Jump to content


Photo

If Lewis indeed lied to stewards, what would be an appropriate penalty?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
53 replies to this topic

Poll: If Lewis indeed lied to stewards, what would be an appropriate penalty? (73 member(s) have cast votes)

  1. Disqualified from Australian GP, but no race bans. (26 votes [35.62%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.62%

  2. Disqualified from Australian GP, and one race ban. (18 votes [24.66%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.66%

  3. Disqualified from Australian GP, and three race bans. (14 votes [19.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.18%

  4. No Penalty! Lewis/Mclaren cannot be wrong. This is revenge/conspiracy by Max Mosley, maFIA, Ferrari, Alonso, Trulli, Toyota, Uganda etc. (8 votes [10.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.96%

  5. Hi, I am ensign14! I cannot bring myself to admitting any fault in Lewis or Mclaren, so I will rage against the FIA stewards and hope others do the same. In the process, hopefully everyone will forget that Lewis, in fact, lied. (7 votes [9.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.59%

Vote

#1 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:20

Bear with me. :)

Following this topic, if it is proven that Lewis Hamilton lied and mislead the stewards (who should not be so incompetent, anyways....) in Australia, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty? Do you consider lying or intentionally misleading the stewards/investigators a serious offense?

What a way to start the season. :D

Advertisement

#2 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,484 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:29

You have missed the option to give the stewards a damn good thrashing (Aye Max) for being so incompetent to let it have got this far anyway. :lol:

#3 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:38

Originally posted by ForeverF1
You have missed the option to give the stewards a damn good thrashing (Aye Max) for being so incompetent to let it have got this far anyway. :lol:


Actually I haven't. :D
I intentionally limited the scope to:
  • a driver's lie, and
  • punishment (if any) for telling the lie.

Irrespective of which driver or team people love/hate, everyone will agree that the FIA stewards ought to do a better job. If it takes spankings then so be it.;)

#4 gesture

gesture
  • New Member

  • 23 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:47

Hamilton didn't lie at all. Read carefully.

#5 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:48

he should be made to sit on here all day and read every tread in this BB...

#6 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,953 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:51

It is a very sad state of affairs if the FIA allow their own WDC to be accused of lying. These things should really be sorted out behind closed doors and out of the glare of the public. The incumbent WDC is there to promote the sport - being found guilty of lying will not bode well.

#7 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,484 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:56

Originally posted by Mika Mika
he should be made to sit on here all day and read every tread in this BB...


I am not a Lewis fan, but that is too harsh a punishment surely? :lol:

#8 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:56

:yawn:

#9 osj

osj
  • Member

  • 137 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:01

Originally posted by fed up
It is a very sad state of affairs if the FIA allow their own WDC to be accused of lying. These things should really be sorted out behind closed doors and out of the glare of the public. The incumbent WDC is there to promote the sport - being found guilty of lying will not bode well.


I'm sorry...so you're saying that the FIA should allow the WDC to get away with lying (assuming he did), for the sake of the sport?

#10 SchuOz

SchuOz
  • Member

  • 1,655 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:07

Originally posted by Mika Mika
he should be made to sit on here all day and read every tread in this BB...


:lol:

#11 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:09

Hamilton has no record of lying.

However, the FIA does.

#12 Frixos

Frixos
  • Member

  • 47 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:10

I think Jarno should get to keep his position while Lewis gets the drivethrough penatly?

#13 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,828 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:32

I think he should be stoned with marshmellows.

#14 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,239 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:36

Hamilton did nothing wrong on the track, therefore should not be punished by a penalty that would affect him on the track. But this is the FIA, and he is a McLaren driver....

#15 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,239 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:39

The suggestion is McLaren told him to let Trulli repass, but Hamilton did not tell the stewards this.

#16 brunopascal

brunopascal
  • Member

  • 1,343 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:42

If it's decided Trulli made no error, ie did the right thing when Lewis slowed to think he had a problem, then he should just get 3rd back and Lewis 4th.

#17 mkay

mkay
  • Member

  • 2,506 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:43

Originally posted by Frixos
I think Jarno should get to keep his position while Lewis gets the drivethrough penatly?


You crazy?

#18 imightbewrong

imightbewrong
  • Member

  • 265 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:48

Alt1
----
Lewis P3
Jarno P4

Alt2
----
Jarno P3
Lewis P4

Why alt 2? Well, really, Lewis let him through when he shouldn't have so there is really no reason for Jarno having to give back the position after the race.

But I think Alt1 is the right way to go.

And IF he lied, then a fine for Lewis. Nothing more.

