Ok slow down mister lawyer. In essence, if you watched the race Max was owned by Lewis. Name another driver who can overtake Max on the start with a tire disadvantage? In no way a person who knows racing can say Max outperformed Lewis that race. If it wasn't for Latifi crashing, Max would finish maybe 15 seconds behind Lewis. Look at the lap times and race pace between the two. Max had no answer. Even with newer tires couldn't gain on him. Even on the last lap on new softs he was battling Hamilton for most of the lap. We can go on and on about Masi breaking the rules. But there is no confusion about who performed better that race. So you can stop acting like Max had the upper hand. That's why Horner said we need God.
First, I wrote "year" ... and you responded with "race". Why do Hamilton fans simply refuse to accept that a world championship is decided by MANY races over the course of a year, instead of just the last lap of the last race? Second, Hamilton was gifted a position by the stewards in the first lap of the race ... the ONLY race that determines the championship, according to you. If Masi reversed the running order in the last lap, you *may* have a valid argument in Hamilton's favor ... but probably not, given the HUGE gift to Hamilton in lap one. Anyway ... what's your point, again? Your posts are always so damn confusing.
What do you mean I refuse to accept a championship is decided by many races? I know that. That's why I laugh at people who say Glock was the reason Hamilton won in '08. You got me confused with another poster. Oooohh, now you want to use the word "gift" Lol!! Now you want to use the word gift! So you see it as a "gift" on lap one instead of overriding the rules. But the last lap was not a gift. It was simply "overriding the rules LOL!!. Man you just lost it with me. Go sit down.
Please do me (and all of us) a favor ... ask someone smart, to proofread your posts before you post 'em. Thanks so much ...
Dear Jerry, Mercedes had to huff and puff and bark, plus they were pissed that their preferential treatment is over so they said they would appeal however knowing they agreed with the other teams to end in green light racing conditions and that Masi went by the rules knew they had no case so didn’t follow through. The investigation is placation. Masi isn’t going anywhere because his bosses are happy. Max and RB out drove Mercedes all year. He broke the all time record for most podiums. He won his championship fair and square and beat Elton Hamdashian, your lord and savior. I don’t even like Max Vercrashin however he is more respectable than Elton. Please respond with some more droning nonsense.
Another argument (because, apparently, it's kind of a slow night ... and I've already watched Dexter and Yellowstone) Let's say that the only "overriding" authority given to the Race Director really is, to "override" the race clerk. That's it. Otherwise, he has no power (as has been argued). Well, we know that the race clerk is given choices in 48.12. These "choices" ... based on "IF" language rather than "WHEN" language ... are what make 48.12 subservient to 48.13, in the eyes of all F1 officials. So the question is: Why doesn't even the most narrow, restrictive reading of 15.3 give the Race Director the power to "override" the choices given to, and potentially executed by, the race clerk in 48.12? See what i mean? Bottom Line: Even the most narrow, restrictive reading of 15.3 gives Masi full power and authority to make that call in the last lap of Abu Dhabi.
I graduated from law school some 7-8 years ago but thanks for the endorsement. By the looks of your post, you didn’t even go to law school at all. All you’ve done is disregarded all the tenets of statutory interpretation and signalled out a few irrelevant words to play semantics with. 48.3 gives broad scope for the use of the safety car, it’s to be used “if competitors or officials are in immediate physical danger on or near the track but the circumstances are not such as to necessitate suspending…” 50.1 gives even broader powers to red flag a race. These are the provisions that would deal with the safety car crashing or getting a flat tyre or other contingencies. 15.3 has absolutely no utility in that regard. If you want to employ a reductio ad absurdum type argument then the correct one would be in my original post. That is, if 15.3 had the meaning Masi contended, then he could call reverse grids at any time, bring out the safety car when there was no danger, hell he could even have the safety car line up and join the race if he wanted. You can dress your arguments up all you like but they are simply moronic and it’s clear you’ve never been near a law school. In law a specific provision overrides a general one unless otherwise stated. 15.3 does not override 48.12, it doesn’t take much by the way of intelligence to work that out. I’ve already provided reasons why any means all, including Masi admitting so himself and the precedent applied from every other single safety car in the history of the sport where cars unlapped themselves. Suggest you read and educate yourself. Good lord… the “if” language in 48.12 exists because there are two options open to the RD under the rules. I’ll spell these out for you: Do not let any cars unlap themselves and then immediately go racing Allow all cars to unlap themselves. The SC will then return to the pits at the end of the following lap. So yes I agree with you on one thing, allowing cars to unlap themselves is a call for the RD, but the only two scenarios permissible under the rules are those prescribed above. Leave the statutory interpretation to those qualified to do so, you’re just embarrassing yourself. As to why Mercedes did not appeal, here are some quotes a journalist provided from a Mercedes insider they interviewed that were published today (translated into English hence some errors): “Ok, there was a meeting on Tuesday night between Lobo with some members of the team, Daimler, Ineos and the lawyers. It was very clear that we would have to go to the common court to win this fight, not the FIA Court of Appeal, which judges themselves. In the common court, the lawyers said that it would be a 'no brainer’ for us to win, but then there would be consequences... Which was? The championship decision would be suspended, there would be no proclamation, no celebration, there would be nothing, because everything would be embargoed, until a verdict was reached. And it could take months with the FIA trying to delay decisions with a fierce legal fight between the parties. It would be a total break with the FIA and with all motorsport governed by it. Therefore, if we went ahead we would have to leave all the championships, abandon FIA motorsport.”
