Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 25 votes

2021 Abu Dhabi GP Title Decider race day


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11073 replies to this topic

Poll: 2021 Abu Dhabi GP (413 member(s) have cast votes)

Champion?

  1. Verstappen (250 votes [60.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.53%

  2. Hamilton (163 votes [39.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.47%

Vote

#11051 FortiFord

FortiFord
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: December 19

Posted 25 September 2022 - 09:55

Was I dreaming or are there a huge number of posts missing from last night?

Advertisement

#11052 sketchy2001

sketchy2001
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:23

Was I dreaming or are there a huge number of posts missing from last night?

Not sure "huge" is the right word but this morning, my browser was showing the last comment at the foot of page 222 and now that comment is on 221.


Edited by sketchy2001, 25 September 2022 - 10:25.


#11053 sketchy2001

sketchy2001
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:25

no it's not, that part is something a lot need to accept, Max is the current WDC wether you like it or not

Accepting something is not the same as viewing it as legitimate.  Maybe "a lot" need to accept that too?



#11054 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:28

Could be just to save face? I think the what in what happened at AD 2021 is pretty obvious now. Even if the full report specifies clearly that Masi had no jurisdiction to deviate from the rules; that Masi simply was not of a calibre and competence to hold the position of Race Director; that the stewards were wrong in claiming Art. 15.3 gave him authority to override the rules; that “any lapped cars” means “all lapped cars” - so what? Is that something that we don’t already know. We know all of this beyond a shadow of a doubt (at least most people do).

 

The full report is hardly going to delve into something potentially nefarious such as trying to protect Schumacher’s 7 title equal-record, or ensure a different title winner for the sake of the show (I doubt that anyway, FOM and FIA just want a close title fight not control the end result). So I ask again, what exactly is the full report going to potentially say that we don’t already know?

 

The only thing we don’t know is why Masi chose to ignore the rules. My personal thoughts are that he did it becoming heavily influenced on the show of a last lap fight out. But who knows for sure? Only Masi does. People do crazy things all the time, they make gross errors all the time. He just wasn’t a great regulator at the best of times. He exhibited poor judgement numerous times during his tenure, culminating in a first and last outright failure to adhere to the clear and prescriptive wording and requirements of Articles 48.12 and 48.13.

 

I’m happy to point out the facts to those who continue claiming erroneously that Masi was allowed to do what he did, but - and I don’t say this lightly, but it’s only fair to do so here - I actually agree with as65p that there’s no point assuming malice when Masi’s history suggests it’s just plain incompetence. The full report is never going to speculate otherwise.

There is something more that we don't know, but we should know: how were the decisions made to reverse the original decision not to un-lap any cars, to order only partial un-lapping, and to ignore the 'following lap' rule, and how was the decision reached to reject Mercedes's protest.

Unlike the question of motive, which I agree with you is probably unknowable, if we were to have the commission's full report including evidence, we ought to be able to discern whether it was a case of Michael Masi - rogue Race Director, out of his depth and panicking - acting on his own, or rather a case of one or more of the Stewards, who at the time were together with him in Race Control and all of whom were senior to him in both experience in F1 and formal authority, supporting or even suggesting to him those wrong decisions.

With the full report, we ought also to learn whether the AS Stewards really believed the implausible, that the RD was entitled to do what he did and therefore there were no grounds for Mercedes's protest. Did they come up with that idea themselves, or whom among the FIA hierarchy did they contact for advice or indeed instructions?

 

Without that information, we have Michael Masi bearing all the responsibility, losing his job, becoming an object of derision and being forever infamous as the guy who forked up big time in Abu Dhabi, cost Hamilton his record 8th title, etc. The guy has received death threats, for goodness sake.

 

The reason we should have got the full report was not because it is likely that there was a conspiracy to deny Hamilton the title, but rather because the FIA as a body and certain individuals within it should be held accountable for their actions, but that cannot happen until the full facts (aka, 'the truth') are made public.



#11055 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:28

I’ve seen numerous examples in this thread alone. For someone who posts so often in this thread you must have seen them. Just because you fail to acknowledge them doesn’t mean they are not there.

I wasn't talking of pretenders.  ;)



#11056 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:34

Still illegitimate though.  The phrase does not impute any moral turpitude on the part of the beneficiary.

