Jump to content


Photo

Where is the transcript?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#1 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 16:58

o.k., so the FIA has published the audio of Hamilton being told to let Trulli past, plus the media interview.

Call me cynical though - I don't trust the veracity or competence of the FIA, as far as I could throw them.

Where's the transcript of the hearing??? Without hearing/reading this, we have no idea whether Lewis/Mclaren lied or not. All we have is the FIA's word for it. The FIA may have misinterpreted what Hamilton/Mclaren said. It's possible that Lewis/Mclaren were evasive in answering but stopped short of lying. We can't know without the hearing transcript.

All we've got is an assertion of a lie.

Given the interview was already in the public domain, and the FIA has access to radio transmissions I find it difficult to believe that Mclaren would lie about something so easily verifiable.

If they didn't out and out lie, then this punishment is unwarranted. If they did then show us the proof.

Getting sick and tired of the FIA stewards and their penalties. The initial penalty on Trulli was B.S. The vettel penalty is B.S., and I suspect so is this one.

Advertisement

#2 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,252 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:00

How is a transcript, supplied by the FIA, more reliable?

#3 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:04

Better question: Where's McLaren's / Hamilton's DENIAL of the accuracy of the FIA release? You are questioning the accuracy of something that even the people directly affected by aren't questioning. Call me a skeptic but ... I think you have your tin foil hat on :

#4 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:06

this is a pointless thread.. If Mclaren are not complaining it means that they know Lewis lied either on his own or by their orders.. People who are complaining here are just in denial and grasping at straws..

#5 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,957 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:13

Originally posted by BMW_F1
this is a pointless thread.. If Mclaren are not complaining it means that they know Lewis lied either on his own or by their orders.. People who are complaining here are just in denial and grasping at straws..


They're not complaining because there is a veiled threat of disqualification hanging over Lewis.

#6 MegaManson

MegaManson
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:16

They have been branded liars and cheats infront of the whole world today, if it was not true then McLaren would surely sue for libel

There is no need for transcripts

#7 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:17

I think the point is are the FIA running some sort of perverted legal mens club so they can all suck each others cocks dry why laughing about the harm they have caused one of the teams responsible for making F1 what it is today or is it actually a sport not full of pussys?

In football you have divers and in F1 you are going to play it to your advantage when there is a foul too.. its called character, something Max has nothing of... its up to the FIA to judge if there was a foul committed or not, if they arent able to do that as they clearly havent been for the past 10 years then its time the FIA were removed from the equation as they are not able to act fairly in any given circumstance.

#8 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:17

Originally posted by MegaManson
They have been branded liars and cheats infront of the whole world today, if it was not true then McLaren would surely sue for libel

There is no need for transcripts


exactly.. Mercedes could also boycott the sport it this was the case.. - that's 3 teams right there.

#9 Guizotia

Guizotia
  • Member

  • 1,335 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:17

Originally posted by fed up


They're not complaining because there is a veiled threat of disqualification hanging over Lewis.


Not just that, from what Martin Whitmarsh said before the FIA press release, they did know the exact nature of the complaint.

The FIA press release was made early evening Malaysian time. I assume that having seen it they will have met to discuss. We should learn more tomorrow on their reaction to the specific allegation that they outright lied about the single question of whether an order was given.

I think they need to appeal. But they will worry the appeal will draw a worse penalty.

#10 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:20

Originally posted by engel
Better question: Where's McLaren's / Hamilton's DENIAL of the accuracy of the FIA release? You are questioning the accuracy of something that even the people directly affected by aren't questioning. Call me a skeptic but ... I think you have your tin foil hat on :



Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie

If the transcript backs up the FIA, why don't they publish it?

#11 fed up

fed up
  • Member

  • 1,957 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:22

Originally posted by Guizotia




I think they need to appeal. But they will worry the appeal will draw a worse penalty.


If they appeal Hamilton will be suspended from a few races.

#12 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:22

Originally posted by hunnylander



Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie

If the transcript backs up the FIA, why don't they publish it?

