1908 replies to this topic

[Squeed]

Kimi actually left some room, but Hamilton took the safer option, which I don't fault him for.  But it still gave him an advantage, like it or not.  And calling it FIA connivance and dishonesty is completely wide of the mark.  It's hard to discuss these points while having to wade through the excessive hyperbole that people seem to be competing against each other with.  The FIA felt he hadn't given the place back properly and was taking liberties.  Just because you disagree doesn't make them dishonest in this particular instance

 

The team asked Whiting two different times if what Lewis had done was adequate to give back any advantage gained, and he said yes.  That’s the issue, and it does put their integrity in question.  

Edited by Squeed, 31 December 2021 - 02:41.

[shure]

All of what you describe are incidents that were handled correctly by the impartial application of the regulations so, by that token, they are all fair.

What isn’t fair is when those regulations, which are designed to be impartial and not benefit any specific competitor, are not applied as they are designed or written, for the sole benefit of contriving an artificial situation that only benefits a single competitor (and before anyone argues with this point as not being Masi’s motive, please just take a moment to think who - aside from Max / RBR - benefitted from Masi’s decision; mine is a statement of fact, not an examination of Masi’s motivation).

Masi should have a single, simple objective every weekend; to run a race that complies with the regulations. That is a fair race, and the only way he avoids any accusations such as those justifiably levelled at him since Abu Dhabi. He strayed from that brief in Abu Dhabi and, for that reason alone, he should have resigned by now, if not be sacked.

Yeah, I can't agree with your assessment I'm afraid, particularly the BIB.  It's not a statement of fact, for starters, and if you are saying "they are applied...for the sole benefit of" then you are indeed describing motivation.  

 

I agree with you that there are questions on how it was done.  But I don't think these constant allegations and insinuations about motive are helpful, since there's not a shred of evidence to back them up, so it all goes in the bin labeled "hyperbole" I'm afraid.  

[shure]

The team asked Whiting two different times if what Lewis had done was adequate to give back any advantage gained, and he said yes.  That’s the issue, and it does put their integrity in question.  

No, it doesn't.  The timeline, according to the reports at the time, was that CW initially said he thought it was OK and at that point did not refer it to the stewards.  At the end of the race, the stewards asked him if there was anything else that should be brought to their attention, in line with standard debrief procedure, and he raised the overtake.  It was clearly controversial, because Hamilton was even asked about it in the post race press conference, after he'd taken the podium, and it was two hours after the race finished before the stewards issued a verdict.  It's not like CW said one thing to Macca while simultaneously passing a note to the stewards, which is the impression some seem to want to give.

 

I do think CW was being a bit disingenuous when saying afterwards that his words carried no weight, or something to that effect, because even if that were true then he shouldn't have been giving advice out in the first place.  But he may have genuinely thought at the time that it was OK, but had reservations later and thought he'd better check.  Just giving him the benefit of the doubt here, but people are generally far too quick to jump on the duplicity bandwagon when it suits

[Squeed]

No, it doesn't.  The timeline, according to the reports at the time, was that CW initially said he thought it was OK and at that point did not refer it to the stewards.  At the end of the race, the stewards asked him if there was anything else that should be brought to their attention, in line with standard debrief procedure, and he raised the overtake.  It was clearly controversial, because Hamilton was even asked about it in the post race press conference, after he'd taken the podium, and it was two hours after the race finished before the stewards issued a verdict.  It's not like CW said one thing to Macca while simultaneously passing a note to the stewards, which is the impression some seem to want to give.

 

I do think CW was being a bit disingenuous when saying afterwards that his words carried no weight, or something to that effect, because even if that were true then he shouldn't have been giving advice out in the first place.  But he may have genuinely thought at the time that it was OK, but had reservations later and thought he'd better check.  Just giving him the benefit of the doubt here, but people are generally far too quick to jump on the duplicity bandwagon when it suits

 

The point is that the RD told the team that there was no issue on 2 separate occasions, and then issued a ridiculously severe penalty long after the race had finished. 

Why didn’t the RD stand by his communication to the team?  Even if, in retrospect, he decided that Hamilton clearly did not do enough to give back the advantage, he had advised the team that he had.  Why didn’t he stick to his word?  I’ve heard it said the Mosely got involved, although it’s been so long that I don’t recall if there was any evidence of that or not.  But regardless, an entrapment scenario like this definitely brings integrity into question. 

[shure]

The point is that the RD told the team that there was no issue on 2 separate occasions, and then issued a ridiculously severe penalty long after the race had finished. 

Why didn’t the RD stand by his communication to the team?  Even if, in retrospect, he decided that Hamilton clearly did not do enough to give back the advantage, he had advised the team that he had.  Why didn’t he stick to his word?  I’ve heard it said the Mosely got involved, although it’s been so long that I don’t recall if there was any evidence of that or not.  But regardless, an entrapment scenario like this definitely brings integrity into question. 