#19 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:48

If he did lie, it ought to be a serious penalty. The FIA and the stewards ought to be able to rely upon the statements of the drivers as being true when investigating incidents.

Advertisement

#20 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:50

Unsure really, given the range of penalties available to them is quite varied if he did lie to the stewards-it'd probably come under the 'bringing the sport into disrepute' category, and if he has given the stewards a different version compared to the 1 that he gave to the media, then that is pretty serious-you don't go and lie to the stewards

#21 airwise

airwise
  • Member

  • 2,001 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:55

Surely even the FIA can't be stupid enough to penalise Hamilton a second time for intentionally trying to comply with the rules?

#22 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:57

if he gets penalised, it'll be unlikely to be for what happened on track, it'll be for what happened off it

#23 Keith68

Keith68
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:59

Sad Lewis bashing thread

#24 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:01

It's not a Lewis bashing thread actually, because there is a risk that he lied to the stewards and therefore theres a risk he'll get a penalty for doing so, it's asking people what penalty he ought to get if he did lie to them (which we don't know for certain yet)

#25 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:06

Originally posted by stevvy1986
It's not a Lewis bashing thread actually, because there is a risk that he lied to the stewards and therefore theres a risk he'll get a penalty for doing so, it's asking people what penalty he ought to get if he did lie to them (which we don't know for certain yet)

And if he did, I think it's quite probable that he only did so on the instructions of his team.

#26 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:10

Does anyone know what it means to LIE in a tribunal? It is very difficult. Or easy, depending on your perspective. Every time a case goes to trial you have different views and interpretations as to what has happened. Otherwise you wouldn't have a trial, it would all be agreed. People find it very easy to convince themselves of the events that they think should have happened. It may not be the actual truth. But in every Court case one witness is believed over another, but that disbelieved witness is not charged with perjury.

Saying anyone "lied" to the stewards is grossly exaggerating things in almost any circumstance. Whatever Hamilton and Trulli said to the stewards is tainted by their own perspective. Just think about most on-track collisions. Schumacher for instance never took the blame for anything. This is one of the reasons why incidentally why any competent steward would seek all available evidence before coming to a conclusion.

It's a bit different to the cynical and deliberate concoction of a story with no factual basis that is faxed through to a team approximately 2 working hours before a hearing starts.

#27 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:10

It's clear from the last two options where the OP stands.

Where's the two options mocking people of the other side?


I voted for 3 race ban, because Hamilton is so ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT


But in all seriousness, how on Earth do you expect there to be a serious leveled discussion when two of your Poll options are ad hominem strawman attacks versus anyone that argue anything but what your first 3 poll options are? :rolleyes: You've only offered a neat spread of ridiculous and detailed penalties......... or conspiracy theory/fanboy options.


For me it would depend on whether he explicitly stated that he wasn't instructed to slow down, or whether it just wasn't mentioned.

VOTE FOR 3 RACE BAN! THAT WILL SHOW HIM!

#28 Keith68

Keith68
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:12

Originally posted by stevvy1986
It's not a Lewis bashing thread actually, because there is a risk that he lied to the stewards and therefore theres a risk he'll get a penalty for doing so, it's asking people what penalty he ought to get if he did lie to them (which we don't know for certain yet)


There is no proof yet that he did lie, no one on here is present at the hearings so no one really knows what is being discussed. How do we kone Trulli isn't in trouble for lying? Right now its heresay. I'm not saying he didn't lie and am no crazy Lewis fanboy before anyone accuses me, but at least have the decency to wait until a formal result is released before bashing a driver.

#29 gincarnated

gincarnated
  • Member

  • 443 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:18

Originally posted by P123
Hamilton did nothing wrong on the track, therefore should not be punished by a penalty that would affect him on the track. But this is the FIA, and he is a McLaren driver....


:up:

Originally posted by Gareth
If he did lie, it ought to be a serious penalty. The FIA and the stewards ought to be able to rely upon the statements of the drivers as being true when investigating incidents.



It doesn't exactly work the other way though does it. The FIA have outright lied in court in their vendetta against McLaren. It's also obvious that nothing Charlie says can be relied upon.

Looking at the voting options this thread is obviously biased against Lewis/McLaren. If he did lie, he deserves nothing more than a fine because it wasn't an on track incident. Why should something that occurs off track affect the results of the race. That's ridiculous and in line with the FIA's nonsense.

#30 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:20

:confused: Who else is me?

