45 replies to this topic

[BrawnsBrain]

Autosport closed for press last week just before the McLaren storm kicked off, but there is an interesting article about Toyota pushing for the Trulli penalty to be overturned.

"The regulations allow a driver to overtake another during a safety car period 'if any car slows with an obvious problem' but there is no allowance for being 'waved past'".

"Both drivers said that Hamilton had let Truli ahead after he had overtaken the Toyota".

"Hamilton said: He went wide on the grass and I was forced to go by. I was told to let him back past".

"Race stewards did not accept this and, because it happened within the last 10 laps of the race, hit Trulli with the 25-second penalty in lieu of a stop / go penalty".

Now we know that the stewards did not accept this, because of what Ryan instructed Hamilton to tell the stewards. Really? *Just* because of that?

I think the error of judgement is more on the stewards shoulders. Had they watched the TV coverage or heard what Hamilton had been saying to the press just minutes after the race, this whole situation could have been avoided.

Or had Hamilton & Ryan stated that they had 'waved Trulli past', there is nothing in the regulations to suggest that Trulli would have been reinstated, so why did they feel the need to tell a half-truth anyway?

This adds more weight to the argument that Ryan gave a technically true answer, and I think this is one hell of a storm in a tea cup.

In fact had Charlie Whiting not been a lazy bugger and replied to McLaren with a clarification of the regulations whilst all this was going on, the sport wouldn't be in this situation it finds itself in, with a tarnished world champion and a damaged top team.

Also time for McLaren & Toyota to keep a spare copy of the rulebook on the pit wall I think.

[Madras]

He lied.

[pUs]

Ryan didn't drive the car, Lewis Hamilton did. So I don't really know what you're on about. "Technically true" ? Well, I guess that's why they've now fired the guy, because what he told the stewards was "technically true" ?

What both these fine gentlemen did, was to deliberately mislead the stewards. Which is not ok. Might be a bit harsh to appear in the council when they've already been punished though, but that's another discussion.

[pRy]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain

Also time for McLaren & Toyota to keep a spare copy of the rulebook on the pit wall I think.

The main problem as far as I know wasn't the rule book, it was the fact the incident wasn't caught on camera.. so the pit wall had no idea how badly Trulli had gone off and what the circumstances were.

[engel]

Your analysis is wrong ... stewards can't punish Trulli for something Hamilton did. Hamilton letting Trulli through is Hamilton's action, how much sense would it make if Trulli got punished for it? Besides if they did all the teams will ask their number 2 to let everybody through so they 'd get penalties.

And we DON'T need another thread about this.

[lwd]

Lewis and Davey were asked a direct question: Did you let Trulli past, and gave a blatant lie as an answer.

[Direct Drive]

Up until this moment I've been a lifelong supporter of McLaren, from the early days of Can-Am.
Their treatment of Ryan is unconscionable. To axe out a loyal and dedicated employee of 35 years shows the the morals of a rat, and the heart of a coward. Undoubtedly he was proceeding with the company policy in whatever he told the stewards.
I'm selling my Benz, buying a Honda for giving Brawn the basis to win.
Two fingers to Dennis and his crew!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Autosport closed for press last week just before the McLaren storm kicked off, but there is an interesting article about Toyota pushing for the Trulli penalty to be overturned.

"The regulations allow a driver to overtake another during a safety car period 'if any car slows with an obvious problem' but there is no allowance for being 'waved past'".

"Both drivers said that Hamilton had let Truli ahead after he had overtaken the Toyota".

"Hamilton said: He went wide on the grass and I was forced to go by. I was told to let him back past".

"Race stewards did not accept this and, because it happened within the last 10 laps of the race, hit Trulli with the 25-second penalty in lieu of a stop / go penalty".

Now we know that the stewards did not accept this, because of what Ryan instructed Hamilton to tell the stewards. Really? *Just* because of that?

Clearly they trusted someone they shouldnt. How come Hamilton's word weighted more than Trullis' I fail to understand. However, Hamilton gave a false testimony and that's bad.

[BrawnsBrain]

Was Hamilton instructed to lie by Ryan: Yes.
Does Ryan deserve the sack? NO.
Are there deeper political reasons behind all of this: Undoubtedly, yes.
Does a controversy like this boost ratings? Yes.
Is F1 in the entertainment business? Yes.

Welcome to the modern world F1 - the one without morals, and where loyalty spanning 35 years counts for NOTHING, whist politics and big business is everything.

[scheivlak]

Oh dear, yet another thread.... :yawn:

[Direct Drive]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Was Hamilton instructed to lie by Ryan: Yes.

Maybe it was Hamilton instructing Ryan to lie!

