq'd because the stewards couldn't decide at the time. usually if you've been given a 25 sec penalty then that's due to an infringement of the intepretation of the rulebook. either there was an infringement or there wasn't. it was deemed that there was, so the 25 sec penalty should stand regardless. VMM / LH erred on the side of caution in letting trulli re-take the place and get landed with this result. seems they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The important thing here is *why* Hamilton and McLaren got the harsh penalty.

It has nothing to do with the race, the overtaking, the manoeuvre, the delay waiting for a decision, etc. None of that.

The penalty is because -

An FIA statement said that Hamilton and McLaren had provided "deliberately misleading" evidence to the stewards in Australia.

It's because they lied to the stewards. http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45434

It's not a case of "damned if they do, damned if they don't" because they didn't have to lie.

The penalty originally handed to Trulli was based on false testimony from either or both of Hamilton and McLaren. The stewards were under the impression (based on what Hamilton & McLaren told them) that Trulli overtook Hamilton under the safety car. That's the 25s penalty. The true facts are that Trulli overtook Hamilton because Hamilton slowed to 15mph in order to let him pass. What was Trulli supposed to do? Park up and go home? He couldn't go any slower. So Trulli did all that he could do and, as a result, his 25s penalty was unfair.

If LH/McLaren hadn't lied, Trulli would not have got the penalty in the first place because the stewards would have had all the facts. They didn't have all the facts because Hamilton/McLaren "deliberately misled" them - that's why the penalty is so harsh. By lying, they forced the stewards to give an unjust penalty to another driver.

I agree with you that the penalty would have been too harsh for a racing incident, but I think it was the right penalty for deliberately misleading the stewards.

All teams and drivers should come away from this learning that there is a harsh penalty for deliberately misleading the stewards. In my eyes, that's the right message to send out.

[Ian]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

OK, I have had a chance to listen to a lengthy explanation by McLaren's chief, Martin Whitmarsh. This is how I see it:

1. It's a safety car period, you can't pass a car on the road unless instructed to (e.g. to unlap yourself in some circumstances), but Hamilton had no choice as Trulli left the track completely. That's fine.

2. Hamilton informed the team over the radio that he had passed Trulli, because the Toyota in front had left the track. At this point, in a bit of a panic, the team told Hamilton to let him re-pass (which was actually not required). Hamilton actually insisted he didn't have to (correct) and then a lengthy debate ensued between him and the team over the radio.

3. During this debate, under pressure from his team, Hamilton slowed and let Trulli back, anyway. Arguably this was a mistake on Trulli's part as he should have known that he should not re-take his position from Hamilton.

4. McLaren sought clarification from Race Control, but weren't able to get a cast iron decision.

5. The race resumed and Trulli maintained his position until the end.

6. Trulli's re-pass was then investigated. Hamilton and the team were summoned, along with Trulli, to the Stewards and interviewed. It's at this point that things become a bit blurred. And I think the Stewards have some responsibility here to make things black and white. They concluded that Trulli was at fault for re-taking his position and, I feel that is absolutely correct, even regardless of whether Hamilton slowed down or not.

Everyone is doing different speeds on the warm up lap and during safety car periods. Trulli should not have re-passed Hamilton, unless Hamilton had a technical problem and stopped. As he did not, Trulli should not have stayed ahead and should have let Hamilton back past. But he did not.

So on a completely technical basis, Trulli should have been penalised - he went off, mistake 1, he passed Hamilton when he shouldn't have, mistake 2, he should have allowed Hamilton back, but he didn't, mistake 3.

Where things went wrong for Hamilton, or more pointedly, McLaren, is that they upset the Stewards. If they believed, like me, that their case was cut and dried, they probably, and legitimately, didn't want to spend too much time debating the point and instead let Trulli stew in his own juices.

But it later the Stewards realised that Hamilton had been instructed to let Trulli past. Well, that information was not secret, and McLaren felt no need to repeat it, but the Stewards belatedly felt that McLaren had not helped their investigation, and so they punished them - very severely.

The one thing I don't know is whether or not anyone at McLaren actually lied. If they did, sure - they shoudl be punished. But if the Stewards' investigation was half baked, then I'm afraid the finger points at them for not establishing all the facts at the time of the original investigation. Surely their original decision was correct as Trulli made a mistake, regardless, and had the chance to correct it on the track, but didn't. McLaren asked for clarification during the race, but were not helped there.