What do you think the FIA have done in publishing this?

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



#13 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:23

Originally posted by fed up


They're not complaining because there is a veiled threat of disqualification hanging over Lewis.


OK then if you want to play fantasy F1 and imaginary threats, and Mercedes can make a thinly veiled threat that unless the truth is restored they are pulling out of F1 with immediate effect. That's 3 teams without engines, that's no more F1 in 2009.

Quit with the oh they are so unfair to McLaren crybaby attitude please ...

Common sense dictates if somebody calls you a liar and you 're not you protest. Even in a mild manner, but you protest not shut up about it.

Originally posted by hunnylander



Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie

If the transcript backs up the FIA, why don't they publish it?


That PREDATES the FIA release, why do you think the FIA went to such lengths as to release Hamilton's car radio and media interviews?

Post FIA release McLaren/Hamilton have said nothing.

#14 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:25

Originally posted by Gareth

What do you think the FIA have done in publishing this?


That's the charge, where's the evidence?;)

#15 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:25

Originally posted by Gareth

What do you think the FIA have done in publishing this?


Yeah but where is the exact wording. What if it was worded:-

'did you intentionally give up position?'

because if they were asked that and having read the radio transcript it would be correct to say that they didnt intend to do that at any point. They were awaiting Charlie to give a go head or not about if they had to give it up which the FIA and charlie didnt provide in time as per normal.

#16 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:26

Originally posted by Gareth

What do you think the FIA have done in publishing this?


these people are clueless. If the FIA goes out and publishes the actual transcript, they'll probably comeback and
say:
"but who type it and published it?.. - until we get a confirmation on who type it, and if that person was bias or not, mclaren did not lie"

:lol:

#17 Mark A

Mark A
  • Member

  • 1,120 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:27

Originally posted by Gareth

What do you think the FIA have done in publishing this?


That's an interpretation not a transcript.


Not saying either is true or not but releasing one parties interpretation of the discussion is not the same as saying that's what was said in the meeting.

#18 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:28

Originally posted by engel
Better question: Where's McLaren's / Hamilton's DENIAL of the accuracy of the FIA release? You are questioning the accuracy of something that even the people directly affected by aren't questioning. Call me a skeptic but ... I think you have your tin foil hat on :



Here:- Mclarens Denial

#19 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:30

Originally posted by engel

That PREDATES the FIA release, why do you think the FIA went to such lengths as to release Hamilton's car radio and media interviews?

Post FIA release McLaren/Hamilton have said nothing.


The car radio doesn't contain the evidence of the charge, neither the media interview.

Post FIA release of the evidence of the charge.

Advertisement

#20 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:30

Originally posted by EvilPhil II



Here:- Mclarens Denial


Huhu that was smart ... good thing mouse-over shows exactly what the link is about. So basically, you want me to link you to Stepneygate as proof of McLaren's honesty ? right?

Originally posted by hunnylander


The car radio doesn't contain the evidence of the charge, neither the media interview.

Post FIA release of the evidence of the charge.


Post McLaren/Hamilton DENIAL of the charge ... after the charge was made.

Instead I can post this "Hamilton himself vanished, leaving the track without offering any explanation for his conduct and ensuring that the controversy is going to overshadow everything he does this weekend which is the last thing that he needs as McLaren struggle to improve a disappointing car. "

http://www.timesonli...icle6023406.ece

#21 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:32

Originally posted by engel


Huhu that was smart ... good thing mouse-over shows exactly what the link is about. So basically, you want me to link you to Stepneygate as proof of McLaren's honesty ? right?



All i am saying is that link is a lot more factual than the rubbish the stewards have come out with today. And dont let the old man let you forget it either.

#22 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:43

Originally posted by Mark A


That's an interpretation not a transcript.


Not saying either is true or not but releasing one parties interpretation of the discussion is not the same as saying that's what was said in the meeting.

I accept that it is not a full transcript, but do they make transcripts and, if thjey do, who does so? Wouldn't a transcript made by the FIA be equally open to a charge of interpretation?