[BrawnsBrain]

Originally posted by scheivlak
Oh dear, yet another thread.... :yawn:

And thank you for YOUR contribution.

[Rogue]

Agreed that the stewards need to do a better, more thoroughly researched and thought out job (probably good if we had permanent stewards for consistency as well), but none of this changes the fact that McLaren screwed up. What I find very interesting is that no one seemed to know the rules well enough to make a definitive call straight away! I would have thought that Ferrari's creative use of the rules in years gone by with MS at the wheel would have taught other teams to make sure they know *exactly* what is going on at all times.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Also time for McLaren & Toyota to keep a spare copy of the rulebook on the pit wall I think.

Wouldnt have helped as no one on the pitwall knew that JT had gone off in the manner he did, there wasnt any TV footage of it, all they knew was LH had overtaken him.

[deedee]

Originally posted by Direct Drive
Up until this moment I've been a lifelong supporter of McLaren, from the early days of Can-Am.
Their treatment of Ryan is unconscionable. To axe out a loyal and dedicated employee of 35 years shows the the morals of a rat, and the heart of a coward. Undoubtedly he was proceeding with the company policy in whatever he told the stewards.
I'm selling my Benz, buying a Honda for giving Brawn the basis to win.
Two fingers to Dennis and his crew!

Since they fired Ryan, they also should have fired Lewis Hamilton, if they were somehow consequent. But finally economics prevail.

And to be exact L. Hamilton lied at least 3 times on this subject, but still claims "i am not a liar". Pure Anthony Hamilton propaganda made by Matt Bishop. But it seems it works pretty well, the scapegoat has been slaughtered and the real threat for McLaren is still driving for them. Hamilton pretends to be a 5 year old boy who is doing what adults tell him, just to prove his "innocence". Also, the "threat" the Hamiltons put onto the FIA and especially Bernie to quit F1 worked well, seems Max is only considering to punish the team further more.

It is now at least the 3rd time the Hamiltons brought McLaren-Mercedes into serious trouble due to their whining and complaining directly to the FIA. Of course McLaren is not innocent at all, as they always try to claim, but they were not prepared to handle characters like Anthony Hamilton and his son.

It was very clear from Monaco 2007 on, that McLaren most likely get into serious trouble with the Hamiltons. Ron lost control in Hungary 2007 at the latest, due to his sick ego. He seems to be like dr. frankenstein who is finally smashed by his creature.

Many people forget that Ron Dennis' poor management was responsible to lose the 3 best F1 drivers within about 1.5 years, an achievement that is hard to beat. Ron should have stayed at the lollipop man's position, he was quite good at that.

I always wondered why Daimler never intervened so far. But this time it seems the executive board is suggesting to pull out of F1, we'll see.


cheers

[Kelateboy]

Hamilton and Ryan lied.

-KB

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by deedee
Many people forget that Ron Dennis' poor management was responsible to lose the 3 best F1 drivers within about 1.5 years,

[Direct Drive]

A very erudite analysis deedee, thank you. Any 24 y.o. man who needs his father to manage his affairs obviously still hasn't matured into an adult.

[deedee]

Originally posted by Direct Drive
A very erudite analysis deedee, thank you. Any 24 y.o. man who needs his father to manage his affairs obviously still hasn't matured into an adult.

Ron Dennis has done a lot for Lewis, but completely forgot to educate the boy.

It was very clear what soon will happen, if one put such a character in a winning car right from the start. You can do that, yes, but only with a driver who's personality is matured enough and who has not an Anthony Hamilton as a manager, who is a complete No-Go !

Now, Ron and many others have to pay for. Very sad for a team with such a history, but dictators tend to ruin everything over the long term.

[Ricardo F1]

wtf are you two smoking?

[George Cunningham]

Originally posted by Direct Drive
Maybe it was Hamilton instructing Ryan to lie!

Now we're getting somewhere..lol

[Bob Nomates]

I think it could be classed as a white lie after all Trulli did spin off.

[fed up]

Still no transcript so we don't really know what this all about.

Mclaren firing Ryan is a good move as he won't be called to account at the WMSC hearing.

[airwise]

Originally posted by lwd
Lewis and Davey were asked a direct question: Did you let Trulli past, and gave a blatant lie as an answer.

If that was the question then Ryan could not have let him past as he wasn't driving and Hamilton say's Trulli overtook him. The telemetry alledgedly proves that. IF that were the question, you could see why they would stick with their answers - technically they are correct there is room for reasonable doubt. I'm not condoning it ( although I doubt there are many forumites who have not been this economical with the truth in their lives), but neither do I believe it's as cut and dried as has been portrayed. The contrite apologies are issued under threat of the WMSC and Spanky so it's almost the equivalent of giving evidence under duress.

