287 replies to this topic

[PrinceBira]

What exactly is wrong with that statement as a steward? The first part - 'I wasn't the only one to think...' is plainly a statement of fact, as at least one other steward, and possibly all three others, agreed, which was why they imposed penalties. The second - 'Lando Norris...thought so too' is equally a statement of fact. Neither statement indicates bias, merely observed reality.

Apart from the fact that it looks bad, how can a Steward argue his decision was right by referring to the opinion of two persons involved that have an interest in penalizing the other driver?

Surely, they cannot be considered objective.

Edited by PrinceBira, 09 February 2025 - 06:44.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Apart from the fact that it looks bad, how can a Steward argue his decision was right by referring to the opinion of two persons involved that have an interest in penalizing the other driver?

Surely, they cannot be considered objective.

I don’t think it’s evidence of bias in that he made the decision because of Norris/Zak’s opinion - as the comments were obviously after the event. I do think it was a bit silly on Herbert’s part to say what he did though, referencing the opinion of people involved in the penalty. He shouldn’t have done that. I honestly think that was just a clumsy comment though.

[IrvTheSwerve]

See the people who demanded examples are handwaving provided cases like expected - also AD21.

 

People disagreeing with you isn’t ‘handwaving’. Different opinions are available.

[IrvTheSwerve]

There are two instances there of bias against Max and in those two instances, exaggerated penatlies were given by stewards.

 

Mexico

 

Statement by Herbert

 

"I wasn't the only one to think that Max was over the top in Mexico, Lando Norris and Zak Brown thought so too"

 

Exaggerated penalty

 

10 seconds for the first infringement. Any other time, this was 5 seconds at most under the rules.

 

 

Singapore

 

Statement by Herbert

 

"We could have fined him, but we felt it would be more beneficial to get him to do something socially responsible.

 

Exaggerated Penalty

 

Community Service instead of a fine

 

Every time Max received an exaggerated penalty, Herbert was a steward and also made a biased statement in the press afterwards.

Point 1 - yes a clumsy comment, doesn’t really indicate bias though (I addressed this in post above)

 

 Point 2 - exaggerated penalty for Mexico - I think most agreed that this was one of the worst examples of driving standards of recent times, clearly ploughing into Norris without an attempt of making the corner. Many pundits said the same at the time…and anyway, there’s a team of stewards and it’s not only Herbert’s decision? I can totally understand the 10 sec penalty but also understand that some would compare to previous penalties. It really was Jerez 97-esque and if it was the last race of the season it would have been a lot worse for Max. You could argue that it was 2x5sec penalties too, as Max ran Norris wide a couple of turns earlier. The incident where Max flew through and took Norris off moments later was disgusting driving standards IMO, I think he actually got away with it there. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see a black flag come out.

 

Community service instead of a fine - no issue with that at all - in fact it’s something that I’d like to see more of, financial penalties mean nothing to multi-millionaires. I don’t see what is wrong with Herbert saying this would be more beneficial…Max clearly doesn’t learn from other forms of penalty.

 

I really don’t care either way regarding Norris or Max by the way before anyone thinks that.

Edited by IrvTheSwerve, 09 February 2025 - 12:12.

[JBJ]

If you keep up with the latest F1 news and watch it with Sky commentating and still don't see the bias I don't think providing you with examples is gonna change much.

 

Hate to say I told you so

[gillesfan76]

While I don’t have any problem with Herbert being removed as a steward, and also agree that stewards shouldn’t also act as a pundit and be commenting on drivers, nevertheless I find MBS’ take on it strange to say the least.

 

According to Spanish publication Marca, Ben Sulayem said: “Johnny was a very good commissioner, but then there was a conflict of interest and he knows that.

“You can’t be a journalist in a big company and express your point of view and then play the commissioner, who is a referee. You [might] say: ‘My best case scenario is that so-and-so wins.’

“And what if that driver you prefer has another driver in first or second place? How do you make your judgement?

