5 races? OUCH! That seems a bit harsh. I agree 120% that this is cut and dry and that the loss of the points from Australia is more than fair, but is there any precedence for such a harsh penalty (written from the perspective of a 2nd year fan who is still learning the history of this AWESOME sport.)
I'll try. The bosses at McLaren are total control freaks who will attempt to control every single part of their employees' lives and manipulate every word, every piece of communication to maximize its propaganda value whenever possible. Lewis is a very confident young man who thinks that he can handle it all, and especially after his WDC, he thinks he needs no tutoring to accomplish the same. In this particular case their brains were just not networked properly and a big blunder took place.
Geez, I liked Eddie Haskell. He was such an obvious BSer. Much better than one that attempts to hide his true personna. (Eddie Haskell was a character on a popular American TV comedy show "Leave It To Beaver" back around 1870-1875. Was in black and white. Eddie was a friend of Beaver's, I am sorry, I mean to say The Beaver's, older brother and constantly schmoooozed, but in a very obvious way)
I know this is off topic, and with all due respect, get over it! F1 has evolved. It understandably takes more resources to compete as the cars become more sophisticated. There are other series to watch where the car isn't a factor (or is less of a factor). Although, as an open series, I've never understood F1 to be solely a driver's race.
I think that McLaren folks are crooks. But I am selfish and want to enjoy the F1 season that started out in such exciting fashion. I feel strongly that banning McLiar from multiple races would seriously diminish that enjoyment. For that reason alone, I'm against it.
I don't see it as a team order at all. A team order is like telling Raikkonen to allow Massa to pass. If the team telling Hamilton to allow Trulli to pass is a team order, then so are things like brake bias instructions. Seems like MCL was worried that Hamilton's pass under SC might not be viewed favorably given their past history. No biggie. But then they covered things up worried that there "order" might not be viewed favorably. These are not the actions of a team with a clear conscience. I don't fault Trulli for anything re: Hamilton/McLaren -- they dug their own hole -- but he shouldn't be reinstated to 3rd. He passed under the safety car and should be penalized.
OK, I should have been more clear about the semantics of my statement...you have a valid point about that. To the second part...then why lie about the incident? Again, I am a die-hard LH and MCL fan, but I just don't understand their logic on this one.
I agree... I don't see any evidence that they were trying to pull off some grand cover-up. It seems the position was rightfully Lewis', right? It's not like he illegally passed Trulli and was trying to keep it. He screwed up when he slowed to let Trulli by (well the team screwed up, really), and they didn't come clean that they thought they maybe had to let Trulli by. Thinking about it as unbiasedly as possible... remember last year when Lewis let Kimi by after he passed him, and the team checked with Charlie if it was OK or not, then Charlie says yes it's ok, then the FIA said no it wasn't and gave the win to Massa? Well, I'd imagine McLaren is a bit gun-shy at this point. Perhaps their initial reaction was to give the spot back no matter what just to be on the safe side. Why else would they let Trulli past? I'm also not sure exactly how the rule is written but you see drivers slowing all the time on safety car laps... they slow down, then acceelrate hard to put heat in the tires and brakes. Seems like it was a screw up and the punishment is pretty harsh, considering worse infractions have met with less punishment.
I disagree with you about Trulli, and it appears that the video replay of the incident showed Hamilton slowing substantially. His response after Hamilton was disqualified: Jarno Trulli has welcomed the FIA's decision to restore his third place in the Australian Grand Prix. The Toyota driver was originally demoted from third to 12th for passing Lewis Hamilton behind the safety car, but that penalty has now been cancelled and Hamilton disqualified from the Melbourne results after the world champion was adjudged to given 'misleading' evidence. Trulli had always insisted that he had only passed Hamilton because the McLaren appeared to be slowing to a halt, and was delighted that the previous decision had been cancelled. "I am happy because I just wanted some justice, and I am happy I got it," he said. "I am happy for myself, for the team - and I have to thank the FIA because it does not happen very often that they reconsider something. "It must have been really hard for them, but they had common sense to really try and understand what was going on. I have been always honest and it has paid off." He clarified that the decision to revisit the incident was taken solely by the FIA as Toyota had decided not to appeal the penalty after all. "We did not appeal. We did not do anything, and I did not make any further comments," said Trulli. "I think the FIA was clever enough to understand the situation. They had a very busy end of the race, with so many accidents, and they now had a bit more evidence to understand the case. "So they wanted to hear us again, and it just confirmed what happened in Australia as I didn't change my statement. That is it. I don't know what made them change their mind." Trulli declined to comment on Hamilton's actions or his exclusion. "I don't know the evidence or what they investigated on," he said. "I cannot comment on it. I am just happy I got my position and what I did on the track. "Honestly, it was a controversial end of the race and it was hard for anyone to understand. But again I would like to thank the FIA because they had the strength to reconsider the case, giving new evidence and understanding what was going on. "I never lied, I was always honest in my statements and I never changed it."
Can anyone really imagine the FIA banning McLaren (or any other team) for an entire season? Laying off all those people would be at the very least a PR nightmare. What sponsor would be willing to risk the bucks if their team could disappear from the TV screens overnight. Of course rational thinking has never been a characteristic of the Mosley led FIA so who knows.
Let me get this straight. After the race Hamilton said to all media that he was told to let Trulli pass. Then Haug said the same in the official team press release. After this Hamilton and Ryan told the stewards the opposite?!?!! Why do I find this quite hard to believe? If you are going to lie to the stewards, you probably wouldn´t lie about something that you and your team have already told the whole friggin world... P.s. By the way, If lying (or misleading)to the stewards is a crime warranting the exclusion from a Grand Prix, or possible from WDC, what was the punishment for Shumi for Rascassegate, or for Alonso for Hungary 2007?
