16860 replies to this topic

[fieraku]

hammibal, on Jan 5 2012, 11:56, said:

I dont see the difference, Alonso questioned the decision of the early stop to cover Webber, Lewis questioned the decision to leave him out on destroyed wet tyres, in the end the team held sway on both accounts

Did you try rose tinted specs?

[trogggy]

as65p, on Jan 5 2012, 19:26, said:

You're mighty slippery today. However, I rest assured you know well enough I was talking about the process between Whiting, McLaren and the stewards during the race, not about what happened afterwards.

It certainly didn't come across that way...

as65p, on Jan 5 2012, 15:58, said:

Is it known what CW exactly said to the stewards?

If not (as I suspect) it's not quite appropriate to assume too much about it, I'd say. It could have been anything between 'Please have a look at it, I told McLaren it's okay, but I'm only 90 percent sure' and 'Hey guys, I lulled them into thinking it was okay, he-he, you come down on them like a ton of bricks, will you?'

followed by:

as65p, on Jan 5 2012, 16:27, said:

So nobody in the public knows what's been said between Whiting and the stewards. Then we should probably stop all hypothesizing about it?

I assumed that was all about CW and the stewards, and my impression was that you were talking post-race.
Is that unreasonable, given what you wrote?

Edited by trogggy, 05 January 2012 - 17:36.

[garoidb]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 08:38, said:

Pathetic?
Ooooooooooh.

Let's have a look at how cruelly and viciously I've misrepresented your opinion then:
I said your position was 'Every team cedes a place back if there's the slightest doubt.'

That was based on this exchange:

trogggy, on Jan 3 2012, 12:03, said:

No, I'm asking you which team / driver you think would have automatically ceded the place if there was the slightest doubt an advantage had been gained. It's not hard.

garoidb, on Jan 3 2012, 12:06, said:

It's not hard at all. Most of the time, McLaren would. Same goes for Ferrari, Red Bull, Williams etc etc. This time they made a mistake and didn't.

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 08:38, said:

I'm looking for an important rider but I still can't see it. I'm trying to remember the last time Ferrari or Mclaren or Red Bull ceded a place when there was the 'slightest doubt' - as opposed to it being completely obvious that a penalty was coming if they didn't. And I can't come up with one.
I think that's because it's a load of old rubbish. And something that no-one who has any understanding of the sport could truthfully claim to believe. So I'm left with two options...

Good. Now it is clear to all, even if not to you, that you distorted my answer.

[garoidb]

AMG FAN, on Jan 5 2012, 13:14, said:

but then he proved that he deserved to be WDC by winning the following the year....my own point is that Mclaren should not leave such big decisions with someone inexperienced.

He may have deserved it the following year, as much as Vettel did in 2010 at least. He was put (or put himself) in a key position where big decisions have to be made and sometimes the driver is uniquely positioned to do that. Once he was put in the car as an equal No.1, there was a limit to how much McLaren could insulate him from the requirements that brings.

[trogggy]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 20:09, said:

Good. Now it is clear to all, even if not to you, that you distorted my answer.

You are delusional.
How is it distorted?

I asked which teams would cede a position back if there was the slightest doubt.
You said they all would.
No?

[halifaxf1fan]

Slartibartfast, on Jan 5 2012, 10:20, said:

I knew if I kept reading your posts I'd find a grain of truth in one of them one day! I feel like my perseverance has been rewarded. Thank you.

You are welcome Slarti.

[robefc]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 18:16, said:

He may have deserved it the following year, as much as Vettel did in 2010 at least. He was put (or put himself) in a key position where big decisions have to be made and sometimes the driver is uniquely positioned to do that. Once he was put in the car as an equal No.1, there was a limit to how much McLaren could insulate him from the requirements that brings.

Macca were the ones gambling not Lewis, sure a more experienced driver may have overriden the team instructions but lewis can't be blamed for his inexperience, the team could see how much he was struggling from the tv footage and the timing screens but they wanted to win the title there rather than be conservative.

It was a ridiculous collective decision by a team of highly experienced F1 guys, which put lewis in a position where he either had to go against team instructions or end up in a perilous situation.

Of course he still made the mistake coming into the pits but I've no idea how hard it is to get round that corner on canvas in those conditions. Lewis takes part of the blame but he should never have been in that position.