“He understood [the decision] and he thanked the FIA [for the opportunity] and we thanked him for what he did.”

 

Firstly, did Herbert actually say “My best case scenario is that driver X wins”? I don’t recall this. So MBS is drawing this whole narrative in a direct discussion about removal of Herbert and implying that Herbert has expressed a preference for another driver to win. I find MBS is all over the place with his strange analogies, narratives and way of expressing himself. I’m not sure if it’s a cultural thing, and he’s done the same before with this often repeated narrative about how he is being attacked by the press when it’s really not the case. In short, MBS makes sh*t up and spouts cr*p.

 

He’s also a hypocrite. He says Herbert can’t express his point of view while playing the commissioner. I agree with that, but then why does MBS himself do that? He’s often expressing his view about drivers but plays the ultimate commissioner. Strange guy who probably has no inkling how strange he is.

[IrvTheSwerve]

Hate to say I told you so

Just saying that we’re oblivious to it all without really arguing your case does you no favours and is rather condescending. I take in news from various sources, not just Sky UK.

[Myrvold]

And yes, the same applies to Stewards from other countries. I’d hate to see Doornbos, Coronel or even Jan Lammers as a Steward as it would cast uncertainty about their objectivity and thereby cast doubts on the Steward decisions they’d be part of.

 

But Liuzzi praising Red Bull (and blaming Berger for his exit from Toro Rosso, and thanking Marko & Mateschitz for all they have done) is fine?

 

There are two instances there of bias against Max and in those two instances, exaggerated penatlies were given by stewards.

 

Mexico

 

Statement by Herbert

 

"I wasn't the only one to think that Max was over the top in Mexico, Lando Norris and Zak Brown thought so too"

 

Exaggerated penalty

 

10 seconds for the first infringement. Any other time, this was 5 seconds at most under the rules.

 

I'll repeat this. 10 second penalty was not an "exaggerated penalty". It was, on request from drivers/teams, decided before 2024 that the standard penalty for driving infringements would be raised from 5 sec to 10 sec. In every race in 2024, except for the USGP in Austin, 10 sec were the default penalty. In Austin the penalties were 5 sec for some reason. (Or, the reason are mentioned in the steward docs but... ye). It was the USGP that had lenient penalties. Not Mexico being exaggerated.

 

That was a bad penalty is a sea of biased decisions towards Max from Stewards last season and yes, Herbert wasn't there but do you see any stewards speaking about it to the press afterwards?

 

Connolly was a steward that time and he has a history if bias against Verstappen, even going so far as telling Toto/Mercedes that they should put in a protest against Max, which they declined to do.

 

Ah, this reminds me of this "Garry Connelly, or the steward that will kill Verstappen chances" before the Abu Dhabi GP in 2021. I think if you put milk out in the sun in the summer it will last better than that one... The three examples of bias is Japan 2016 (which is one of the weirdest things ever, that a steward does something like that I mean) and, eh, Saudi Arabia 2021 and, uhm *checking* penalizing Verstappen for overtaking Räikkönen while cutting the track.
Conveniently forgetting the non-race at Spa. Then he was the head steward that accepted the handling of Abu Dhabi. That sounds more like a steward who isn't biased, but rather a "my way or the highway". But sure. Herbert is biased in favor of all brits. Mayer is biased in favor of McLaren because his dad was forced out of McLaren 40 years ago (ignoring all that Mayer have done in racing officiating himself), Connelly is biased against Verstappen because reasons. But former Red Bull employees among the stewards are no issues? 

There is a double standard here I feel. It's also interesting how Herbert somehow is able to sway the other stewards, but when the "biased" head stewards are working, the driver stewards are unable to sway the others.

 

While I don’t have any problem with Herbert being removed as a steward, and also agree that stewards shouldn’t also act as a pundit and be commenting on drivers, nevertheless I find MBS’ take on it strange to say the least.

