826 replies to this topic

[sennamaster]

Well, the phrasing probably. The content, not so much. Going by his words in this article on the frontpage, it's obvious he still very firmly believes to be the victim of some witchhunt.

 

"I guess we'll go through the rule book and pick out areas where they can create rules, areas where penalties have never been given before," Hamilton said."

 

"... so just have to make sure I give them no reason, not even a sniff, to be able to do something."

 

The bolded especially is pure propaganda, meant to create the impression of being the victim of others sinister campaigns. Actually it reminds me of Trump talking about his treatment by the tax authorithies, how they treated him so very, very badly....

 

Trump and Hamilton, birds of a feather, who would have thought 

[Timorous]

Well, the phrasing probably. The content, not so much. Going by his words in this article on the frontpage, it's obvious he still very firmly believes to be the victim of some witchhunt.

 

"I guess we'll go through the rule book and pick out areas where they can create rules, areas where penalties have never been given before," Hamilton said."

 

"... so just have to make sure I give them no reason, not even a sniff, to be able to do something."

 

The bolded especially is pure propaganda, meant to create the impression of being the victim of others sinister campaigns. Actually it reminds me of Trump talking about his treatment by the tax authorithies, how they treated him so very, very badly....

 

The stewards did literally create (or modify to be more precise) 19.1 of the notes in the decision document.

 

19.1 as defined in the decision document.

 

"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."

 

19.1 as defined in the race directors notes.

 

"Practice starts may only be carried out on the right-hand side after the pit exit lights and, for the avoidance of doubt, this includes any time the pit exit is open for the race. Drivers must leave adequate room on their left for another driver to pass."

[milestone 11]

They did make a small start down that track back around 2006 when they appointed Tony Scott-Andrews as the permanent F1 Chief Steward.  Seemed to work quite well, which is possibly why they decided not to continue with it after he moved on after couple of years to take up a post with the MSA.

 

I seem to recall there were rumours that some drivers/teams felt that having such a post could lead to bias and I have read that Charlie was against the idea.

 

One thing I read somewhere was the FIA decided the stewards should be chosen to avoid them having the same nationality as 'anyone involved in F1'    - though it did not define the level of involvement required to fit that criteria 

 

I guess if they tried that rule it would leave a very small talent pool from which to choose them.

 

I assume they realised that as they later bought in the driver steward.

That whole business of Tony Scott Andrews stunk to high heaven. Typical FIA bullshit.

[robefc]

Well, the phrasing probably. The content, not so much. Going by his words in this article on the frontpage, it's obvious he still very firmly believes to be the victim of some witchhunt.
 
"I guess we'll go through the rule book and pick out areas where they can create rules, areas where penalties have never been given before," Hamilton said."
 
"... so just have to make sure I give them no reason, not even a sniff, to be able to do something."
 
The bolded especially is pure propaganda, meant to create the impression of being the victim of others sinister campaigns. Actually it reminds me of Trump talking about his treatment by the tax authorithies, how they treated him so very, very badly....

As others have pointed out these are old quotes but by god it pisses me off that they do this. I am always getting confused reading stories and realising half way through I’ve read it all before, I don’t know how they get away with it.

[fed up]

Interesting take from The race:

 

https://the-race.com...-didnt-leclerc/

 

The problem lies chiefly with a lack of transparency, especially when there’s a doubling down on specifics on a different occasion. If we had known what Leclerc was under investigation for at Spa, and why he wasn’t punished, then there would be less of a controversy around Hamilton’s penalty. As it stands now, without a clear answer, it looks like the Leclerc issue was swept to the side while Hamilton got the full force of the stewards’ punishment.

[ExFlagMan]

That whole business of Tony Scott Andrews stunk to high heaven. Typical FIA bullshit.

 

I had forgotten about that - I guess it might explain why he took the MSA job.

[shure]

those quotes are all from sunday (they publish stuff later so that they have more content for the whole week), the press doesnt get to interview drivers between the weekends, especially not now. The Instagram post quoted by the OP is from yesterday.

 

Having said that, the FIA are a bunch of idiots, so it wouldnt surprise me if his initial reactions on sunday arent far off.

 

 

you are extremely deflecting

you said this
 

"Still I rise" has, again, nothing to do with his accusations. It has no negative meaning in the way he ever used it (in fact this was literally his team radio message when won his last championship). Why is him using Still I rise a issue for you? It's like being upset about a driver saying "we will bounce back" at the end of a message.

 

with cherry picking I meant the meaning some of you spinned out of it by citing parts of the poem.

 

I cant read the OP's mind, so perhaps he called you wrongly out on how Hamilton used this phrase, but the issue with your initial post is that you see a negative meaning in something that isnt meant to be negative.

I'm not deflecting.  You are moving goalposts.