I insist "X won that race illegitimately" implies X actively doing something illegal to win, which in our case is not correct. At the very least the phrasing is needlessly ambiguous.



#11057 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:35

Was I dreaming or are there a huge number of posts missing from last night?

This is a magic place.  ;)



#11058 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:44

Well, your phrasing is an easy giveaway as to what your concerns are in the matter, namely that Verstappen benefitted from it. The wording even suggest he played an active part in the illegitimacy, which is of course wrong. "Benefitted from incorrect decisons by race control / Masi" is what happened.

 

Indeed there may be people who solely care about the race and consequently the title being decided incorrectly and opposing to existing rules, regardless who benefitted or lost out as a consequence.

 

I just don't happen to know any of those people.

Your final comment perhaps says more about the people with whom you associate than it does about the overall population of racing fans or participants in this thread.

 

Your alternative wording,

"Benefitted from incorrect decisons by race control / Masi" is what happened." is accurate and fine, but equally so is my wording,

 

'Verstappen won that race illegitimately and pretend that the 2021 WDC title is as legitimate as any other'.

 

(Leaving aside Verstappen's overtaking under yellow) no one anywhere has argued that Verstappen broke the rules in AD and therefore the reason that his title is illegitimate is because of something that he, Verstappen, did. We all know that - again, bar the overtaking under yellow - Verstappen obeyed the rules in Abu Dhabi.

By making out that there is some revealed bias in my choice of words, you are just continuing the trope: 'Anybody who thinks that Verstappen did not get the title legitimately must be a Hamilton fan'. There is no substance behind that trope, apart from the sense of embarrassed defensiveness that some of Verstappen's supporters appear to have about the way the FIA let him have the title.



#11059 sketchy2001

sketchy2001
  • Member

  • 583 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:45

I insist "X won that race illegitimately" implies X actively doing something illegal to win, which in our case is not correct. At the very least the phrasing is needlessly ambiguous.

You are free to insist but what you have stated is your opinion and the statement that you bolded does not require that all involved have acted in some way illegally.



Advertisement

#11060 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:45

Was I dreaming or are there a huge number of posts missing from last night?

They deleted at least five.



#11061 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 September 2022 - 10:50

I insist "X won that race illegitimately" implies X actively doing something illegal to win, which in our case is not correct. At the very least the phrasing is needlessly ambiguous.

OK.  The FIA gave Verstappen the title by throwing the rule book out of the window.

 

Fair and accurate.



#11062 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 11:15

You are free to insist but what you have stated is your opinion and the statement that you bolded does not require that all involved have acted in some way illegally.

No, not all involved, but certainly the only named participant "X". Which is why it's not a correct phrasing for the case at hand.

 

And yeah, that's how I understand this particular piece of English. Go ahead, someone try to convince me it has a different meaning to native speakers (which is what usually happens at this point). :D



#11063 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 11:22

OK.  The FIA gave Verstappen the title by throwing the rule book out of the window.

 

Fair and accurate.

You've just changed it from "needlessly ambiguous" to "needlessly flowery". And "gave" should be "facilitated ... chances of winning".

 

Other than that, it's perfect. :smoking:  :wave:



#11064 Bliman

Bliman
  • Member

  • 9,956 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 25 September 2022 - 12:30

I wasn't talking of pretenders.  ;)

With that logic you are always right in your eyes even if you are wrong.

#11065 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 26,207 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 25 September 2022 - 12:40

With that logic you are always right in your eyes even if you are wrong.

 

Well, that would not just be me but everyone, wouldn't it? Otherwise, why discuss. Just look objectly at what's true and be done with it. Simples.

 

 ;)



#11066 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 25 September 2022 - 12:55

You've just changed it from "needlessly ambiguous" to "needlessly flowery". And "gave" should be "facilitated ... chances of winning".

You are Ron Dennis and I claim my £5.



#11067 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 27,294 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 25 September 2022 - 13:26

Indeed there may be people who solely care about the race and consequently the title being decided incorrectly and opposing to existing rules, regardless who benefitted or lost out as a consequence.

I just don't happen to know any of those people.

I think that’s unfair to the many Verstappen fans who are perfectly happy to admit that what went on in AD was absolutely wrong from a procedure point of view (most I think remain - IMO rightly - comfortable with the title result, on the basis a 20+ race season is made up of all sorts of moments of fortune and misfortune).