 

According to Spanish publication Marca, Ben Sulayem said: “Johnny was a very good commissioner, but then there was a conflict of interest and he knows that.

“You can’t be a journalist in a big company and express your point of view and then play the commissioner, who is a referee. You [might] say: ‘My best case scenario is that so-and-so wins.’

“And what if that driver you prefer has another driver in first or second place? How do you make your judgement?

“He understood [the decision] and he thanked the FIA [for the opportunity] and we thanked him for what he did.”

 

Firstly, did Herbert actually say “My best case scenario is that driver X wins”? I don’t recall this. So MBS is drawing this whole narrative in a direct discussion about removal of Herbert and implying that Herbert has expressed a preference for another driver to win. I find MBS is all over the place with his strange analogies, narratives and way of expressing himself. I’m not sure if it’s a cultural thing, and he’s done the same before with this often repeated narrative about how he is being attacked by the press when it’s really not the case. In short, MBS makes sh*t up and spouts cr*p.

 

He’s also a hypocrite. He says Herbert can’t express his point of view while playing the commissioner. I agree with that, but then why does MBS himself do that? He’s often expressing his view about drivers but plays the ultimate commissioner. Strange guy who probably has no inkling how strange he is.

 

Can't say I remember Herbert stating that about best case scenario.

I also wonder what MBS is talking about when he say "you can't be a journalist in a big company". Herbert hasn't worked for SkySports since 2022, and I wouldn't say the poker-website or that other gambling-site is being "a journalist in a big company" either.

All in all a strange couple of sentences there.

Edited by Myrvold, 09 February 2025 - 23:04.

[P123]

While I don’t have any problem with Herbert being removed as a steward, and also agree that stewards shouldn’t also act as a pundit and be commenting on drivers, nevertheless I find MBS’ take on it strange to say the least.

 

According to Spanish publication Marca, Ben Sulayem said: “Johnny was a very good commissioner, but then there was a conflict of interest and he knows that.

“You can’t be a journalist in a big company and express your point of view and then play the commissioner, who is a referee. You [might] say: ‘My best case scenario is that so-and-so wins.’

“And what if that driver you prefer has another driver in first or second place? How do you make your judgement?

“He understood [the decision] and he thanked the FIA [for the opportunity] and we thanked him for what he did.”

 

Firstly, did Herbert actually say “My best case scenario is that driver X wins”? I don’t recall this. So MBS is drawing this whole narrative in a direct discussion about removal of Herbert and implying that Herbert has expressed a preference for another driver to win. I find MBS is all over the place with his strange analogies, narratives and way of expressing himself. I’m not sure if it’s a cultural thing, and he’s done the same before with this often repeated narrative about how he is being attacked by the press when it’s really not the case. In short, MBS makes sh*t up and spouts cr*p.

 

He’s also a hypocrite. He says Herbert can’t express his point of view while playing the commissioner. I agree with that, but then why does MBS himself do that? He’s often expressing his view about drivers but plays the ultimate commissioner. Strange guy who probably has no inkling how strange he is.

 

Slight double standards there from MBS, but no real surprise.  I doubt it is clear in his own head either as to why they decided Herbert could no longer act as a steward, likely due to a bit of external pressure.  I certainly don't recall Herbert expressing a preference. However, as expressing an opinion on the current field is frowned up (understandable), then I'd expect that to disqualify a good number of those who have acted as driver stewards previously.  It will be something to watch in the coming season.  

[P123]

But Liuzzi praising Red Bull (and blaming Berger for his exit from Toro Rosso, and thanking Marko & Mateschitz for all they have done) is fine?

 

 

I'll repeat this. 10 second penalty was not an "exaggerated penalty". It was, on request from drivers/teams, decided before 2024 that the standard penalty for driving infringements would be raised from 5 sec to 10 sec. In every race in 2024, except for the USGP in Austin, 10 sec were the default penalty. In Austin the penalties were 5 sec for some reason. (Or, the reason are mentioned in the steward docs but... ye). It was the USGP that had lenient penalties. Not Mexico being exaggerated.