[garoidb]

hammibal, on Jan 5 2012, 16:56, said:

I dont see the difference, Alonso questioned the decision of the early stop to cover Webber, Lewis questioned the decision to leave him out on destroyed wet tyres, in the end the team held sway on both accounts

Did Lewis question the decision? I would like to know, so if you have a link that would be great.

I am drawing a distinction between a strategy call based mostly on information available to the driver (due to tyre performance or track conditions, where Button has done well) and one in which much more information needs to be processed. Alonso was in the situation of having to mainly worry about two cars in Abu Dhabi, but in other races it can be much more complicated. If you can't see that distinction, fine. I'm not going to worry about it.

[garoidb]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 18:17, said:

You are delusional.
How is it distorted?

I asked which teams would cede a position back if there was the slightest doubt.
You said they all would.
No?

Read it again.

[garoidb]

robefc, on Jan 5 2012, 18:21, said:

Macca were the ones gambling not Lewis, sure a more experienced driver may have overriden the team instructions but lewis can't be blamed for his inexperience, the team could see how much he was struggling from the tv footage and the timing screens but they wanted to win the title there rather than be conservative.

It was a ridiculous collective decision by a team of highly experienced F1 guys, which put lewis in a position where he either had to go against team instructions or end up in a perilous situation.

Of course he still made the mistake coming into the pits but I've no idea how hard it is to get round that corner on canvas in those conditions. Lewis takes part of the blame but he should never have been in that position.

I agree with you on all this. My point, way back, was that a more experienced driver would have made different decisions. McLaren messed up too. And there was a (forgiveable) driver error involved too.

[trogggy]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 20:24, said:

Read it again.

Try explaining it to me.
I've only taught English to GCSE level, so maybe I'm missing some subtle nuance of the language that really means you're not being dishonest or stupid.
I asked which team would cede a place back if there was the slightest doubt as to whether an advantage had been gained. You said they all would. I can't remember the last time that happened when there was a slight doubt, as opposed to it being completely bleeding obvious that they'd be given a penalty if they didn't.
So explain it.

Edited by trogggy, 05 January 2012 - 18:29.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 13:16, said:

He may have deserved it the following year, as much as Vettel did in 2010 at least. He was put (or put himself) in a key position where big decisions have to be made and sometimes the driver is uniquely positioned to do that. Once he was put in the car as an equal No.1, there was a limit to how much McLaren could insulate him from the requirements that brings.

Get your facts straight!
1-Hamilton wanted/radioed to come in-FACT
2-.Bridgestone's director of motorsport tire development Hirohide Hamashima advised Mac to bring in Lewis 5 laps earlier before his retirement-FACT

3-McLaren disregarded both and TOLD him to stay out-FACT





On these tires of all things while losing 5 and 7 seconds a lap. I'll put my tinfoil hat on and say that Mac was sabotaging Lewis unless you have a better explanation. (Other than Lewis should have pitted on his own accord)

[Slartibartfast]

Wi000, on Jan 5 2012, 16:51, said:

LOL that's a more than 10 Y/O Atlas faq, according to that we can still refuel.

Wi000, on Jan 5 2012, 17:17, said:

Those are from 2004, his are just slightly less outdated than yours but hey at least it's not an Atlas faq.

The role is still Race Director, the person is still Charlie Whiting, the governing body is still the FIA. If you think his role has been diminished in any way, please direct me towards the evidence.

as65p, on Jan 5 2012, 17:26, said:

Forgive me for not finding that at all convincing... "circumstantial evidence" isn't that lawyers speak for "we dunno shit, but that's the direction we need to go"?

It is when the FIA are in charge, I'll give you that.

Quote

You're mighty slippery today. However, I rest assured you know well enough I was talking about the process between Whiting, McLaren and the stewards during the race, not about what happened afterwards.

You brought up the analogy, I thought it was highly fitting... just not in the way you perhaps intended. But I think I answered your intended analogy as well: Whiting did not inform McLaren of his intention to report the incident to the stewards, which is not a characteristic of the court system in your analogy.

If you think I'm being mighty slippery today (which I take as a complement, by the way, thank you) then it might be an indication not that I'm being particularly clever but that you are trying to swim against the tide on this one. Although you are doing a better job of it than some, who appear to be on the point of drowning.