Ultimately, that paragraph is (to me) pretty specific about both the questions asked and the answers received. It is open to McLaren to release a press release confirming that, whilst it won't appeal the decision, it does not agree with the summary and (if a transcript exists) request the FIA to release the transcript so the public can make uip their own minds.

That this has not happened, and that McLaren have (through Whitmarsh's statements this morning) tried to mislead to cover this up, is telling IMO.

#23 Vice::

Vice::
  • New Member

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:46

Originally posted by hunnylander



Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie

If the transcript backs up the FIA, why don't they publish it?


That's just PR. McLaren already said that they are not going to complain about the decision. I'm sure they would if they had been wrongly accused.

#24 hunnylander

hunnylander
  • Member

  • 4,448 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:51

Originally posted by BMW_F1


these people are clueless. If the FIA goes out and publishes the actual transcript, they'll probably comeback and
say:
"but who type it and published it?.. - until we get a confirmation on who type it, and if that person was bias or not, mclaren did not lie"

:lol:


Hahaha.

We got the transcript of the radio conversation, which is irrelevant to the charge. We got the interpretation of the FIA's view. We got the charge, we got the punishment.

But the most important thing is still missing, the evidence! And you laugh about it? :mad:

#25 bankoq

bankoq
  • Member

  • 2,078 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:52

Originally posted by engel
Better question: Where's McLaren's / Hamilton's DENIAL of the accuracy of the FIA release? You are questioning the accuracy of something that even the people directly affected by aren't questioning. Call me a skeptic but ... I think you have your tin foil hat on :


Spot on!

#26 skid solo

skid solo
  • Member

  • 2,122 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:55

Originally posted by EvilPhil II
I think the point is are the FIA running some sort of perverted legal mens club so they can all suck each others cocks dry why laughing about the harm they have caused one of the teams responsible for making F1 what it is today or is it actually a sport not full of pussys?

In football you have divers and in F1 you are going to play it to your advantage when there is a foul too.. its called character, something Max has nothing of... its up to the FIA to judge if there was a foul committed or not, if they arent able to do that as they clearly havent been for the past 10 years then its time the FIA were removed from the equation as they are not able to act fairly in any given circumstance.


Excellent Post, at least someone has the Balls to say what they think. :up:

#27 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:56

Originally posted by hunnylander


Hahaha.

We got the transcript of the radio conversation, which is irrelevant to the charge. We got the interpretation of the FIA's view. We got the charge, we got the punishment.

But the most important thing is still missing, the evidence! And you laugh about it? :mad:


No we got the evidence ... what's missing is the accused denying any part of the charges so we get more evidence.

Besides I m sure if they released transcripts you 'd still yell foul and demand audio, and if audio was made available you 'd claim Mosley held a gun to Hamilton's head and demand video etc etc etc

#28 klover

klover
  • Member

  • 3,862 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:56

Originally posted by hunnylander


Hahaha.

We got the transcript of the radio conversation, which is irrelevant to the charge. We got the interpretation of the FIA's view. We got the charge, we got the punishment.

But the most important thing is still missing, the evidence! And you laugh about it? :mad:


It's quite simple actually. Anything that punishes McLaren and Hamilton suits BMW_F1 just fine. He will never forgive them for their "mistreatment" of JPM.

#29 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 17:56

Originally posted by engel
Better question: Where's McLaren's / Hamilton's DENIAL of the accuracy of the FIA release? You are questioning the accuracy of something that even the people directly affected by aren't questioning. Call me a skeptic but ... I think you have your tin foil hat on :


They have denied that they where 'lying'.

The point is all we have at this point is the steward's impression that what they were told conflicts with the media interview and the radio transmission.

To put it in reverse,... if the FIA has evidence of a lie, such as a transcript WHY DON'T THEY PUBLISH IT?

Without this, it could simply be two parties, two different recollections and impressions. Personally I don't trust the FIA, and I dare say a lot of other people do not.