I mean I think you’re even in that camp, right?

So the idea that a view on the AD procedure can only split on driver supporting lines doesn’t seem right to me.

#11068 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 13:26

You are Ron Dennis and I claim my £5.

Are you referring to the motor racing event in which a series of judicial anomalies of an unjustifiable nature induced an irregularity in the competitive space-time relationship and ultimately precipitated an inappropriate classification?



#11069 Bliman

Bliman
  • Member

  • 9,956 posts
  • Joined: April 16

Posted 25 September 2022 - 13:48

Well, that would not just be me but everyone, wouldn't it? Otherwise, why discuss. Just look objectly at what's true and be done with it. Simples.

 ;)

No that is not true. Even if someone says the contrary you can then say he is pretending. That way you can always pretend that you are true even if the other one says that they didn't really care who won but has other objections. In that way there is nothing to discuss because you already made up your mind whatever someone says. You are then just talking to yourself.

#11070 gillesfan76

gillesfan76
  • Member

  • 9,280 posts
  • Joined: July 16

Posted 25 September 2022 - 14:24

There is something more that we don't know, but we should know: how were the decisions made to reverse the original decision not to un-lap any cars, to order only partial un-lapping, and to ignore the 'following lap' rule, and how was the decision reached to reject Mercedes's protest.

Unlike the question of motive, which I agree with you is probably unknowable, if we were to have the commission's full report including evidence, we ought to be able to discern whether it was a case of Michael Masi - rogue Race Director, out of his depth and panicking - acting on his own, or rather a case of one or more of the Stewards, who at the time were together with him in Race Control and all of whom were senior to him in both experience in F1 and formal authority, supporting or even suggesting to him those wrong decisions.

With the full report, we ought also to learn whether the AS Stewards really believed the implausible, that the RD was entitled to do what he did and therefore there were no grounds for Mercedes's protest. Did they come up with that idea themselves, or whom among the FIA hierarchy did they contact for advice or indeed instructions?

 

Without that information, we have Michael Masi bearing all the responsibility, losing his job, becoming an object of derision and being forever infamous as the guy who forked up big time in Abu Dhabi, cost Hamilton his record 8th title, etc. The guy has received death threats, for goodness sake.

 

The reason we should have got the full report was not because it is likely that there was a conspiracy to deny Hamilton the title, but rather because the FIA as a body and certain individuals within it should be held accountable for their actions, but that cannot happen until the full facts (aka, 'the truth') are made public.

 

I don’t disagree with you that we should have got the full report. I’ve said the same numerous times. But that doesn’t mean that I think it’s going to unearth something that we didn’t know about. Rather, it should have been released for the sake of good order.

 

Regarding your point about how the decisions were made; I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I don’t think there was any deep decision making on Masi’s part. He was heavily influenced in wanting to finish the race under green which led to the error in ignoring 48.12 and not finishing the race under SC. Even with that error, at least his initial decision there was to not let any of the lapped cars unlap; then upon Wheatley’s suggestion he convinced himself that the only lapped cars that matter are the ones between the two “leaders”  :stoned: . Again I doubt there was any deep thought process behind this. An incompetent person, under pressure, delusions of an authority he simply didn’t have. Except for the pressure part, none of this is going to be in the full report.

 

Regarding the stewards, again, the full report isn’t going to unearth whether the stewards really believed that the Race Director had that authority. You expect the full report will claim that they are liars? On what basis - their own admission? Come on. The full report will likely acknowledge that the stewards got it wrong, but as I’ve said, we already know this.

 

The full report should be released for transparency. A regulator should be willing to open its cupboards skeletons and all after something has gone wrong necessitating an investigation. But we hardly need the full report. I think what happened was bad enough without needing to bolster the injustice with an icing of nefarious intent by Masi and/or stewards. It actually weakens your argument.


Edited by gillesfan76, 25 September 2022 - 14:26.


#11071 AnR

AnR
  • Member

  • 1,578 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 25 September 2022 - 15:55

I think that’s unfair to the many Verstappen fans who are perfectly happy to admit that what went on in AD was absolutely wrong from a procedure point of view (most I think remain - IMO rightly - comfortable with the title result, on the basis a 20+ race season is made up of all sorts of moments of fortune and misfortune).