I think McLaren has been punished because of the Stewards' own incompetence, rather than what happened on the track - UNLESS McLaren definitely lied. Not mentioning something is one thing - if they weren't asked the relevant question by the Stewards, that's the Stewards' problem. But if they answered a direct question with a lie, that's different. And that's the key question.

Neither the Stewards' statement nor Whitmarsh's interview suggests McLaren lied. If that's the case, once again the Stewards' competence is called into question.

The big loser in all this is Hamilton, who (assuming he didn't subsequently lie) was doing everything right until being pressurised by his team to let Trulli past.

Ian

[JSR]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

Thanks for that summary, Ian.

But if they answered a direct question with a lie, that's different. And that's the key question.

Neither the Stewards' statement nor Whitmarsh's interview suggests McLaren lied. If that's the case, once again the Stewards' competence is called into question.

Perhaps you should read the link posted earlier at http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=45434 and the full press release is at http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre..._decision.aspx, in which the stewards' statement says -

During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.

Later evidence includes the radio chatter between Lewis and his team (see: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre...anscript_2.pdf), re:

- which clearly indicates that, even though Lewis had let Trulli by, Trulli had slowed down right in front of him. Presumably this was to let Hamilton back through (because Trulli only overtook him when LH went too slow for JT to stay behind him in the first place).

I think it's perfectly clear from this that both Lewis Hamilton and his race manager Dave Ryan lied in the initial hearing to blame Trulli for making the overtake manoeuvre. This resulted in the stewards giving Trulli the penalty when, all Trulli had really done, was to avoid Lewis' car that was going at about 15mph. Trulli could have done nothing else except stop.

Yes, there was confusion on the track at the time of the incident but that doesn't explain the lie after the race and during the inquiry.

Had McLaren just said "yes, we instructed Lewis to let Trulli overtake because we were waiting for clarification of the rules", then I feel sure that the stewards would have awarded Hamilton the 3rd place anyway. For some reason, they felt they had to lie about it - I guess we shall never know why they chose to do that.

[coupekid]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

oh dear....... its all kicking off again!

i love the fact that we watch these races, and then have to wait and find out what the results are......over course of days, and even weeks!!

I really do feel that the stewards should make decsions at the time, and stick by them!

[devilgas]

Re: Lewis thrown out of Melbourne results

Thanks for that summary, Ian.


I think it's perfectly clear from this that both Lewis Hamilton and his race manager Dave Ryan lied in the initial hearing to blame Trulli for making the overtake manoeuvre. This resulted in the stewards giving Trulli the penalty when, all Trulli had really done, was to avoid Lewis' car that was going at about 15mph. Trulli could have done nothing else except stop.

Yes, there was confusion on the track at the time of the incident but that doesn't explain the lie after the race and during the inquiry.

Had McLaren just said "yes, we instructed Lewis to let Trulli overtake because we were waiting for clarification of the rules", then I feel sure that the stewards would have awarded Hamilton the 3rd place anyway. For some reason, they felt they had to lie about it - I guess we shall never know why they chose to do that.

as ian has already said, trulli fell off the road and subsequently overtook lewis. i'm sure that if the VMM can do 15mph then the toyota can also do this speed. clearly there was confusion as to whether JT should retake his position, and VMM took the view that it was safer to let that be the case.
without having access to a full transcript of the stewards initial hearing (dunno if it's on the FIA site as can't be arsed to look) i cannot categorically state if VMM lied or not. whether they did or not, JT was still technically wrong for retaking 3rd place after falling off the island and should still have the 25s penalty. the stewards should not be able to reverse this decision....
was JT in 3rd at the time of the safety car? yes
was LH in 4th at the time of the safety car? yes
did JT put his car off the track? yes
did LH legally pass the car that was not on the track? yes
was there confusion? yes
was LH instructed to let JT re-pass? yes
did JT immediately re-pass? no
did LH slow to let JT re-pass? yes
did JT think LH had retired? alegedly, yes
had LH retired / stopped / no longer under power? no
did JT eventually re-take 3rd? yes
was JT entitled to re-pass? no 25 sec on-the-road penalty
did JT slow to let LH take 3rd again? yes
did LH take 3rd? no

VMM have been the subject of some harsh decisions in the past so were playing it safe. i agree though that why they just didn't say "we weren't sure if we should take the place or not and were waiting for clarification" is a mystery!
regardless of that though, JT retook a place that wasn't his to retake. this is what the FIA and the stewards have lost sight of. the upshot being that once again F1 is made to look stupid.