347 replies to this topic

[Jvr]

Gareth, on 28 Sept 2020 - 14:57, said:

They should have announced the investigations the same way they did the penalties - same wording, but adding that 1 and that 2 at the end of each made all the difference.

I agree with this. 

But, it is very rare that a driver is investigated two times on the same infringement during the same event.

[Jvr]

robefc, on 28 Sept 2020 - 14:34, said:

How about the info about 2x5s penalties flying about? Plus the 2+2 penalty points (which may have been inaccurate info/accurate info but things changed or complete BS which negates the need for my question!)

When the first Race Control announcement about the investigation was made and before the second one was yet yet to been shown, Ossi Oikarinen (long term mechanic in F1 teams) immediately said it could be 5 or even 10 seconds for that. And that was before any "rumours" were told to into the Finnish audience.

Add that two times and you have about the right end result.

So, if the CMore source in the paddock made a similar correct assumption of the magnitude of the penalty without directly been informed by Salo, I would not be surprised.

[Gareth]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 15:16, said:

I agree with this. 

But, it is very rare that a driver is investigated two times on the same infringement during the same event.

Yeah, I've not seen it before, so I'm not really criticising the FIA for it.

 

Next time, I expect they'll do it that way. So sometime in 2063, I guess

[milestone 11]

TomNokoe, on 28 Sept 2020 - 15:15, said:

I can't tell if you're joking??

Anyway, the Race Control Messages that appear on the timing screen only indicated one investigation.

13:42 Incident involving car 44 (HAM) under investigation - practice start outside of the designated area

To be honest I don't really understand why he wasn't penalised four times

2x practice start wrong place
2x inconsistent speed at pit exit

They used different rules to penalise him for the first practice start and then the second practice start

weird

No, sadly I'm not joking. The wording of both decisions, (Document 46 and 47), is exactly the same with the exception of timing 13.32 and 13.35 and the accruing points. Had they have cited 19.2 instead of 19.1 all the controversy would have been avoided. The reason given in both cases is as below.

 

Reason

The Stewards reviewed video evidence. The driver performed the practice start near the end, but directly in the pit exit. Art 36.1requires drivers to use constant throttle and constant speed in the pit exit other than in the place designated for practice starts in the Event Notes item 19.1., which is defined as the place ”on the right hand side” after the pit exit lights (and is not part of the track as defined by lines) which has been known to all competitors and used without exception. Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code andArticle 10.1.1 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

Edited by milestone 11, 28 September 2020 - 15:54.

[Vesuvius]

Topsu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 14:40, said:

You are ignoring the way Juusela talked about things. He specifically talked about "information that CMore has", and how "official confirmation will become shortly". How should he know this? He started talking about the penalties the moment the investigation popped on the screen before the warm-up lap. He didn't talk about investigations, but penalties, and got them correct. He also kept mentioning Salo being the driver steward for the weekend. This was all 20 minutes before the penalties were released. Could be Salo, could be someone else. But at this point even Juusela has admitted there being a "source". CMore doesn't even have any personnel on site this season, so it's not like theyu have their own "information gatherer" on the paddock.

He said on the broadcast that they have a source in the pitlane.It could be anyone, but who gets info from the stewards, don't know. Was Heikki Kulta there?

[Gareth]

Entirely beside the point, but it always bugs me when they include the stock "you are reminded you can appeal" in decisions where they hand out in race time/stop go penalties, which cannot be appealed by rule.

[Jvr]

Gareth, on 28 Sept 2020 - 15:32, said:

Yeah, I've not seen it before, so I'm not really criticising the FIA for it.

 

Next time, I expect they'll do it that way. So sometime in 2063, I guess

I hope they by then also add to the left side bar orange indicator an index of the number of investigations ongoing.

[Vesuvius]

Marklar, on 28 Sept 2020 - 14:47, said:

even worse, there were only 8 journalists (besides broadcasters) at the track yesterday, none of them from Finnland.

They (Cmore) have a very good connections in the paddock, just because they are not there and Juusela is relatively knew, doesn't change that. They know other reporters very well.

They also have inside info possibly from inside Mercedes, due to close Bottas connection.They usually know his contracts way before others.

Edited by Vesuvius, 28 September 2020 - 16:04.