As far as the question asked by some about appeals... The FIA has often used (often not so) veiled threats of worse penalties to force teams not to appeal. It sounds like it may be the case that the FIA have implicitly threatened the possibility of exclusion of Hamilton from the championship.

If you were Mclaren, given the previous run ins with the FIA, what would you do?

Finally, I'm perfectly willing to believe Mclaren lied *IF* a transcript can be provided. Without a transcript I find it equally likely that the FIA got an impression that Mclaren lied which is not necessarily backed up by the facts.

This all could be easily solved by them providing a transcript.

If there is one, WHY AREN'T THEY PUBLISHING IT?
If there is not one, THEN IT'S THEIR (THE FIA) WORD AGAINST MCLARENS.

And, I'm sorry but by now, a lot of people, myself included are not willing to take the FIA on faith. And, this isn't anything to do with the team involved - I have said the same about many of the penalties dealt out.

Here's what the FIA stewards first rule should be:

* FIRST DO NO HARM. IF UNSURE OF CULPABILITY FOR ANY RACING INCIDENT DO NOT ISSUE A PENALTY *

It seems they have the opposite attitude, and aren't happy with a race unless they issue three of four penalties.

#30 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:00

Originally posted by BMW_F1


exactly.. Mercedes could also boycott the sport it this was the case.. - that's 3 teams right there.


Mercedes are almost certainly contractually obliged to provide engines to the three teams, and would be sued by these teams.

It is unlikely that it is an easy thing for Mercedes to boycott the sport without these teams agreement, and when as a team your livelihood is solely dependent on racing in F1 exactly what do you think the chance of all of them agreeing to this is? Answers on a postcard please!

#31 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:01

Originally posted by hunnylander

But the most important thing is still missing, the evidence!
And you laugh about it? :mad:

The statement in the FIA press release, made by people who were at the original hearing, is evidence. How strong you think that evidence is, is a question mark. But it is definitely evidence.

#32 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,298 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:02

Originally posted by hunnylander



Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie

If the transcript backs up the FIA, why don't they publish it?

Cos Max can only type with two fingers.

#33 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:04

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/74159

#34 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:04

Originally posted by pspidey

They have denied that they where 'lying'.


last time I m saying this ... cause clearly you have blinders on.

Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie
By Jonathan Noble Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 11:28 GMT


The full decision by the FIA stewards
Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 12:50 GMT

Get the timeline?

A quote "On Thursday, McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh denied the team had lied to the stewards.
However, the FIA said on Thursday afternoon that both Hamilton and team manager David Ryan had not been completely honest about what happened during the race" from http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/74160

timeline any clearer?

and one last time, the FIA release was a response to whatever Whitmarsh said this morning. It offered proof. SINCE THE FIA RELEASE BOTH MCLAREN AND HAMILTON HAVE SHUT UP AND SAID NOTHING. Hamilton even disappeared from the track.

WHY WOULD THEY PUBLISH TRANSCRIPTS TO PROVE SOMETHING NOBODY QUESTIONS? (nobody aside forum fanbois)

#35 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:05

Originally posted by klover


It's quite simple actually. Anything that punishes McLaren and Hamilton suits BMW_F1 just fine. He will never forgive them for their "mistreatment" of JPM.


I can report this post.. Attack the post not the poster.. I reserve my judgment on Hamilton, we do not know if he was told to lie by his team or he acted on his own. If you get your head out of your behind you would see that Mclaren has committed plenty of acts for which any sound person, regardless of who their favorite driver is, would have a negative perception about their conduct. Just see for yourself by reading these endless threads.

#36 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:06

Originally posted by engel


No we got the evidence ... what's missing is the accused denying any part of the charges so we get more evidence.

Besides I m sure if they released transcripts you 'd still yell foul and demand audio, and if audio was made available you 'd claim Mosley held a gun to Hamilton's head and demand video etc etc etc



You call that evidence? The mind boggles.

Mclaren have already said they did not lie.