[garoidb]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 18:28, said:

Try explaining it to me.
I've only taught English to GCSE level, so maybe I'm missing some subtle nuance of the language that really means you're not being dishonest or stupid.
I asked which team would cede a place back if there was the slightest doubt as to whether an advantage had been gained. You said they all would. I can't remember the last time that happened when there was a slight doubt, as opposed to it being completely bleeding obvious that they'd be given a penalty if they didn't.
So explain it.

I said they all would, even McLaren, most of the time. That is an important qualification. There are several instances where teams have come a cropper on this. There are also several examples of drivers ceding back positions gained unfairly. Any example I give, you will say is "completely bleeding obvious". What is a slight doubt to one person is "completely bleeding obvious" to others (especially here).

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 18:34, said:

Get your facts straight!
1-Hamilton wanted/radioed to come in-FACT
2-.Bridgestone's director of motorsport tire development Hirohide Hamashima advised Mac to bring in Lewis 5 laps earlier before his retirement-FACT

3-McLaren disregarded both and TOLD him to stay out-FACT





On these tires of all things while losing 5 and 7 seconds a lap. I'll put my tinfoil hat on and say that Mac was sabotaging Lewis unless you have a better explanation. (Other than Lewis should have pitted on his own accord)

I politely asked for a link to the first of these FACTS. Can you supply one?

[trogggy]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 20:38, said:

I said they all would, even McLaren, most of the time. That is an important qualification. There are several instances where teams have come a cropper on this. There are also several examples of drivers ceding back positions gained unfairly. Any example I give, you will say is "completely bleeding obvious". What is a slight doubt to one person is "completely bleeding obvious" to others (especially here).

Probably. Because I've never, ever heard a commentator say something along the lines of 'Oh, I'm surprised he gave that place back, he probably would have got away with it.' Mind you I've only been watching on and off since the mid 70s, so maybe I've missed the ones you're thinking of. i'm sure some of these examples will have been the subject of discussion, articles etc. If they exist outside your fertile imagination, that is.
So can you give one good example from a top team this year?
Or any year?
One that I can't laugh at?
One where at least some other people in this thread will jump in to defend / support you?

Edited by trogggy, 05 January 2012 - 18:45.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 13:39, said:

I politely asked for a link to the first of these FACTS. Can you supply one?

Go watch the race and the season mate before you engage in debates in which you're not aware of the circumstances.

[tifosiMac]

ArtShelley, on Jan 5 2012, 15:25, said:

Are you sure you meant 2010? Because in 2010, he was the most consistent driver of the field whilst also putting in fantastic performances. In terms of driving, his first significant error only came in the last third of the season at Monza. Up to that point, which race(s) exactly did he perform poorly at?

From my memory Lewis was the most consistent driver out of the top 5 in 2010. Alonso was the most consistent post Silverstone in terms of gathering points but Lewis was most consistent over the entire season IMO.

[garoidb]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 18:43, said:

Probably. Because I've never, ever heard a commentator say something along the lines of 'Oh, I'm surprised he gave that place back, he probably would have got away with it.' Mind you I've only been watching on and off since the mid 70s, so maybe I've missed the ones you're thinking of. i'm sure some of these examples will have been the subject of discussion, articles etc. If they exist outside your fertile imagination, that is.
So can you give one good example from a top team this year?
Or any year?
One that I can't laugh at?
One where at least some other people in this thread will jump in to defend / support you?

I've been watching F1 regularly since 1981, but that is irrelevant. Current practices regarding penalties for cutting chicanes are much more recent. I already told you that I am not going to give examples, because you will just say they were "completely bleeding obvious".

I don't see anyone supporting your logic either. Nobody else here is remotely interested in this.

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 18:52, said:

Go watch the race and the season mate before you engage in debates in which you're not aware of the circumstances.

So the answer is no, then.

[trogggy]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 21:15, said:

I've been watching F1 regularly since 1981, but that is irrelevant. Current practices regarding penalties for cutting chicanes are much more recent. I already told you that I am not going to give examples, because you will just say they were "completely bleeding obvious".

I don't see anyone supporting your logic either. Nobody else here is remotely interested in this.

It's not about me agreeing. It's about you finding anyone to agree with your examples. That's surely easy if, as you claim, it happens most of the time.
Since it's complete BS you might find it difficult though. Drivers / teams don't cede positions unless they absolutely have to. So I can fully understand why you're running away.