[Clatter]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 15:16, said:

I agree with this. 

But, it is very rare that a driver is investigated two times on the same infringement during the same event.

 

Other than track limits excursions, I think it's rare a driver would commit the exact same offence twice.

[Jvr]

Clatter, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:06, said:

Other than track limits excursions, I think it's rare a driver would commit the exact same offence twice.

And especially within a short time between the two.

[Gareth]

I hope that in 2063 we're in the stewards room via VR watching them discuss it live (obviously choosing to cut to it ourselves just as the DRS opens on lap 3, for that nostalgic 2010's coverage feel).

[Topsu]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 15:24, said:

When the first Race Control announcement about the investigation was made and before the second one was yet yet to been shown, Ossi Oikarinen (long term mechanic in F1 teams) immediately said it could be 5 or even 10 seconds for that. And that was before any "rumours" were told to into the Finnish audience.

Add that two times and you have about the right end result.

So, if the CMore source in the paddock made a similar correct assumption of the magnitude of the penalty without directly been informed by Salo, I would not be surprised.

Hmm, well this is very interesting. I didn't even watch the pre-race from CMore, but I watched it now. This video is recorded starting 13:43 Sochi time, so only a minute after the investigation was annouced (13:42 Incident involving car 44 (HAM) under investigation - practice start outside of the designated area), and the announcement can still be seen on the screen. After Oikarinen gives his initial impression, the presenter Mervi Kallio talks about "information coming from Sochi" that confirms Hamilton will get a penalty. This is barely a minute after the investigation was reported! It is over 20 minutes BEFORE the warm-up lap, which I thought was the original moment Juusela started getting information from Sochi. But this confirms that they (the entire production) got information the minute the investigations were first reported. I guess once the investigation was shown again before the warm-up lap, Juusela felt confident enough to spill the beans on the 2 x 5 minute penalty, but even that was 20 minutes too early. It's weird how there is a leak about stewarding decisions only 1 minute after the investigation is announced.This is pretty crazy

 

https://streamable.com/1p8vyp

 

Things are looking more suspicious by the minute. I will start to watch the entire recording now for new clues about this Sochi leaker.

Edited by Topsu, 28 September 2020 - 16:24.

[Silberpfeil]

Jordan44, on 28 Sept 2020 - 10:41, said:

Also media are slowly picking up on this story

BILD now reporting it: https://twitter.com/...8967823360?s=19

Great detective work from the OP and just shows its worth raising anything that doesn't seem right.

 

Christian Nimmervoll also made Salo the subject of his column this morning. https://www.motorspo...a-salo-20092801 (in German)

[milestone 11]

Topsu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:20, said:

Hmm, well this is very interesting. I didn't even watch the pre-race from CMore, but I watched it now. This video is recorded starting 13:43 Sochi time, so only a minute after the investigation was annouced (13:42 Incident involving car 44 (HAM) under investigation - practice start outside of the designated area), and the announcement can still seen on the screen. After Oikarinen gives his initial impression, the presenter Mervi Kallio talks about "information coming from Sochi" that confirms Hamilton will get a penalty. This is barely a minute after the investigation was reported! It is over 20 minutes BEFORE the warm-up lap, which I thought was the original moment Juusela started getting information from Sochi. But this confirms that they (the entire production) got information the minute the investigations were first reported. I guess once the investigation was shown again before the warm-up lap, Juusela felt confident enough to spill the beans on the 2 x 5 minute penalty, but even that was 20 minutes too early. It's weird how there is a leak about stewarding decisions only 1 minute after the investigation is announced.This is pretty crazy

 

https://streamable.com/1p8vyp

 

Things are looking more suspicious by the minute. I will start to watch the entire recording now for new clues about this Sochi leaker.

The two incidents were timed at 13.32 and 13.35.