LMAO All your nonsense, and you still haven't answered the simple question: Who, in your view, is given power and authority to make any number of calls, for any number of un-anticipated events (for which there are no specific rules), during an F1 Safety Car event? Clearly NOT the Race Director, as he has no power other than to override the race clerk ... according to you. So WHO has the power to extrapolate, interpret the rules, make definitive calls amid ambiguity ... during an F1 Safety Car period? Simple question ... if you give it some thought, you'll see that your reading of 15.3 is absurdly restrictive. By the way ... you do know that even the pro-Hamilton stewards recognize that 48.13 overrides and supercedes 48.12, right? Please tell me you know this ... the reason is obvious ... otherwise, there's no point in even continuing. Also, your argument that surely, the Race Director can't have that much power, has already been exposed as unsupported. PLENTY of parties involved in racing ... including the drivers themselves ... have lethal power in every split-second decision they make, in every race. Please tell me what law school you went to ... and what grades you achieved.
F1 doesn’t care about your claimed credentials and also they don’t agree with your assessment of the rules. Watch the video I posted of Crofty.
I’ve already answered your question in my post. The RD has broad brush powers to deploy a safety car and also to red flag a race. See 48.3 and 50.1 as a starter for ten. Those provisions encompass the situations in your example. I never said the RD has no power other than to override the clerk, for **** sake. Please read. I said that is the function of 15.3. He has other powers in other provisions but those are still tethered by procedural requirements - such as the procedure for lapped cars and when the safety car comes back into the pits. I’m not telling you my personal details. I don’t care if you believe if I’m a lawyer or not.
Any of you lawyers here work for the teams? the teams must have them too. maybe they’re not good enough to get the case through. pls reach out to them.
Here's another fun little "what if" scenario, to amplify my point (above). 48.12 gives choices to the race clerk ... specifically to the race clerk. "IF" the race clerk so decides, "THEN" a procedure for un-lapping is described (albeit with ambiguous language). Let's say the race clerk decides against unlapping ... he certainly has that choice, under 48.12. BUT ... let's say that the Race Director overrides that decision by the race clerk ... he certainly has that power, even under the most narrow and restrictive reading of 15.3. QUIZ: Is the Race Director, in THIS scenario, still bound by 48.12? The answer is most definitely NO. The procedure described in 48.12 is predicated on the positive decision of the race clerk to unlap. If the clerk says "no unlap", but that decision is overridden by the Race Director ... then 48.12 does not hold. Remember: 48.12 gives choices (based on "IF" language) to the race clerk ... specifically, to the race clerk. But even the most narrow and restrictive reading of 15.3 gives the Race Director has FULL power to override that race clerk (This is not even "law", per se. This is simple logic: If p, then q ==> If not q, then not p. If p, then q ==> If not p, then ... nothing.)
15.3 lists the areas the RD has over riding control over ....in the list some of them include 'in accordance with Sporting regulations 'etc In the case of Safety Car no such wording is added...perhaps that's why 15.3 is top dog in this instance but may not be in other areas ..? Thoughts? No I'm not ex Harvard or Oxford whatever
The real question is would Michael Schumacher if he was in full health be embarrassed by the FIA's race fixing to protect his record or be ashamed and argue that records are to be broken and he does not need anyone manipulating the races to protect him. If Michael is as special as we all believe he is, I think he would have hated what the FIA did as it makes both him and Max look like pawns in a story to keep Lewis from accomplishing what we all saw Lewis do, which was dominate that race last week and show that he was the clear winner of 8 championships with the exception of the FIA manipulating the race on the last lap in a way that we have never seen before and will never see again.
Someone joins a Ferrari forum days after a title, and every single post made so far are regarding how a driver of the opposition should've won the title because reasons. It's suspicious at the very least. It's like joining a cat forum and argue why dogs are much better. Fact of the matter is, if Merc really had a case they'd pursue it.
Where have you been? They have been trying to get him across the line whole year. When it’s left to him, he choked.
I see a lot of argument that the race was manipulated so as Max would win. I do not see that. Masi wanted a race and not a safety car finish. Did he know Max would win that lap, I don't believe so. Did he hope Max would win, only he can answer. Hamilton on old tyres and Max on new softs, yes Max had the advantage there. Engine power, no question Merc has had that power advantage for the past 8 years. Both cars handled equally well. Bottom line, last lap was just a shoot out and it could have gone either way. Hamilton is a tyre manager, even on old tyres he was not a sitting duck for Max. If Hamilton won there would be no discussion. To date there is just a rehash of the same arguments by different camps. This will never end. The trophy has been engraved and handed over, the appeal withdrawn, the matter is now over as far as the players are concerned.
Thank you for making the logic clear to those that need it. If p, then q ==> If not q, then not p. Thus, as it went: p, being the lapped cars passing LH, on lap 57, did take place, ..................then.................... q, the safety car doing one more lap, 58, didn't take place, as it should have on that last lap, Oh...yeah...bye-bye now...
Psssssttttt....Some of us did that know the sport. A no brainer, as they say. If Max and Lewis didn't collide, it was a given that Max would pass on new softs with Lewis on ancient hards. The controversy has naught to do with who won....it is about the disregard for the regulations.
I still think Mercedes should have gone nuclear and blow the FIA out of the water. I know that commercial interests dictated their decision, but the FIA has to be challenged; it is killing the sport! .