Edited by trogggy, 05 January 2012 - 19:22.

[tifosiMac]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 18:39, said:

I politely asked for a link to the first of these FACTS. Can you supply one?

His radio was played during the race where he asks for new tyres and is told to stay out. Try and find the race to re-watch as most of us remember it.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 14:16, said:

So the answer is no, then.

Yes,because it's common knowledge.It's like asking for a link to prove that Obama is the U.S president.

Edited by fieraku, 05 January 2012 - 19:32.

[garoidb]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 19:19, said:

It's not about me agreeing. It's about you finding anyone to agree with your examples. That's surely easy if, as you claim, it happens most of the time.
Since it's complete BS you might find it difficult though. Drivers / teams don't cede positions unless they absolutely have to. So I can fully understand why you're running away.

Just ask the question - do teams/drivers return a position if it has been earned by cutting a chicane or a corner (a) always, (b) in most cases, © in some cases, (d) rarely, (e) never.

Maybe other posters have views. Who knows?

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 19:28, said:

Yes,because it's common knowledge.It's like asking for a link to prove that Obama is the U.S president.

There are loads of those. If he told the team that he needed to pit for tyres, then it ameliorates his error somewhat, but actually, not completely.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 14:15, said:

I've been watching F1 regularly since 1981, but that is irrelevant. Current practices regarding penalties for cutting chicanes are much more recent. I already told you that I am not going to give examples, because you will just say they were "completely bleeding obvious".

I don't see anyone supporting your logic either. Nobody else here is remotely interested in this.

So you ask me for a link to which is as common knowledge as bread, but can't provide one for which never happens yet you claim it does all the time? How do you expect to be taken seriously here if all you have is ''believe me coz I've watched since 81''?

Trogggy is absolutely correct in this,if there's the slightest of doubts,drivers will NEVER give back anything.

[Clatter]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 19:35, said:

Just ask the question - do teams/drivers return a position if it has been earned by cutting a chicane or a corner (a) always, (b) in most cases, © in some cases, (d) rarely, (e) never.

Maybe other posters have views. Who knows?

If your after votes then I'm with Troggy, your talking nonsense.

[trogggy]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 21:35, said:

Just ask the question - do teams/drivers return a position if it has been earned by cutting a chicane or a corner (a) always, (b) in most cases, © in some cases, (d) rarely, (e) never.

Maybe other posters have views. Who knows?

Why?
It's nothing to do with your ridiculous claim.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 14:37, said:

There are loads of those. If he told the team that he needed to pit for tyres, then it ameliorates his error somewhat, but actually, not completely.

There is no ''if'',it actually surprises me you're debating and have not the slightest clue of the facts.

[tifosiMac]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 19:35, said:

Just ask the question - do teams/drivers return a position if it has been earned by cutting a chicane or a corner (a) always, (b) in most cases, © in some cases, (d) rarely, (e) never.

Maybe other posters have views. Who knows?

Depends if the team or driver think they can get away with not doing it. Fernando didn't let Kubica back through at Silverstone 2010 and got a penalty for not conceding the position and Button got punished for cutting a chicane whilst overtalking Massa in Oz 2011. He also got a penalty. Its never clear cut and a driver will keep any advantage which is why they often ask Charlie for advice before giving a position back. There are clear cut cases where its obvious like when a driver outbreaks himself, but when they are pushed across the chicane, then is very different. Massa cut a chicane (can't remember the race) last season after brushing another driver and gained a position to which Brundle questioned if he'd have to give the place back. He didn't and faced no penalty, so its down to the individual incident at the end of the day.

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 19:39, said:

So you ask me for a link to which is as common knowledge as bread, but can't provide one for which never happens yet you claim it does all the time? How do you expect to be taken seriously here if all you have is ''believe me coz I've watched since 81''?

Trogggy is absolutely correct in this,if there's the slightest of doubts,drivers will NEVER give back anything.

I said it was irrelevant how long any of us have watched F1 (70s, 80s whatever) on this point - it is a recent phenomenon. But you know that.

The comment extends to teams too - do you think teams never tell a driver he has to give back a place when there is room for doubt?

[fieraku]

Garoibd let me ask you something,have you even watched the 2007 Chinese GP?