[Jvr]

Topsu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:20, said:

Hmm, well this is very interesting. I didn't even watch the pre-race from CMore, but I watched it now. This video is recorded starting 13:43 Sochi time, so only a minute after the investigation was annouced (13:42 Incident involving car 44 (HAM) under investigation - practice start outside of the designated area), and the announcement can still seen on the screen. After Oikarinen gives his initial impression, the presenter Mervi Kallio talks about "information coming from Sochi" that confirms Hamilton will get a penalty. This is barely a minute after the investigation was reported! It is over 20 minutes BEFORE the warm-up lap, which I thought was the original moment Juusela started getting information from Sochi. But this confirms that they (the entire production) got information the minute the investigations were first reported. I guess once the investigation was shown again before the warm-up lap, Juusela felt confident enough to spill the beans on the 2 x 5 minute penalty, but even that was 20 minutes too early. It's weird how there is a leak about stewarding decisions only 1 minute after the investigation is announced.This is pretty crazy

 

https://streamable.com/1p8vyp

 

Things are looking more suspicious by the minute. I will start to watch the entire recording now for new clues about this Sochi leaker.

Then you also note that they speculated on their source in Sotchi that Hamilton may get away with a fine after Oikarinen's comments and well before the start of the race formation lap.

EDIT: and thank you for that clip showing I was correct there were two different Race Control announcements of Hamilton's incidents.
 

Edited by Jvr, 28 September 2020 - 16:38.

[Marklar]

Vesuvius, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:02, said:

They (Cmore) have a very good connections in the paddock, just because they are not there and Juusela is relatively knew, doesn't change that. They know other reporters very well.

They also have inside info possibly from inside Mercedes, due to close Bottas connection.They usually know his contracts way before others.

And every other journalist doesnt? It does seem a bit too obvious especially when the driver steward is a Finn and has shown to be open about it to that specific broadcaster.

let's put it this way: it's quite clear what is more likely to be the case.

[Topsu]

milestone 11, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:25, said:

The two incidents were timed at 13.32 and 13.35.

That's when Hamilton made the practice starts, but the investigation was announced at 13:42, no? The leaker might have tipped off CMore about Hamilton's starts even before the investigation was announced, though.

[monolulu]

Is it possible that a member of another team reported Lewis to stewards in the first case knowing it would be investigated? Then speculation on penalties started?

[milestone 11]

Silberpfeil, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:23, said:

Christian Nimmervoll also made Salo the subject of his column this morning. https://www.motorspo...a-salo-20092801 (in German)

Thanks for that Silberfeil

[milestone 11]

Topsu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:28, said:

That's when Hamilton made the practice starts, but the investigation was announced at 13:42, no? The leaker might have tipped off CMore about Hamilton's starts even before the investigation was announced, though.

Yes, yes, I was only passing that information to you. Merely to clarify incident times,

[robefc]

Niki Juusela confirmed, It’s not Mika Salo. And for obvious reasons I have to protect my source.”

Erm, so who else was in the Stewards’ room?! Seems like a pretty small list of suspects!

That’s taken from a link in the other thread btw (Lewis says stewards are trying to stop me)

Edited by robefc, 28 September 2020 - 16:48.

[milestone 11]

robefc, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:47, said:

Niki Juusela confirmed, It’s not Mika Salo. And for obvious reasons I have to protect my source.”

Erm, so who else was in the Stewards’ room?! Seems like a pretty small list of suspects!

Very Mandy Rice-Davies

[fed up]

I think whichever way you look at it, it doesn't look good for the person that leaked the info. Fingers, from various sauces, seem to be pointing at Mika Salo - not a good look for him and likely to result in him being taken off the gig regardless. I hope they leave it at that - if indeed he is the culprit.

[SophieB]

milestone 11, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:49, said:

Very Mandy Rice-Davies

Well, ‘he would (also) say that wouldn’t he’ if it were true as well I guess. But odd in its way though because speaking hypothetically, if you had a source that could be one of say, six people then definitely ruling one out would be quite a crappy thing to do to the actual source.

[Clatter]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:25, said:

Then you also note that they speculated on their source in Sotchi that Hamilton may get away with a fine after Oikarinen's comments and well before the start of the race formation lap.

EDIT: and thank you for that clip showing I was correct there were two different Race Control announcements of Hamilton's incidents.
 

 

But the second one comes up during the replay, so you could easily believe that's just the first message, and not a second one.

[Kalmake]

monolulu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:29, said:

Is it possible that a member of another team reported Lewis to stewards in the first case knowing it would be investigated? Then speculation on penalties started?