I don't think it's his call?  It's the stewards who ultimately decide whether there should be a penalty or not, not the RD.  AFAIAA he did "stick to his word" and didn't refer it initially, but it only came up in the post-race debrief.  And by then it was already being talked about.

 

I could be wrong but I seem to remember it wasn't the last time that CW said one thing only for something else to happen later, and his defence that the teams shouldn't rely on his word because it was only an opinion seems fundamentally wrong, but ultimately it shouldn't hide the fact that McLaren were sufficiently unsure of the legality of the move anyway because otherwise why ask twice?  CW is a red herring here, because he didn't make the decision, so it's not quite the same as AD, where the decisions were wholly down to Masi, by all accounts

[Squeed]

I don't think it's his call?  It's the stewards who ultimately decide whether there should be a penalty or not, not the RD.  AFAIAA he did "stick to his word" and didn't refer it initially, but it only came up in the post-race debrief.  And by then it was already being talked about.

 

I could be wrong but I seem to remember it wasn't the last time that CW said one thing only for something else to happen later, and his defence that the teams shouldn't rely on his word because it was only an opinion seems fundamentally wrong, but ultimately it shouldn't hide the fact that McLaren were sufficiently unsure of the legality of the move anyway because otherwise why ask twice?  CW is a red herring here, because he didn't make the decision, so it's not quite the same as AD, where the decisions were wholly down to Masi, by all accounts

 

That explanation requires too many mental gymnastics for me.  

 

You’re making it out to be a Pink Panther situation:  

Clouseau approaches a man and a dog and asks, “does your dog bite?” The man says “no,” so Clouseau reaches down to pet the dog only to be savagely bitten.  “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite,” says Clouseau, to which the man replies “that’s not my dog.”

Edited by Squeed, 31 December 2021 - 03:32.

[New Britain]

Kimi actually left some room, but Hamilton took the safer option, which I don't fault him for.  But it still gave him an advantage, like it or not.  And calling it FIA connivance and dishonesty is completely wide of the mark.  It's hard to discuss these points while having to wade through the excessive hyperbole that people seem to be competing against each other with.  The FIA felt he hadn't given the place back properly and was taking liberties.  Just because you disagree doesn't make them dishonest in this particular instance

I would have no issue with the decision - if it had been made by someone honest such as Tony Scott Andrews, who the year before had been the FIA Permanent Steward, and if the teams had been previously notified that the decisive criterion would be not whether the driver had given the position back but rather whether he had given back any lasting advantage gained. That would have been fine.

 

The dishonesty lay elsewhere:

- Throughout the 2008 season Mosley had his own stooge join Race Control as his personal representative. How outrageous was that?! Where exactly in the FIA regulations does it say that the FIA President should have any role or influence whatsoever in stewards' or the race director's decisions?

- As Bernie Ecclestone confirmed years later (although throughout 2008 and previous seasons it was obvious to anyone with half a brain), the FIA systematically favoured Ferrari because of the team's commercial importance.

- How could Charlie Whiting possibly tell McLaren twice that he thought that Hamilton's concession was sufficient and then tell the stewards that they should look at it? And we should believe that he did that with no input from Mosley or Donnelly? How ridiculous. The stewards had eyes. They could see as well as Whiting did what had happened and judge for themselves how to treat it. Why should it have taken two hours for them to do a straightforward analysis, unless something more than a straightforward analysis was going on behind the curtain?

- Then when McLaren sought an appeal, the FIA rejected it on the basis of a bald-faced lie that the FIA and Whiting fabricated about a related situation that had involved Scott Andrews.

 

A fish rots from the head. The head was called Max Mosley. QED.

Edited by New Britain, 31 December 2021 - 03:50.

[gillesfan76]

I mentioned this earlier. What Masi did, was effectively force a 1 lap, 2 car shoot out where one was massively compromised. He gave no consideration to what was happening behind the front two which might, could have effected the final standings, earnings, or both team and driver.

I thought about the very same thing that Ecclestone did, of 77 parking his car on an apex, citing engine failure, or damage. I am so very glad AMG didn’t do it. It’s also peak Ecclestone that he suggested it.

 

Great posts. Entertaining too 

 

I was aghast at Bernie suggesting Mercedes instructing Valtteri to park his car and am glad too that they didn’t stoop that low. Regardless of who one supports, or doesn’t, sporting integrity should come first. If Red Bull and the FIA want to wallow in the mud in order to get their sullied hands on a fake championship, it doesn’t mean that others should join them.

[PayasYouRace]

This thread has been a nightmare for days now. Seems you guys would rather do the following:

 

• Discuss Merc vs RB. Which was the faster car?
• Discuss New FIA President Mohammed Ben Sulayem
• Discuss Spa 2008
• Insult each other

These derailments and insults have created a very bad atmosphere and actually discussing Michael Masi and his role of F1 Race Director is becoming very difficult. Since most of that discussion will tend to focus on the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, or the results of the FIA Commission, then those threads are more than enough to cover what people want to talk about. But remember that personal attacks are not acceptable.

 

We'll re-open the thread should some news relating to Masi emerge. For now, this has got out of hand.