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 19:46, said:

Garoibd let me ask you something,have you even watched the 2007 Chinese GP?

Yes, but I do not have it recorded. Hence my request for a link to a clip with Hamilton's call to the pits.

Edited by garoidb, 05 January 2012 - 19:49.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 14:45, said:

I said it was irrelevant how long any of us have watched F1 (70s, 80s whatever) on this point - it is a recent phenomenon. But you know that.

The comment extends to teams too - do you think teams never tell a driver he has to give back a place when there is room for doubt?

Answering a question with a question thread is in the paddock club
How about you provide those instances you speak of,then we'll go from there.

[garoidb]

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 19:49, said:

Answering a question with a question thread is in the paddock club
How about you provide those instances you speak of,then we'll go from there.

You didn't ask me a question.

[fieraku]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 14:51, said:

You didn't ask me a question.

later mate










''Never argue with a t****,they will take you down to their level and beat you with experience"

[tifosiMac]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 19:48, said:

Yes, but I do not have it recorded. Hence my request for a link to a clip with Hamilton's call to the pits.

I'm afraid that something you will have to look for. I personally don't need to find it to see something I have already seen and it will only benefit yourself. I am sure its availble somewhere on the internet, good luck.

[garoidb]

tifosiMac, on Jan 5 2012, 20:00, said:

I'm afraid that something you will have to look for. I personally don't need to find it to see something I have already seen and it will only benefit yourself. I am sure its availble somewhere on the internet, good luck.

Well, I have just found and watched, on my 2007 DVD, the short highlights version of the GP and nothing there. I do not doubt what I am being told here, but I would like to hear the communications for myself again.

[zack1994]

Ones that i can remember are jenson giving position back to webber in valencia 09 but i'm pretty sure brawn gp asked charlie and then gave it back and webber in singapore in 09 but once again red bull asked then told webber to give the position back.

The only one i can think of where the driver gives the position back straight away is monza 08 massa gives a position back to rosberg and webber giving the position back to schumacher in canada 2011

But does every team cede the postition back if theres the slightest doubt no they don't.

[hammibal]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 18:23, said:

Did Lewis question the decision? I would like to know, so if you have a link that would be great.

I am drawing a distinction between a strategy call based mostly on information available to the driver (due to tyre performance or track conditions, where Button has done well) and one in which much more information needs to be processed. Alonso was in the situation of having to mainly worry about two cars in Abu Dhabi, but in other races it can be much more complicated. If you can't see that distinction, fine. I'm not going to worry about it.

fieraku, on Jan 5 2012, 18:34, said:

Get your facts straight!
1-Hamilton wanted/radioed to come in-FACT
2-.Bridgestone's director of motorsport tire development Hirohide Hamashima advised Mac to bring in Lewis 5 laps earlier before his retirement-FACT

3-McLaren disregarded both and TOLD him to stay out-FACT





On these tires of all things while losing 5 and 7 seconds a lap. I'll put my tinfoil hat on and say that Mac was sabotaging Lewis unless you have a better explanation. (Other than Lewis should have pitted on his own accord)

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 18:39, said:

I politely asked for a link to the first of these FACTS. Can you supply one?

tifosiMac, on Jan 5 2012, 19:23, said:

His radio was played during the race where he asks for new tyres and is told to stay out. Try and find the race to re-watch as most of us remember it.

Its common knowledge to me as well, not good to base arguements on matters he has no clue about

[as65p]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 18:35, said:

It certainly didn't come across that way...

followed by:

I assumed that was all about CW and the stewards, and my impression was that you were talking post-race.
Is that unreasonable, given what you wrote?

Had to let this sink in, but now I think I might have made a basic mistake: could it be that the CW only refered the matter to the stewards after the race? I was under the impression it was already during the race, that's why I claimed to only talk about stuff that took place during the race.

IF, CW indeed only advised the stewards to investigate the case after the race, then my mistake, apologies.

However, amidst all that confusion, what I wanted to do is make a distinction between the decisions on race day and the the appeal process, which Slartibartfast refered to.

Sh*t, I fear nobody will be able to make sense of what I just wrote... Just take this confusing post as an admission that I might have made a mistake, nevermind the details!

[trogggy]

as65p, on Jan 5 2012, 23:47, said:

Had to let this sink in, but now I think I might have made a basic mistake: could it be that the CW only refered the matter to the stewards after the race? I was under the impression it was already during the race, that's why I claimed to only talk about stuff that took place during the race.