Mercedes man: "When we saw the car position, it wasn't a complete surprise that they didn't like it. And no doubt there may have been teams who flagged it as much as whether the FIA or the stewards spotted it themselves."

 

https://www.motorspo...russia/4883592/

[Squeed]

Baddoer, on 27 Sept 2020 - 14:09, said:

If it wasn't Hamilton or say Verstappen i'm sure nobody would ever care.

There is sports book gambling on F1, if it affects one of the favorites then many people would care. 

[Jvr]

Clatter, on 28 Sept 2020 - 17:03, said:

But the second one comes up during the replay, so you could easily believe that's just the first message, and not a second one.

I am not disagreeing with this at all.

As a matter of fact I've said it easily got people fooled there was only a single incident under investigation.

My point simply is that since the message was shown twice, there are a lot of people in the paddock also in the know there were two investigations ongoing since they have their direct FIA information sharing channels.

[Vesuvius]

fed up, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:59, said:

I think whichever way you look at it, it doesn't look good for the person that leaked the info. Fingers, from various sauces, seem to be pointing at Mika Salo - not a good look for him and likely to result in him being taken off the gig regardless. I hope they leave it at that - if indeed he is the culprit.

There are no sources so far, only source is this topic and others have done just a story out of it. Salo might have leaked the info, but he also might have not, we shall see if there will be further evidence about this matter.

Also if it would be Salo, I don't think he is the only one who is/has done it.

[Vesuvius]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 17:16, said:

I am not disagreeing with this at all.

As a matter of fact I've said it easily got people fooled there was only a single incident under investigation.

My point simply is that since the message was shown twice, there are a lot of people in the paddock also in the know there were two investigations ongoing since they have their direct FIA information sharing channels.

This. Also Cmore guys have far better channels, all FIA info comes there faster.

[milestone 11]

SophieB, on 28 Sept 2020 - 17:00, said:

Well, ‘he would (also) say that wouldn’t he’ if it were true as well I guess. But odd in its way though because speaking hypothetically, if you had a source that could be one of say, six people then definitely ruling one out would be quite a crappy thing to do to the actual source.

This forum isn't the only place pointing fingers, but then, maybe, just maybe, we've been instrumental in influencing the european media. Who knows?
Logic dictates a pool of four, removing Salo from the equation leaves three under suspicion. I doubt any of them are quaking in their boots.

Edited by milestone 11, 28 September 2020 - 18:35.

[MikeTekRacing]

robefc, on 28 Sept 2020 - 16:47, said:

Niki Juusela confirmed, It’s not Mika Salo. And for obvious reasons I have to protect my source.”

 

of course he says that. It doesn't mean it's not Salo

[ANF]

I guess it could be the microphone on Salo's mobile phone.

[Mishvili]

Why would he "have to protect his source" unless they've done something naughty?  Which presumably rules out some random person in the pitlane?

 

And if they have done something naughty, then FIA have no alternative but to launch an investigation it seems to me?  Which makes it a story, regardless of whether Salo is involved.

Edited by Mishvili, 28 September 2020 - 19:06.

[Piif]

The point really even isn't if Salo did something or not. I find it ridicilous that the stewards can have their phones in the room. What's stopping them from betting online while "working"?

 

I don't care if Salo gets reprimanded or not but FIA needs to seriously restrict what the stewards do in the booth from now on.

[Marklar]

Mishvili, on 28 Sept 2020 - 19:03, said:

Why would he "have to protect his source" unless they've done something naughty?  Which presumably rules out some random person in the pitlane?

 

And if they have done something naughty, then FIA have no alternative but to launch an investigation it seems to me?  Which makes it a story, regardless of whether Salo is involved.

that's not really the case. You usually protect a source because you want to keep them as a source and because every source would get in trouble if their employer finds out that they leak stuff, even if it would be just something as banal as what Michael Masi is having for breakfast.

Having said that I think we are a bit missing the point, whether Salo is the source or not, whoever is the source shouldnt be doing this.

[Ickx]

Anything other than his nationality implicating Salo?

[Ickx]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 09:13, said:

Just watched again the footage before the race start.

In the international broadcast stream it was announced _two different times_ that Hamilton is under investigation.

First time when the feed shows him standing in the grid and the second time when a replay of his practise start is been shown.