#31 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,226 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:21

Originally posted by ensign14
Does anyone know what it means to LIE in a tribunal? It is very difficult. Or easy, depending on your perspective. Every time a case goes to trial you have different views and interpretations as to what has happened. Otherwise you wouldn't have a trial, it would all be agreed. People find it very easy to convince themselves of the events that they think should have happened. It may not be the actual truth. But in every Court case one witness is believed over another, but that disbelieved witness is not charged with perjury.

Saying anyone "lied" to the stewards is grossly exaggerating things in almost any circumstance. Whatever Hamilton and Trulli said to the stewards is tainted by their own perspective. Just think about most on-track collisions. Schumacher for instance never took the blame for anything. This is one of the reasons why incidentally why any competent steward would seek all available evidence before coming to a conclusion.

It's a bit different to the cynical and deliberate concoction of a story with no factual basis that is faxed through to a team approximately 2 working hours before a hearing starts.


Now I see how you arrived at your earlier statement that Hamilton "has no record of lying". It's all in the definition of the term!

Very clever, I expected no less from you. :up: ;)

#32 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:21

Originally posted by gincarnated

Looking at the voting options this thread is obviously biased against Lewis/McLaren. If he did lie, he deserves nothing more than a fine because it wasn't an on track incident. Why should something that occurs off track affect the results of the race. That's ridiculous and in line with the FIA's nonsense.


That's an interesting argument and viewpoint you present. However, there isn't a poll option for a fine, or for disagreeing with the FIA decision for a spread of reasons.

So what you going to choose?

Opt.4) Conspiracy theory
Opt.5) Unreasonable fan boy

PICK ONE! OR ARE YOU TOO ARROGANT TO PICK ONE!!!!!!!!!????????!?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

#33 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:26

Disqualification from the race would just be stupid. The best option would be giving Jarno back his third place, demot Lewis to fourth and gice him a fine in the excess of $ 100,000. Then, just forget it :yawn:

#34 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:27

Originally posted by as65p


Now I see how you arrived at your earlier statement that Hamilton "has no record of lying". It's all in the definition of the term!

Well, can you come up with a counter-example?

#35 Kilted Wanderer

Kilted Wanderer
  • Member

  • 1,069 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:30

Originally posted by ensign14
:confused: Who else is me?


Clearly you have supporters - or perhaps those who don't think much of the poll choice....

#36 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:30

Originally posted by ensign14
Well, can you come up with a counter-example?


Why debate with logic when we can just label your opinion bunk because you're a fanboy. The poll clearly shows it you see.

Stop being so arrogant.

#37 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,459 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:31

I voted for being Ensign. It's the only option which isn't completely pointless.

#38 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:33

Originally posted by Buttoneer
I voted for being Ensign. It's the only option which isn't completely pointless.

Ta for the new sig. :)

#39 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,226 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:37

Originally posted by ensign14
Well, can you come up with a counter-example?


Just a few...

"I couldn't let Fernando by because then Räikönnen would have overtaken both of us"
"I don't know anything about spygate, my Internet is broken"
"I did my best to make room for Kimi"

Spot the times and places!;)

As you said, it all depends on the perspective. From where I stand, it's close enough.

Advertisement

#40 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:45

And each position defensible or justifiable. This is why you need external facts to decide things.

An elementary position apparently overlooked by the stewards. On Trulli's radio for example you'd never know he'd gone off.

#41 Duck of Death

Duck of Death
  • Member

  • 288 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:48

Originally posted by RoutariEnjinu
It's clear from the last two options where the OP stands.

Where's the two options mocking people of the other side?


I voted for 3 race ban, because Hamilton is so ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT ARROGANT


But in all seriousness, how on Earth do you expect there to be a serious leveled discussion when two of your Poll options are ad hominem strawman attacks versus anyone that argue anything but what your first 3 poll options are? :rolleyes: You've only offered a neat spread of ridiculous and detailed penalties......... or conspiracy theory/fanboy options.


For me it would depend on whether he explicitly stated that he wasn't instructed to slow down, or whether it just wasn't mentioned.

VOTE FOR 3 RACE BAN! THAT WILL SHOW HIM!


There seem,s to be a problem with your keyboard.
I've got it, it's connected to your computer.

#42 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,073 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:48

Originally posted by P123
Hamilton did nothing wrong on the track, therefore should not be punished by a penalty that would affect him on the track. But this is the FIA, and he is a McLaren driver....


Ah so doing something on track to gain a position like passing under the yellow or SC is bad and must be punished yet doing something off track to gain a position is ok?

#43 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,254 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:50

You can talk all you want about Lewis not deserving it but riddle me this. How does Trulli deserve to go from third to non points scorer because McLaren ordered Lewis to let him by?