I mean I think you’re even in that camp, right?

So the idea that a view on the AD procedure can only split on driver supporting lines doesn’t seem right to me.

 

I don't think you have to be a Verstappen fan to accept that over the season he was rightly the WDC.

 

What happened between in AD doesn't make Max less WDC.



#11072 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 15:57

I don’t disagree with you that we should have got the full report. I’ve said the same numerous times. But that doesn’t mean that I think it’s going to unearth something that we didn’t know about. Rather, it should have been released for the sake of good order.

 

Regarding your point about how the decisions were made; I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I don’t think there was any deep decision making on Masi’s part. He was heavily influenced in wanting to finish the race under green which led to the error in ignoring 48.12 and not finishing the race under SC. Even with that error, at least his initial decision there was to not let any of the lapped cars unlap; then upon Wheatley’s suggestion he convinced himself that the only lapped cars that matter are the ones between the two “leaders”  :stoned: . Again I doubt there was any deep thought process behind this. An incompetent person, under pressure, delusions of an authority he simply didn’t have. Except for the pressure part, none of this is going to be in the full report.

 

Regarding the stewards, again, the full report isn’t going to unearth whether the stewards really believed that the Race Director had that authority. You expect the full report will claim that they are liars? On what basis - their own admission? Come on. The full report will likely acknowledge that the stewards got it wrong, but as I’ve said, we already know this.

 

The full report should be released for transparency. A regulator should be willing to open its cupboards skeletons and all after something has gone wrong necessitating an investigation. But we hardly need the full report. I think what happened was bad enough without needing to bolster the injustice with an icing of nefarious intent by Masi and/or stewards. It actually weakens your argument.

I appreciate what you are saying. My own best guess is that at least one if not more of the Stewards supported Masi's decisions at the time that he made them and may in fact have proposed them to him. There were 10 minutes between when Latifi crashed and when Masi gave the instruction for partial un-lapping. Given the importance of the circumstances, is it likely that, during those 10 minutes, there was no communication between Masi and any of the three Stewards (all senior to him) sitting near him in Race Control? I can't believe that their first inkling of what Masi was going to do was when they heard him sending out the instructions to the teams and then the Stewards looked at each other in amazement and said, 'WTF????'

I also think it is a virtual certainty that the Stewards would have contacted senior FIA executives for advice/permission/instructions prior to their decision to reject the two protests. Those executives might have included Todt or single-seater boss Peter Bayer (who was quietly replaced shortly after Masi was sacked).

And how did the FIA President, who at least approved and quite possibly himself wrote the FIA's public introduction to the commission report summary, come to the conclusion that human error took place and that the following lap was not taken 'as required' - both points contrary to the Stewards' conclusions? Okay, FIA - you say that now, when it is too late to change the results, but why did three deeply experienced stewards with plenty of time to study all the facts come to the opposite conclusion?

 

I have never believed that there was any "nefarious" (as in, criminal) intent at the time that the mistakes were made during the race. I do however believe that the incompetence and arrogance at the time about what they could get away with went beyond Masi alone, that in rejecting Mercedes's protests the Stewards were protecting themselves as much as they were protecting Masi and the FIA, and that FIA executives above the Stewards in the organisational hierarchy approved and probably encouraged the Stewards to try to whitewash the whole sorry mess.

 

Of course life will go on, but it seems both unfair that a single person should be vilified as the scapegoat when the culpability clearly extends beyond him and wrong that a body with broad and substantial public responsibilities should be able to hide its misdeeds. Innocent mistakes can be forgiven, but a wilful, systematic cover-up cannot be.



#11073 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 7,687 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 25 September 2022 - 16:01

I don't think you have to be a Verstappen fan to accept that over the season he was rightly the WDC.

 

What happened between in AD doesn't make Max less WDC.

If Latifi had never crashed in Abu Dhabi and Hamilton had gone on to win the race and the title, would you say that, nevertheless, Verstappen was 'rightly the WDC'? :confused:



#11074 Risil

Risil
  • Administrator

  • 61,328 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 25 September 2022 - 16:08

This seems as good a place as any to draw the line. I'm closing the thread as we're plainly spinning our wheels and there haven't been any new developments for weeks.

 

If something new and significant about Abu Dhabi 2021 emerges in the future we will, of course, have a new thread.