Hence, the investigation of the two cases were both declared openly to everybody to see and no insider information was needed to make the conclusion.

I don't think the broadcast can be taken as much of a timestamp. The information is available before it is shown on TV.

[Mark521]

Marklar, on 28 Sept 2020 - 19:41, said:

Having said that I think we are a bit missing the point, whether Salo is the source or not, whoever is the source shouldnt be doing this.

 

But that's assuming that the "source" took information from the Steward's room/discussions.  We don't know that this is true.  Now I suspect that this info DID come from the Steward's room but it is possible that the "source" was a rival team that reported the issue to the Race Director who then referred it to the Stewards.

[ANF]

Ickx, on 28 Sept 2020 - 20:02, said:

Anything other than his nationality implicating Salo?

Well, there's this from the OP...
 

Topsu, on 27 Sept 2020 - 13:26, said:

the commentator Niki Juusela who Salo has been working with as a commentator himself on many occasions ...
most of the times when Salo is a driver steward, CMore seems to be very well informed on potential penalties well ahead of them being announced.

[Tomerell]

... and Mika Salo will send his love to all his critics "F... you" 

[Dolph]

Jvr, on 28 Sept 2020 - 10:27, said:

Sorry but not true. FIA never before has announced the same investigation twice.

 

 

I think you are mixing up two things:

 

1) Has the FIA ever announced the same investigation twice

 

2) Is its reasonable to expect that the average fan will understand from what is presented to them that there are investigation into two infractions of the same rule

 

 

I've been watching F1 for 30 years and I didn't get that he made the same infraction twice. In hindsight I get it, but it was not obvious then. I thought it was just a repeat and replay of the same infraction as it was a very important matter.

[Topsu]

Revised timeline for the CMore video clips (Sochi times):

 

14:43

 

https://streamable.com/1p8vyp

 

-The investigation into Hamilton's practice starts was broadcasted on television at 14:42, and CMore immediately announce that according to their "information from Sochi", Hamilton is about to get a penalty. They speculate that the penalty could range from 5 seconds to a drive-through. There is no mention of there being 2 separate infractions by Hamilton. What's curious about this first clip is how the presenter Mervi Kallio reacts to the announcement of Hamilton's investigation. What she says there is "Ossi, there we got some fresh information about Hamilton's situation". What situation? You cannot tell for sure, but to me it sounds like they could have already been aware about Hamilton's investigation before this moment. After the official announcement, they can now talk about it.

 

 

14:52

 

*no video clip*

 

-It is mentioned on CMore that according to "information from Russia", the latest "educated guess" is that Hamilton might get away with a monetary sanction, and no penalty will be given for the race. There is still no mention of there being 2 separate infractions by Hamilton, and the situation is not mentioned or speculated on until the next clip at 15:08.

 

 

15:08

 

https://streamable.com/m8k0aw

 

-As the cars are readying for the formation lap, a graphic is again shown that says Hamilton is under investigation. This most likely prompts Juusela into saying that CMore has obtained information about Hamilton getting a 2 x 5 second penalty, and that his penalty points will be filled. He claims that an official confirmation will be coming "shortly", but it won't come until 20 minutes later on lap 7, after the first SC period is over. Neither Juusela or Oikarinen seem to question why there are two penalties. They only ever mention one practice start, and seem to assume that both penalties come from the same incident, or at least they don't speculate on the reasoning of the double penalty. In fact possible penalties are not talked about at all after Oikarinen's initial predictions at 14:43. No specific rules or previous cases have been mentioned.

 

 

15:24

 

https://streamable.com/g1181u

 

-During the SC period, after the initial replays are done, Juusela returns to the topic of Hamilton's penalty and says they are still waiting for the "official confirmation", but they are still "assuming" that a 2 x 5 second penalty is coming, with penalty points possibly causing a race ban for Nürburging. Again, there is still no mention of there being 2 separate infractions by Hamilton, yet they are expecting a 2 x 5 second penalty.

 

 

15:30

 

https://streamable.com/1dbf02

 

-As the penalty is announced, Juusela is clearly expecting the 2 x 5 second penalty, and is initially confused when only the first 5 second penalty is announced. He is possibly heard clicking the FIA website on his computer as he seeks confirmation for the second penalty, which is then given. This is also the first time they mention there being two infractions.

