• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Hamilton stripped

Grecian1987

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
1,260
Location
Ooo arrr Exeterrr
...of his win in Belgium. How has this thread not started yet?!

Demoted to 3rd for 'gaining advantage after going off the track'. Anyone who's seen it will know that this decision is utter bull. The FIA has been a BIG error with this one - they seem to be doing everything they can to ensure Lewis doesn't win the title.
 

Jason H

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
36,827
Location
Hounslow, Middlesex
I wondered at the time whether his manouevre was a bit suspect, as he didn't exactly surrender the racing line and drop properly behind Raikkonen. Not sure an appeal will be successful.
 

tisdale 1

Resigned
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
2,050
hope he chucked the trophy at the stewards head! they seem to be doing everything they can to make he dont win it!
 

Mr Jan Yeo

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
9,427
Location
Bored
Poor decision IMO as it wasn't a huge advantage that was gained and we've seen similar events go unchallenged in the past. The FIA are reknowned for their inconsistency and it's getting ridiculous.
 

Hants_red

Admin
Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
62,060
Location
League 1
Poor decision IMO as it wasn't a huge advantage that was gained and we've seen similar events go unchallenged in the past. The FIA are reknowned for their inconsistency and it's getting ridiculous.
Darn. Duplicate posting
 
Last edited:

Hants_red

Admin
Staff member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
62,060
Location
League 1
Poor decision IMO as it wasn't a huge advantage that was gained and we've seen similar events go unchallenged in the past. The FIA are reknowned for their inconsistency and it's getting ridiculous.
And of course it benefited Ferrari. Great end of the race. In the conditions, I couldn't see what else Hamilton could have done. In the end he could have slipped in behind, as Raikkonen screwed up big time anyway.
 

crocks

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 2, 2004
Messages
10,593
Location
Swindon
And why demoted to 3rd?

Utterly ridiculous decision. Hamilton was going to pass Raikkonen anyway.

Does sound like the FIA have it in for Hamilton.....great race though, brilliant ending.
 

Snakebite

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
6,614
Location
Campaigning for free speech
And why demoted to 3rd?

Utterly ridiculous decision. Hamilton was going to pass Raikkonen anyway.

Does sound like the FIA have it in for Hamilton.....great race though, brilliant ending.
Because if it hadn't happened on the 3rd (2nd?) last lap he'd have been awarded a drive through penalty which would have lost him about 25 seconds, hence they (wrongly imho) gave him a 25 second penalty dropping him to 3rd.

Total farce in my opinion, he let Kimi back through as he passed BEHIND him on the way into the first corner. Kimi also rammed into the back of him, and drove off the track on that fast lefthander near the end of the lap, but would he have been penalised? Would he b*ll*cks :(
 

Lager Lout

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
5,949
Location
Switzerland
Pete Gill at planetf1.com writes a good article:

Either Lewis Hamilton was punished for leaving the racetrack or he was punished for gaining an advantage when he did so. The stewards have got themselves into a muddle for claiming it was both...


The three race stewards who imposed a 25-second race penalty against Lewis Hamilton have raised more questions than answers - and possibly erred in legal judgement - in declaring that they punished the McLaren driver for leaving the racetrack by describing it as 'fact' that he gained an advantage when cutting the chicane.


Refusing to publicly explain their decision, the three stewards - Nicholas Deschaux, Surinder Thatthi and Yves Bacquelain - instead opted to announce their ruling in a press release through the FIA.


Short on words, the statement, which began by confirming that the 'Stewards determine a breach of the regulations has been committed', listed as 'Fact' that Hamilton 'Cut the chicane and gained an advantage' and specified as 'Offence' the 'Breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.'


While post-race debate focused almost exclusively on whether Hamilton had gained an advantage when he cut the chicane and if he then surrendered it, the 'offence' for which the stewards declared he had been punished made the issue totally irrelevant.


Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations' makes no mention of whether an advantage had been gained and instead states that 'During practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits'. The near-identical Appendix L chapter 4 Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code adds that 'The racetrack alone shall be used by drivers during the race'.


In other words, Hamilton was purely and simply punished for leaving the racetrack when he cut the chicane.


Such a vague and all-encompassing stipulation in the rulebook gives the stewards considerable latitude. In effect, it allows them to punish any and every driver in the field on every occasion they leave the tarmac. However, given that Hamilton was far from being alone in leaving the race track on Sunday then their decision to focus exclusively on the McLaren driver's whereabouts is bound, once again, to prompt talk of bias and witch-hunts.


Were the stewards to have been inclined to maintain a consistent line then they would, for instance, have had to punish Kimi Raikkonen for leaving the racetrack at the Pouhon corner as he strived to retake the lead. Likewise, Nico Rosberg, with whom both Hamilton and Raikkonen nearly crashed before the Finn temporarily regained the lead of the race as he overtook both cars under a yellow flag, should, if the stewards' application of the rules was consistent, have suffered an identical punishment to Hamilton for sliding off the track and on to the grass.


Technically, as the team cannot dispute that Hamilton left the racetrack, the citation of Articles 30.3 (a) and chapter 4 Article 2 (g) leave McLaren with no room for manoeuvre or appeal.


However, their legal team is instead bound to focus upon the line in the stewards' ruling that reads 'Fact - Cut the chicane and gained an advantage'. In fact, the question of whether Hamilton gained an advantage remains a matter of dispute rather than 'fact' - the only 'fact' is that it is the stewards' opinion that Hamilton gained an advantage. By claiming otherwise, and seemingly basing their right to impose a penalty upon their claimed 'fact', the stewards may have made an error that will enable McLaren to contest their ruling.


For while McLaren cannot argue against the fact that Hamilton left the track, they can argue against the assertion that it is a fact he gained an advantage and the rights of the stewards to claim it is a fact and act accordingly. Were the stewards to be found wrong in doing so then the legitimacy - as well as the accuracy - of their ruling would then have to be called into fresh question.
LL
 

Jason H

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
36,827
Location
Hounslow, Middlesex
I think that report's utter garbage, frankly. Yes, you can both leave the racetrack AND gain an advantage - not sure what the "muddle" is there. With his route cut, Hamilton left the track, only to emerge back onto it with a clear lead.

Yes, he then "surrendered" the lead, only by cutting back and gaining the racing line, instead of properly slowing down and letting Raikkonen properly back in. While I think he has been harshly treated, I'm not sure he'll have a leg to stand on in an appeal.
 
Top