#44 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,226 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:52

Originally posted by ensign14
And each position defensible or justifiable. This is why you need external facts to decide things.


Sure, everything is defensible. Let's not go into details, it would burst the thread.

And more, lets wait how this particular case develops. Hopefully we'll get enough external facts, for once, to judge beyond doubt.

#45 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,073 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:52

Lewis Hamilton has been disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix and Jarno Trulli's post-race penalty rescinded, giving the Toyota driver third place again.

#46 RoutariEnjinu

RoutariEnjinu
  • Member

  • 2,344 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:52

Originally posted by Duck of Death


There seem,s to be a problem with your keyboard.
I've got it, it's connected to your computer.


Click my Profile button, go to the bottom right, and click 'Add RoutariEnjinu to my Ignore List'.

#47 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:57

Originally posted by ensign14
Does anyone know what it means to LIE in a tribunal? It is very difficult. Or easy, depending on your perspective. Every time a case goes to trial you have different views and interpretations as to what has happened. Otherwise you wouldn't have a trial, it would all be agreed. People find it very easy to convince themselves of the events that they think should have happened. It may not be the actual truth. But in every Court case one witness is believed over another, but that disbelieved witness is not charged with perjury.

Saying anyone "lied" to the stewards is grossly exaggerating things in almost any circumstance. Whatever Hamilton and Trulli said to the stewards is tainted by their own perspective. Just think about most on-track collisions. Schumacher for instance never took the blame for anything. This is one of the reasons why incidentally why any competent steward would seek all available evidence before coming to a conclusion.

Whilst I completely agree with you on most differences in recollection being genuinely held and not involving lying, the statememnts from Hamilton after the race (to Adam Cooper for example) and Haug suggest to me this is more than just a different interpretation of what happened. So, sadly, I think that:

Originally posted by ensign14
It's a bit different to the cynical and deliberate concoction of a story with no factual basis that is faxed through to a team approximately 2 working hours before a hearing starts.

Isn't actually true. Assuming that:

1. Hamilton made no mention of the team asking him to let Trulli by to the stewards and simply told them that he slowed as he checked his dashboard (an assumption I think likely, given this has been re-opened); and

2. McLaren did ask Hamilton to give the place back (again, likely given the statements from Hamilton to Cooper and Haug in the Mac press release)

then I think it's quite possible the "I was looking at my dashboard" thing was a deliberate concoction of a story with no factual basis. I wouldn't be surprised if Hamilton got back to the team who told him "don't say we let Trulli by, there's a chance we might get third here and if we say you slowed deliberately not only do we lose that chance but you might get penalised. Say you were distracted by your dashboard".

Of course your alternative timeline (Hamilton gets distracted Trulli passes, team (still thinking he is ahead) tells him to let Trulli through) is also a possibility, as is Hamilton being told to let Trulli through, deciding to ignore that order, then getting distracted. But in either case, not mentioning the order at all to the stewards in the first hearing somewhat detracts from the plausibility of the story.

Having said that, the juxtoposition of the FIA's stance on this issue and Spa is quite incredible. On one we have the FIA fighting tooth and nail to avoid re-opening the issue, even to the extent of it lying. On the other we have the FIA doing its best to re-open the issue, supposedly on the grounds of McLaren lying. I don't really have a problem with what they are doing over this one, but it heightens the injustice of the Spa decision.

#48 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 02 April 2009 - 08:58

Originally posted by airwise
intentionally trying to comply with the rules?


"Intentionally trying to comply with"...........what rules?

Looks like Lewis or Mclaren made up some rules in their head. They had to "do" nothing. Third was theirs.

FIA can be blamed for not handling the matter promptly and competently in Australia, but FIA didn't ask Lewis to slow down and allow Trulli to pass. And FIA didn't force Lewis to lie to the stewards.

#49 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:01

I'm a bit surprised this thread is still here, is this really OK or are the mods between shifts? Anyway since it is here, let me point out that the moralising posters who are assuming Lewis lied are being pretty unethical themselves pre-judging him. Pre-judging the verb, prejudice the noun. We don't know yet what he said to the stewards.

And putting "if" at the beginning doesn't excuse it, nobody is saying lying is good so you don't need to say "if he lied that's bad", we all know that.

#50 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,216 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 09:03

Originally posted by primer


"Intentionally trying to comply with"...........what rules?

Yes, quite. WHAT rules? The ones where you are meant to let someone pass if you gain under yellow, like in Spa 2008? Only that rule was thrown out. After the race.