So, we have the FIA saying that Mclaren lied because:
HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOT EQUAL TO RADIO TRANSMISSION

We have the radio transmission, we do NOT have the HEARING TRANSCRIPT.

This is not evidence. We already knew that Lewis was told to let Trulli past. HE TOLD US!!! for crying out loud.

The FIA have added virtually zero to this. Yes, we now also have the radio transmission which matches was Lewis publicly said when interviewed.

The FIA has not shown any evidence of a lie. All they have is an assertion.

Fine, you may be willing to believe them. I and a lot of other people are not.

#37 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:08

Originally posted by pspidey


Mercedes are almost certainly contractually obliged to provide engines to the three teams, and would be sued by these teams.

It is unlikely that it is an easy thing for Mercedes to boycott the sport without these teams agreement, and when as a team your livelihood is solely dependent on racing in F1 exactly what do you think the chance of all of them agreeing to this is? Answers on a postcard please!


Mercedes can do what ever the hell they want on the basis to have themselves cleared from any defamation by a major sporting governing body. (If true of course)

#38 osj

osj
  • Member

  • 137 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:09

These demands for transcripts of the stewards' meeting - which frankly may not even have been recorded, and thus not transcribable - are just desperate clutching at straws. I wonder what the next excuse would be, if the FIA were able to produce the transcripts - that the transcripts are unreliable?

Jarno Trulli was also at the stewards' meeting, and his sense of vindication is both powerful and genuine. Listen to his car-to-pit radio during the material time, and it is clear that Lewis moved over. Unless the conspiracy theorists think that Trulli is so brilliant that he faked all that while in the car, knowing that it would eventually lead to this outcome.

#39 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:11

Originally posted by BMW_F1


Mercedes can do what ever the hell they want on the basis to have themselves cleared from any defamation by a major sporting governing body. (If true of course)


and just why would mercedes pull out exactly? if anyone would, it'd likely be mclaren, given theyre the 1s that were in trouble, not mercedes

Advertisement

#40 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,298 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:12

Originally posted by osj
These demands for transcripts of the stewards' meeting - which frankly may not even have been recorded, and thus not transcribable - are just desperate clutching at straws.

I'd be astounded if they were not recorded, it's standard practice, but it shows the level of distrust for the FIA. But then again is this surprising? Do you really think the Vice-President of the Icelandic AA is one of the very best people in the world to deal with these sorts of matters?

Originally posted by osj
Jarno Trulli was also at the stewards' meeting, and his sense of vindication is both powerful and genuine. Listen to his car-to-pit radio during the material time, and it is clear that Lewis moved over. Unless the conspiracy theorists think that Trulli is so brilliant that he faked all that while in the car, knowing that it would eventually lead to this outcome.

Yeah, and Trulli also thought Hamilton passed him just as he was getting back on track. Either Trulli is a pathetic whingeing liar, or he too has his own perspective and memory of things.

#41 pspidey

pspidey
  • Member

  • 339 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:13

Originally posted by engel


last time I m saying this ... cause clearly you have blinders on.

Whitmarsh says McLaren did not lie
By Jonathan Noble Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 11:28 GMT


The full decision by the FIA stewards
Thursday, April 2nd 2009, 12:50 GMT

Get the timeline?

A quote "On Thursday, McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh denied the team had lied to the stewards.
However, the FIA said on Thursday afternoon that both Hamilton and team manager David Ryan had not been completely honest about what happened during the race" from http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/74160

timeline any clearer?

and one last time, the FIA release was a response to whatever Whitmarsh said this morning. It offered proof. SINCE THE FIA RELEASE BOTH MCLAREN AND HAMILTON HAVE SHUT UP AND SAID NOTHING. Hamilton even disappeared from the track.

WHY WOULD THEY PUBLISH TRANSCRIPTS TO PROVE SOMETHING NOBODY QUESTIONS? (nobody aside forum fanbois)


Because they could prove it, rather than asserting it.

Mclaren could well have decided to go no further because it's not worth it due to veiled FIA threats.