[big x]

It's about time the stewards kept audio recordings of important meetings. As things stands they take the word of the driver as his bond unless there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. Normally there isn't and only a slap on the wrist is administered.

In James Allen's blog he mentioned one of the stewards forgot to bring his note book to the second meeting. It doesn't inspire much confidence that we will ever know what was really said. Ryan may well of been economic with the truth but not directly lied just as Whiting has been less than candid in the past.
It depends on the phrasing of the question. It's often more difficult to know the right question to ask than to know the answer.

http://www.guardian....david-coulthard

[as65p]

Originally posted by big x

In James Allen's blog he mentioned one of the stewards forgot to bring his note book to the second meeting.

I stumbled upon this too. Not sure if that's to mean, if he had had the notebook with him, then there would have been a recording made?

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by lwd
Lewis and Davey were asked a direct question: Did you let Trulli past, and gave a blatant lie as an answer.

You clearly know more about this than I. My understanding was that there is no transcript and neither the FIA nor McLaren have divulged the specific questions and answers.

[Frixos]

I doubt that Dave Ryan will be involved in the proceedings, he was fired, he is out, done.

Besides.........

The last thing Ron or Martin want is a Dave Ryan on the stand opening his mouth and emptying closets and closets of laundry (whether dirty or not, I am in no position to say).

[Racing Dutchman]

Technically, this is not the same subject covered already in 1000 threads



Technically, Hamilton waved noone past. Did you see him waving?

I did see Senna waving in the 1991 Australian GP

(Yes, i know i was 2 then, but there is something called Youtube)

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Direct Drive
A very erudite analysis deedee, thank you. Any 24 y.o. man who needs his father to manage his affairs obviously still hasn't matured into an adult.

Rubbish. Most, if not all drivers have a manager and thats the role that AH is doing.

[deedee]

Originally posted by Direct Drive


Maybe it was Hamilton instructing Ryan to lie!

I ask myself the same question, the pertinacity Hamilton had to claim he got instructed, or misled by Ryan could indeed be an indicator for exactly that. But Max, instructed by Bernie, already gave absolution to poor Lewis.

[David Ricardo]

Originally posted by Madras
He lied.

Disqualified for lying. and that´s it.

Now, Trulli shouldn´t have passed Hamilton and therefore deserved his 25 second penalty, but that´s a different matter.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Direct Drive
A very erudite analysis deedee, thank you. Any 24 y.o. man who needs his father to manage his affairs obviously still hasn't matured into an adult.

I agree. To this point, Lewis Hamilton has had everything in his life "managed" for him.

[se7en_24]

Originally posted by Direct Drive

I'm selling my Benz, buying a Honda for giving Brawn the basis to win.

Are people really this stupid?

You would really base your choice of car on something so irrelevant as F1?

Even if you did, then buying a Honda on that basis alone?

[Dragonfly]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Was Hamilton instructed to lie by Ryan: Yes.

This is what Hamilon/McLaren said. We never heard anything from Ryan himself.

[flyboy]

Originally posted by fed up
Mclaren firing Ryan is a good move as he won't be called to account at the WMSC hearing.

Is this correct? If Ryan no longer works for McLaren, is he excused from appearing and giving testimony at the hearing? Perhaps so....I don't believe that the FIA has any standing as a court of law. The FIA could ask him to appear but if he doesn't care that the FIA can exclude him from motorsports, what can they do?

[Lazarus II]

Originally posted by flyboy
Is this correct? If Ryan no longer works for McLaren, is he excused from appearing and giving testimony at the hearing? Perhaps so....I don't believe that the FIA has any standing as a court of law. The FIA could ask him to appear but if he doesn't care that the FIA can exclude him from motorsports, what can they do?

The FIA cannot "exclude" him from motorsports. That would be preventing someone from making a living at a legal activity. I'm sure there are more than a few lawyers (just on this BB alone) that would love to see the FIA "exclude" Ryan from working at his legal trade.

[Broadway]

Why would McLaren NOT want Ryan to testify? He is after all the only one that can swear he acted by his own initiative, without any influence from Spin Doct... I mean Martin W....

[Mpower]

Originally posted by Direct Drive


Maybe it was Hamilton instructing Ryan to lie!

While we're making stuff up... Maybe it was Haug

[flyboy]

Originally posted by Lazarus II

The FIA cannot "exclude" him from motorsports. That would be preventing someone from making a living at a legal activity. I'm sure there are more than a few lawyers (just on this BB alone) that would love to see the FIA "exclude" Ryan from working at his legal trade.