Mike, I largely agree with your comparison to the event with Kimi, but Hammy said one thing to the press which I think correctly recounted the events with Trulli, and then an hour later said something totally different to the stewards which would determine where Hammy finished to Trulli's detriment. If he had just been honest there would be no blow up over this, but Hammy wasn't, and it's crap like that which makes the stewards upset. Perhaps not a grand cover-up, but a blatant attempt to deceive.
Hold on brother, i raised the same examples a few hours ago, and was jumped upon by a few posters Think it but for crist sake dont write it, this is Lewis Hamilton/ Mclaren we are talking about
Well, I don't particularly care if the team told Hamilton to lie to the stewards or if he just thought up the story on his own. It was still a lie and unsportsmanlike behavior. Hamilton could easily be just about the best-liked and most sympathetic figure in Formula One at this point but time and time again he insists on displaying his arrogance in public.
I don't even think it was "A blatant attempt to deceive".... As I said, I think it was a major screw up where A didn't know B and they probably tried to say what they *thought* Charlie wanted to hear - When you get called before the headmaster you tend to say what he wants after all - He initially accepted it, then discovered different and went nuts. Cheers, Ian
I mostly agree with you but it seems hard to believe McLaren invented this big deceitful cover up just to..... well, to what? It was Lewis' rightful position, it seems... I don't think McLaren were thinking "hey we'll get Lewis to slow, then set Trulli up to go by and we'll take it to the FIA to get them banned!". Lewis had nothing to gain and everything to lose, so I have to think it was just an honest screw-up. It was dumb not to say the team told him to let Trulli by, but it seems like it's getting a bit blown out of proportion. I think the best comparison would be with Schumi @ Rascasse. He did something very bad on the track, then he lied about it to the stewards - not just a lie of omission, a blatant lie which belied the truth of the matter. And their response was to make him start from the back of the grid. I like Schumi and I think the penalty was fair... he tried to get an advantage and the FIA took it away and a bit more. With Hamilton, what he did on track was absolutely right... but he lied about it later, a lie of omission. And gets a DQ? I just don't see any equality there. It's not just Hamilton either... I think Vettel is the same. Vettel gets into an accident at the end.... Rubens gets into 3 accidents during the race, plus arguably causes a 4th. Vettel gets a $50k fine for driving with a damaged car, plus a 10-spot penalty. Rubens gets nothing for driving with a damaged car, and no penalty. I don't see the equality.
I'm not familiar with any controversial incident in China (other than him sliding off in 2007). Is there something he may have lied about there? I am familiar with the Montreal incident.
I tend to agree with you as I can't believe they're THAT stupid to try to cheat. However, that must not happen to a team like MCL, and it is especially out of bounds to not set everything straight when you discover what really went on inside your team.
Exactly right. This was not like a soccer play to "draw the other team offsides". What was done on the track by both MCL team and Hamilton was to honestly attempt to abide by the rules. The dishonesty came after the fact and IMHO is not excusable in any shape nor form.
I´d agree with you if that was what truly happened, but since the source is the FIA, I find hard it to believe. Why would you lie about something that you have already told the whole world? Even with an official press release!
It's nice to see the true colours of the posters on here, I want Lewis kicked out! but not for any of the reasons, suggested by the Piranha's feeding frenzy on here, because IMO he worth more than this crap. He maybe a head strong guy-young man, but to have the blame of all this laid at his feet, is pathetic. The only saving grace in all this, for me is BrawnGP, and a good few level headed folk on here, that see it for what it is. It just say's to me it really must have hurt BIG TIME to see LH win last year.
James, I believe the action on the track was not the reason for the penalty. The reason for the penalty was the obvious conflict of information given to Charlie Whiting, with no reasonable excuse by McLaren for doing so. I would guess that Whiting did not impose a penalty directly on the McLaren team because he might have felt the situation was in some part due to confusion. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for a team in auto racing's supposed premier category, and for a world championship winning team like McLaren, to be caught in a situation like this with their fire retardant suit at their knees concerning communication. Just as there was no excuse for Schumacher's incident at Monaco, or Coultard's McLaren brake checking Schumacher, or for Senna drivng into his teammate, there is no excuse for the 2008 WDC to make such a blantent mistake in judgement with his words. What amazes me, is that some of the die hard Hamilton fans are in such denial and just do not want to see that their hero can be full of crap. His winning the 2008 WDC brought much positive attention to the sport of F1. Now I would suggest that Hamilton blemished his professional image to most fans, he made a mistake in judgement not worthy of a WDC, he apparently lied to the track stewards for no reason at all. None, zip, nada. So F1's champion appears to be a schmuck to the unknowing as the headlines read "F1's WDC Caught Lying" in the tabloids. Nice move Lewis. He did a Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman", when all Hamilton had to say is THE TRUTH, it was a confusing situation. I would suggest that with the truth, Hamilton's third would have held. After reading the McLaren radio transcripts, I think the truth by Hamilton and the team would have prevented this controversy. But they, and Lewis, either intentionally, or rather unprofessionally, gave the appearance of lying to the stewards. Damn karma. Damn radio recordings.
I agree with your Schumi comparison. Even more importantly, he didn't get any additional penalties in addition to having to start from the back of the grid. It'll be interesting to see if the FIA take this further with Lewis. And regarding Vettel, I was watching the crash again last night using frame-by-frame on my DVR. Vettel's hands never turned left. He just understeered a little because of worn tires and being pinched well onto the curb (with no grip) by Kubica. It really looked like just an unfortunate racing incident yet Vettel gets a penalty. You're right, no equality. Their decision making process really puzzles me.