 

 

15:32 and 16:17

 

https://streamable.com/iybf1k

 

-A few minutes later, for some reason Juusela claims that the stewards are confirming the 4 penalty points, and he seems convinced that Hamilton is going to get banned from the next race, as if the "source" just confirmed it. He then happens to mention how Mika Salo is a steward for the weekend. From this point on until lap 36, they are convinced about Hamilton getting the race ban. Then at 16:17 on lap 36, Juusela seemingly gets the official announcement of Hamilton getting 1+1 penalty points. I assume this is around the moment the penalty points were officially released? After that, Juusela mentions how they have been getting their information from "quite close to the stewards" during the course of the race, and this information is now getting confirmed.

 

 

That is all I can provide. To me, this is an obvious case of stewarding decisions being leaked in advance. Juusela denies that his source is Salo, but at the same time he admits there is a "source", which is obvious based on their broadcast and multiple mentions of "information from Sochi/Russia". With the covid protocols, the paddock is currently awfully sparse, so not that many sources can be speculated on. We know that CMore has no people on the paddock, so it must be someone from outside the production. A closeness to the stewarding decisions is heavily implied.

Edited by Topsu, 30 September 2020 - 01:25.

[MortenF1]

I think this stinks on so many levels (betting agencies, the implications that leaks may not just be to journalists/commentators... why would it, and what’s stopping them from passing it on to connections in the paddock before they air it on TV?) and I find it outrageous.
It should be in the FIA’s and FOM’s interest to get to the bottom of this.

[YoungGun]

This is the best conspiracy I have read where a driver messes up and everyone is against him.

[Jordan44]

YoungGun, on 28 Sept 2020 - 22:12, said:

This is the best conspiracy I have read where a driver messes up and everyone is against him.

Except it has literally nothing at all to do with the penalty in particular, who the driver was, or what the decision in the end was.

[fed up]

I think the story is going to run and run. I'm still not 100% on Salo being the culprit but unless he can somehow disprove the accusations and clear his name, he is toast as far as future stewarding is concerned. Telephone/Whatsapp records to prove his innocence would suffice.

[Rodaknee]

Topsu, on 28 Sept 2020 - 20:44, said:

That is all I can provide. To me, this is an obvious case of stewarding decisions being leaked in advance. Juusela denies that his source is Salo, but at the same time he admits there is a "source", which is obvious based on their broadcast and multiple mentions of "information from Sochi/Russia". With the covid protocols, the paddock is currently awfully sparse, so not that many sources can be speculated on. We know that CMore has no people on the paddock, so it must be someone from outside the production. A closeness to the stewarding decisions is heavily implied.

Having a 'source' should be enough to provoke an investigation into what is happening in the Stewards office during the weekend.  We've seen a screen grab of the Stewards at work, there must be footage available during the time period when the incident came to their attention and it should be possible to see if anyone got on their phone. 

 

There's a lot of F1 gambling, I'd expect the betting companies will be looking at whether there was any large bets altered or added just before the start.  Even if there were not, they will not like to think there are leaks involving penalties minutes before a race starts.  I'd be very pissed off if I had money on Hamilton winning only to discover there was a penalty that wasn't announced until after the start.  Not being a gambler, I wonder if that would invalidate a bet.

[milestone 11]

Rodaknee, on 29 Sept 2020 - 11:49, said:

Having a 'source' should be enough to provoke an investigation into what is happening in the Stewards office during the weekend.  We've seen a screen grab of the Stewards at work, there must be footage available during the time period when the incident came to their attention and it should be possible to see if anyone got on their phone. 

 

There's a lot of F1 gambling, I'd expect the betting companies will be looking at whether there was any large bets altered or added just before the start.  Even if there were not, they will not like to think there are leaks involving penalties minutes before a race starts.  I'd be very pissed off if I had money on Hamilton winning only to discover there was a penalty that wasn't announced until after the start.  Not being a gambler, I wonder if that would invalidate a bet.

Salo is shown tapping away on a tablet in that screen grab, both Whatsapp and Viber work from tablets.

[masa90]

So Salo is guilty before any actual evidence proves his guilt? Oh right....