But didn't the FIA exclude Nigel Stephney from employment in motorsports for a period of time? In fact, I thought that the exclusion is due to expire in May of this year.

[Risil]

Thought you were talking about Briscoe and Hunter-Reay for a second there... Justin Wilson on the brain.

[Newskiller]

This is a stupid thread. The author does nothing to support the title assertion.

Instead he makes some lame irrelevant excuses.

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Was Hamilton instructed to lie by Ryan: Yes.
Does Ryan deserve the sack? NO.

You are in no position to say.

His actions a have already cost the company dearly.
It may have cost them financially already.
It may yet cost them an awful lot more.

You are clearly under equipped to make your argument.

If brains were brawn, you are a weakling.
Goodnight.

[BrawnsBrain]

As an F1 follower since I was 14 years old, I am certainly in a position to say.

The reasons for Ryan's sacking and not sporting, but political and commercial.

This is the only reason I need to give to support my view that a fine fellow such as Ryan does not deserve to be sacked.

[Newskiller]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
As an F1 follower since I was 14 years old, I am certainly in a position to say.
The reasons for Ryan's sacking and not sporting, but political and commercial.
This is the only reason I need to give to support my view that a fine fellow such as Ryan does not deserve to be sacked.

The first sentence is irrelevant. I've heard people following the sport for 5 minutes give a more informed opinion.

The second a little confused. What is a "sporting" reason for sacking an incompetent manager? Of course the commercial and political considerations are very important. Why do you think they wouldn't be?

The third is not an argument it is sentimental opinion (based on zero personal contact I suspect).

Nice chaps get sacked too when they cock up.

Now if you can show me where the regulations say "nice chaps can't get sacked" you may be able to redeem yourself. Otherwise I stand by my original assessment.

[BrawnsBrain]

Of course they cocked up. But I'd like to see a sport (and indeed a real world) where talent is valued over the odd cock up or moment of unnecessary idiotic dishonesty.

Talent and loyalty seems to be swept away these days the moment anything wrong happens - and the press amplify any wrong doing to the point of ridiculousness. This thing started as pretty small and innocent in the minds of those concerned.

The value that someone like Ryan and indeed Hamilton gives a team, should be taken into consideration beyond any wrongdoing. What about the 35 years Ryan spent telling the truth?

The difference between you and me, is that you are a cold hearted realist and I am a racer. I'd prefer to concentrate on the bigger picture whilst you dig around with stupid little details.

Let me give you an example, if you can get your head around the parallel. A cock up happened yesterday with our terrorist squad boss and the secret documents - yes it is stupid and technologically naive to believe (ironically) that carrying a secret document out of a car in open view would not be noticed by a long lensed, high megapixel press camera. But does he deserve to be sacked and should our country lose someone in charge of such an important operation, over what is actually a very minor mistake?

Of more concern is the press photographer who was allowed to publish the details of the document, from close inspection of his photo, which should not have been taken in the first place. It was this action that put lives in danger and compromised security, not the 'error of judgement' from our 'stupid' chief cop.

I am sick of seeing 'errors of judgement' leading to resignations and sackings.

People make mistakes, people try to bend the rules and steal an advantage, and yes people even lie (shock horror!). Who doesn't? Get over it.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by BrawnsBrain
Of course they cocked up. But I'd like to see a sport (and indeed a real world) where talent is valued over the odd cock up or moment of unnecessary idiotic dishonesty.

Talent and loyalty seems to be swept away these days the moment anything wrong happens - and the press amplify any wrong doing to the point of ridiculousness. This thing started as pretty small and innocent in the minds of those concerned.

The value that someone like Ryan and indeed Hamilton gives a team, should be taken into consideration beyond any wrongdoing. What about the 35 years Ryan spent telling the truth?

The difference between you and me, is that you are a cold hearted realist and I am a racer. I'd prefer to concentrate on the bigger picture whilst you dig around with stupid little details.

Let me give you an example, if you can get your head around the parallel. A cock up happened yesterday with our terrorist squad boss and the secret documents - yes it is stupid and technologically naive to believe (ironically) that carrying a secret document out of a car in open view would not be noticed by a long lensed, high megapixel press camera. But does he deserve to be sacked and should our country lose someone in charge of such an important operation, over what is actually a very minor mistake?

Of more concern is the press photographer who was allowed to publish the details of the document, from close inspection of his photo, which should not have been taken in the first place. It was this action that put lives in danger and compromised security, not the 'error of judgement' from our 'stupid' chief cop.

I am sick of seeing 'errors of judgement' leading to resignations and sackings.

People make mistakes, people try to bend the rules and steal an advantage, and yes people even lie (shock horror!). Who doesn't? Get over it.