 

You originally questioned the "convenient" comment.  Which was in reply to a poster who quoted a source which left it out of the statement Hamilton made.  Which in turn was a reply to my post where he specifically countered the "still I rise comment" and used the quote to justify that Hamilton didn't say it.  So my reply to you was framing all that context, that's all.

 

Re: the "still I rise" comment itself, I thought I'd already explained that I felt that was silly as contextually it still makes him out to be the victim.  Why is he rising still?  the guy's the most successful driver in the most dominant machinery ever.  What does he have to rise against? And even looking at the whole quote he doesn't actually retract anything but still frames himself as valiantly battling against the odds. Which again I think is nonsense.  So yeah, I think he's still trying to play the victim card and I think that's both completely unnecessary and well overdone.  I could be wrong here but I think even you at one point said his statements were a bit cringeworthy, so I don't see the problem with me also thinking it's all a bit much

[as65p]

You're deliberately mis-quoting there and using an ellipsis to cover your lack of candour. Unsuccessfully. What he said, quoted in full, is this,

 

"I guess we'll go through the rule book and pick out areas where they can create rules, areas where penalties have never been given before," Hamilton said.

 

"We'll try and figure out all the ones that they have, and try to make sure that we cover ourselves in the ones that we are aware of.

"I don't think anyone's had the penalty for that before, so we'll just work hard.

 

"We've gone through seasons before without penalties, so just have to make sure I give them no reason, not even a sniff, to be able to do something."

Mis-quoted? BS. I quoted the exact words as written in the article. Copy/Paste, you know?

 

I only left out the parts not relevant to the point, the full quote changes nothing in that regard.

[milestone 11]

I had forgotten about that - I guess it might explain why he took the MSA job.

Absolutely.

[fed up]

I'm not deflecting.  You are moving goalposts.

 

You originally questioned the "convenient" comment.  Which was in reply to a poster who quoted a source which left it out of the statement Hamilton made.  Which in turn was a reply to my post where he specifically countered the "still I rise comment" and used the quote to justify that Hamilton didn't say it.  So my reply to you was framing all that context, that's all.

 

Re: the "still I rise" comment itself, I thought I'd already explained that I felt that was silly as contextually it still makes him out to be the victim.  Why is he rising still?  the guy's the most successful driver in the most dominant machinery ever.  What does he have to rise against? And even looking at the whole quote he doesn't actually retract anything but still frames himself as valiantly battling against the odds. Which again I think is nonsense.  So yeah, I think he's still trying to play the victim card and I think that's both completely unnecessary and well overdone.  I could be wrong here but I think even you at one point said his statements were a bit cringeworthy, so I don't see the problem with me also thinking it's all a bit much

 

 

You don't get it, pal. 

 

Carry on, though

[milestone 11]

Mis-quoted? BS. I quoted the exact words as written in the article. Copy/Paste, you know?

 

I only left out the parts not relevant to the point, the full quote changes nothing in that regard.

We'll, We'll, changes nothing?

[shure]

You don't get it, pal. 

 

Carry on, though

well I'm hardly going to get it with comments like that, am I?

[as65p]

those quotes are all from sunday (they publish stuff later so that they have more content for the whole week), the press doesnt get to interview drivers between the weekends, especially not now. The Instagram post quoted by the OP is from yesterday.

 

Having said that, the FIA are a bunch of idiots, so it wouldnt surprise me if his initial reactions on sunday arent far off.

 

Okay, that changes the time line. So you could probably conclude, or at least hope, that he had lost some of his paranoia by the time of the instagram piece.

[Retrofly]

This thread needs closing, its fricking loopy.

[as65p]

We'll, We'll, changes nothing?

Well, explain it to me kindly then.

[fed up]

well I'm hardly going to get it with comments like that, am I?

 

You know, if I'm ignorant of a topic I don't make uneducated comments without at least making an attempt to understand the issue at hand. Your post above is precisely that. Lewis has a massive great tatoo on his back with the words "still I rise" yet you wrote "why is he still rising?" 

[milestone 11]

Well, explain it to me kindly then.

Read the sentence without your ellipsis then I won't have to explain.

[as65p]

You know, if I'm ignorant of a topic I don't make uneducated comments without at least making an attempt to understand the issue at hand. Your post above is precisely that. Lewis has a massive great tatoo on his back with the words "still I rise" yet you wrote "why is he still rising?" 

That's a bit of a creepy statement. Nobody should be required to know his tatoos before he may comment on him.

[as65p]

Read the sentence without your ellipsis then I won't have to explain.

Ah, so I guess you can't really see a difference either. Thanks.

[gillesfan76]

I'm not deflecting.  You are moving goalposts.