IF, CW indeed only advised the stewards to investigate the case after the race, then my mistake, apologies.

However, amidst all that confusion, what I wanted to do is make a distinction between the decisions on race day and the the appeal process, which Slartibartfast refered to.

Sh*t, I fear nobody will be able to make sense of what I just wrote... Just take this confusing post as an admission that I might have made a mistake, nevermind the details!

No, I get all that.
It's not something I claim to know all that much about - if it happened to a different driver I might have looked at it a bit more - but I've always assumed the Charlie / stewards stuff took place afterwards. It happened with only 3 laps left, I imagine some of that time was taken discussing with Mac, then he'd presumably be busy at the end and it got pushed back 'till afterwards.
Just assumptions and presumptions though - maybe that info is out there. Anyway your point - we don't know what Charlie said to the stewards - still stands. Now be nice and apologise to Slarti!

[as65p]

trogggy, on Jan 5 2012, 23:47, said:

No, I get all that.
It's not something I claim to know all that much about - if it happened to a different driver I might have looked at it a bit more - but I've always assumed the Charlie / stewards stuff took place afterwards. It happened with only 3 laps left, I imagine some of that time was taken discussing with Mac, then he'd presumably be busy at the end and it got pushed back 'till afterwards.
Just assumptions and presumptions though - maybe that info is out there. Anyway your point - we don't know what Charlie said to the stewards - still stands. Now be nice and apologise to Slarti!

I'm always nice!

And sure Slart will accept the general apology I gave in the reply to you.

[trogggy]

as65p, on Jan 6 2012, 01:03, said:

I'm always nice!

And sure Slart will accept the general apology I gave in the reply to you.

;)

It's more than many would give.
You big softy.

[as65p]

trogggy, on Jan 6 2012, 00:11, said:

It's more than many would give.
You big softy.

Arrghh... got me. Damn.

[Slartibartfast]

Having just got back from an evening imbibing at the local licensed premises, I fear my faculties are a little dulled.

As far as I am concerned, there's no need for any apology (which is not to say that any apology is not accepted). Everything Aspy posted made sense to me. Well, it did before I went out for the evening, anyway. I assumed that "during the race" meant the stewards' investigation and "after the race" meant the rejected appeal hearing.

On the positive side, we will forever more know as65p as... Big Softy!

[AMG FAN]

garoidb, on Jan 5 2012, 18:16, said:

He may have deserved it the following year, as much as Vettel did in 2010 at least. He was put (or put himself) in a key position where big decisions have to be made and sometimes the driver is uniquely positioned to do that. Once he was put in the car as an equal No.1, there was a limit to how much McLaren could insulate him from the requirements that brings.

and am guessing them calling tyre shots was too much huh because all #1 drivers make all their tyre calls for themselves?

[ArtShelley]

Wi000, on Jan 6 2012, 01:17, said:

Those are from 2004, his are just slightly less outdated than yours but hey at least it's not an Atlas faq.

So do you believe that the responsibilities as posted are no longer the case?

[ArtShelley]

as65p, on Jan 6 2012, 01:20, said:

Hey Arty, seems you can only ever remember Hamiltons fortunes for any given season, eh?

Oh come now aspie, you can only wish that I was as predictable as you.

[ArtShelley]

as65p, on Jan 6 2012, 01:26, said:

Forgive me for not finding that at all convincing... "circumstantial evidence" isn't that lawyers speak for "we dunno ****, but that's the direction we need to go"?



You're mighty slippery today. However, I rest assured you know well enough I was talking about the process between Whiting, McLaren and the stewards during the race, not about what happened afterwards.

Your example of minor court to higher court is poor aspie. Whiting advised McLaren of one thing, and then turned opposite tact by referring it to the stewards. A minor court on the other hand makes a judgement and the either the plaintiff or defendent may appeal the decision to a higher court. For your example to be in the least bit applicable, the minor court would have to advise the defendent that he was not about to break the law, and then refer him to the high courts for punishment after he broke the law. Your example is nonsensical and no doubt even you can see that, though I have equally no doubt that you won't have the courage to concede. You never have.

I still remember troggy calling you out recently in another thread when it became obvious that you were "short on argument" but again too weak to man up.