Forum fanboys - then what the hell are you?

Your argument - 'Why should they?'

By that argument, why should they have bothered publishing what they did publish - an interview transcript, already made public and a radio transmission. Both of which Mclaren would know that the FIA had access to.

It comes down to an assertion. There is no evidence.

#42 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:15

Originally posted by stevvy1986


and just why would mercedes pull out exactly? if anyone would, it'd likely be mclaren, given theyre the 1s that were in trouble, not mercedes


they are not because they are aware mclaren is not honest therefore are guilty by association.

#43 stevvy1986

stevvy1986
  • Member

  • 3,168 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:16

Originally posted by BMW_F1


they are not because they are aware mclaren is not honest therefore are guilty by association.


if that was the case why didnt they pull out after 2007?

#44 scottb32

scottb32
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:18

Please read, or listen to, the radio transcripts.

Lewis Hamilton was told "...you need to allow the Toyota through..."

then he was told...

"...Stay ahead for the time being."

Lewis insisted he was not told to let Trulli through (the truth at the moment Trulli re-takes 3rd). It appears that Lewis is telling the team that he let Trulli through, but the team's last statement is to "stay ahead'. The audio is out there - listen to it, it appears the team and Lewis are not acting in unison.

The FIA need to release the transcript of the post-race interview. This could be a case in which you have three completely understandable positions (Lewis, his team, and Trulli). All three are acting out of their best interests, trying to resolve a tricky situation. The FIA, by handing down draconian penalties, has made a mess of it all. I didn't agree with Trulli being docked 25 seconds (he deserved 3rd or 4th), and I certainly think this latest decision is just as bad.

#45 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:19

Originally posted by ensign14
I'd be astounded if they were not recorded, it's standard practice, but it shows the level of distrust for the FIA. But then again is this surprising? Do you really think the Vice-President of the Icelandic AA is one of the very best people in the world to deal with these sorts of matters?

Yeah, and Trulli also thought Hamilton passed him just as he was getting back on track. Either Trulli is a pathetic whingeing liar, or he too has his own perspective and memory of things.


do you realize not every publication from the FIA is done through transcripts. when they have those rules and regulations meetings you don't get to read the transcripts of the meetings do you? ...
they are aware that the entire formula fan base does not just cover mclaren fanboys.

#46 SchumiBoy

SchumiBoy
  • Member

  • 1,261 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:19

Originally posted by ensign14
Do you really think the Vice-President of the Icelandic AA is one of the very best people in the world to deal with these sorts of matters?


Anything you would like to share ?

#47 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:19

You 're hopeless .....

When somebody, anybody, of those involved questions what was said in Australia and the FIA's account of it I ll join you in crying for further proof. Till then I ll just laugh at your fanboyism. What you 're doing is the equivalent of the premiership punishing a player for a nasty foul and you sitting there crying publish video of the foul while the player himself doesn't question it.

Anyways, I m sure tomorrow we 'll get a carefully prepared heartfelt apology from Hamilton to the fans and you ll quit this charade.

#48 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:20

Originally posted by pspidey
It comes down to an assertion. There is no evidence.

An assertion made by people who were present at the time of the hearing is evidence. Not as strong evidence as, say, a recording of the hearing, but it is still evidence.

#49 EvilPhil II

EvilPhil II
  • Member

  • 535 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:25

Originally posted by Gareth

An assertion made by people who were present at the time of the hearing is evidence. Not as strong evidence as, say, a recording of the hearing, but it is still evidence.


Actually there is no quote in that FIA statement and thus it is not evidence solely a statement of a point of view. Unless there is a "quote", he said this and he said that, then there is not only nothing for Mclaren to correct but there is no evidence. It really isnt that difficult to understand really.

#50 D A

D A
  • Member

  • 888 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 April 2009 - 18:25

What FIA published could be a conclusion they took after reviewing what was said in the meeting. If it wasn't transcribed they could have pulled some of it out of their ass for all we know.