 

You originally questioned the "convenient" comment.  Which was in reply to a poster who quoted a source which left it out of the statement Hamilton made.  Which in turn was a reply to my post where he specifically countered the "still I rise comment" and used the quote to justify that Hamilton didn't say it.  So my reply to you was framing all that context, that's all.

 

Re: the "still I rise" comment itself, I thought I'd already explained that I felt that was silly as contextually it still makes him out to be the victim.  Why is he rising still?  the guy's the most successful driver in the most dominant machinery ever.  What does he have to rise against? And even looking at the whole quote he doesn't actually retract anything but still frames himself as valiantly battling against the odds. Which again I think is nonsense.  So yeah, I think he's still trying to play the victim card and I think that's both completely unnecessary and well overdone.  I could be wrong here but I think even you at one point said his statements were a bit cringeworthy, so I don't see the problem with me also thinking it's all a bit much

 

Sorry shure, but you’ve missed the key point of what Marklar has said. That is, you each differ between your perceptions of “still I rise”. Contextually. Marklar already pointed out in his post why he sees no negativity in the phrase, using the example of Lewis saying the same phrase immediately when he won the championship last year.

 

FWIW I think Lewis does use the phrase in several contexts. He uses it as a celebration of success, such as when he won the championship. He uses it as a ‘fighting against all odds’ context that you’ve highlighted. He also uses it as a “bounce back” context such as what Marklar suggests he did at the end of his instagram apology.

 

Anyway I do agree with you that Lewis has a bit of syndrome of ‘against all odds” mentality. I think it’s deep rooted likely from many factors, his race, upbringing, experiences in early days of karting, has probably skewed his way of looking at things where he’s quick to perceive being unfairly attacked because he’s expecting to be. Because he was, in the early days, it’s shaped his perception. In any case I think that also brings out the best and strongest Lewis Hamilton. I think he almost needs something to fight and rail against to really bring out the last couple of tenths in his talent. Toto has already alluded to this previously and I think Lewis himself, subconsciously at the very least realises the same and creates these perceptions in his own mind to feed off it. Flawed genius as they say.

[Sennasational]

The stewards did literally create (or modify to be more precise) 19.1 of the notes in the decision document.

 

19.1 as defined in the decision document.

 

"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."

 

19.1 as defined in the race directors notes.

 

"Practice starts may only be carried out on the right-hand side after the pit exit lights and, for the avoidance of doubt, this includes any time the pit exit is open for the race. Drivers must leave adequate room on their left for another driver to pass."

 

This is very interesting, if true, they're both needlessly vague descriptions though. Just add a line, then you have two defined points between which to perform your practice starts. Hell, if you don't want to paint a line put a bollard or cone up.

[fed up]

Anyway I do agree with you that Lewis has a bit of syndrome of ‘against all odds” mentality. I think it’s deep rooted likely from many factors, his race, upbringing, experiences in early days of karting, has probably skewed his way of looking at things where he’s quick to perceive being unfairly attacked because he’s expecting to be. Because he was, in the early days, it’s shaped his perception. In any case I think that also brings out the best and strongest Lewis Hamilton. I think he almost needs something to fight and rail against to really bring out the last couple of tenths in his talent. Toto has already alluded to this previously and I think Lewis himself, subconsciously at the very least realises the same and creates these perceptions in his own mind to feed off it. Flawed genius as they say.

 

Exactly!

[milestone 11]

Ah, so I guess you can't really see a difference either. Thanks.

C'mon Aspy, I give you a little more credit than that. Removing the use of We'll, not once but twice by using the elipsis alters the the context of the remainder. You already know that though, you sure don't need me to teach you.

[Timorous]

This is very interesting, if true, they're both needlessly vague descriptions though. Just add a line, then you have two defined points between which to perform your practice starts. Hell, if you don't want to paint a line put a bollard or cone up.

This is what they had in Spa. It was really clear in that document but then they didn't enforce it.

[Myrvold]

This is what they had in Spa. It was really clear in that document but then they didn't enforce it.

 

They have it on tracks where there is not enough room after the exit lights to do a proper practice start. On tracks where there is enough room it just says "to the left/right after lights" (left or right depending on where there is room). It's been a thing for many many years, and everyone do know where they do practice starts. There is a reason why Ted Kravitz goes to that place on (almost) all tracks during practice/pre-race, as that's where they do their practice starts.

I guess it's just been an understanding that that's how it is, and possibly even written in event notes a long time ago, and now just been accepted as a rule due to the practice of doing it over the years.

 

It's a curious one.

[Claymore25]

Why then the penalty points  rescinded after the outcry  of injustice?

Because they are so incompetent and spineless.

[PayasYouRace]

Thread’s going round in circles. Lewis seems to have cooled off about the whole thing and you guys are getting more heated. No need for this.

Thread closed.

There’s a thread for general stewards decisions.