 

 

Ah, this reminds me of this "Garry Connelly, or the steward that will kill Verstappen chances" before the Abu Dhabi GP in 2021. I think if you put milk out in the sun in the summer it will last better than that one... The three examples of bias is Japan 2016 (which is one of the weirdest things ever) and, eh, Saudi Arabia 2021 and, uhm *checking* penalizing Verstappen for overtaking Räikkönen while cutting the track.
Conveniently forgetting the non-race at Spa. Then he was the head steward that accepted the handling of Abu Dhabi. That sounds more like a steward who isn't biased, but rather a "my way or the highway". But sure. Herbert is biased in favor of all brits. Mayer is biased in favor of McLaren because his dad was forced out of McLaren 40 years ago (ignoring all that Mayer have done in racing officiating himself), Connelly is biased against Verstappen because reasons. But former Red Bull employees among the stewards are no issues? 

There is a double standard here I feel. It's also interesting how Herbert somehow is able to sway the other stewards, but when the "biased" head stewards are working, the driver stewards are unable to sway the others.

 

 

Can't say I remember Herbert stating that about best case scenario.

I also wonder what MBS is talking about when he say "you can't be a journalist in a big company". Herbert hasn't worked for SkySports since 2022, and I wouldn't say the poker-website or that other gambling-site is being "a journalist in a big company" either.

All in all a strange couple of sentences there.

 

This all festers up from the notion that Max is hard done by, which stems from being penalised for swearing and also his own infringements in Mexico.  In the first instance, the FIA come out with some daft swearing directive which Max very purposefully chose to test the waters with.... and gets hit with attending some FIA PR event as part of the FIA Gala nonsense.  Not exactly a punishment, nor infringing on his spare time.  Window dressing really.  We've heard Max's contempt for the stewards over the radio in the past, and also his recent commentary relating to the upside of taking a penalty for a foul.  In Mexico he had a rather large part to play in all of that, so again, owns his own actions.  There were other 10s penalties throughout the year, including to Norris. And then there were the ones that Max got away with- investigated three times for impeding without punishment, had his lock up and contact in Hungary waved away by the stewards (a panel that included Connelly and Liuzzi).  And Herbert became the scapegoat for all the ire, out of what generally seems to be a limited view. 

[Heyli]

I dont think Verstappen is hard done by at all by the stewards. I would say that on average he probably came off more lenient than he should have over all the incidents (not by much), which I wouldnt appoint to bias, but just to Stewards being inconsistent.

 

I also dont think Herbert was biased in his decisions at all, but I do think some of his comments in the media were misplaced considering he is also an active stewards as they can (as we see quite obviously) feed the perception of bias.

[krea]

Verstappen wasn't even the first one talking about biased stewards, it was Alonso who complained about several decisions by the stewards. But interesting that specific people can only focus on Verstappen - also AD21. 

[IrvTheSwerve]

Verstappen wasn't even the first one talking about biased stewards, it was Alonso who complained about several decisions by the stewards. But interesting that specific people can only focus on Verstappen - also AD21. 

Can you explain what AD21 has anything to do with this please?

[krea]

Can you explain what AD21 has anything to do with this please?

Ask the person who talked about AD21

[Myrvold]

Verstappen wasn't even the first one talking about biased stewards, it was Alonso who complained about several decisions by the stewards. But interesting that specific people can only focus on Verstappen - also AD21. 

 

Alonso went on about "Anti-Spanish" bias in Miami, but it was in a situation where he felt Hamilton should've had a penalty, and where the stewards were from Singapore, Barbados, Italy and the US. It didn't really stick. Probably because it is hard to see what those stewards should have against Spanish drivers in particular. Why it was "anti-Spanish" to not penalize Hamilton and creating a hypothetical situation that if he had swapped placed with Hamilton he would've had a penalty. He also felt that the FIA were against Spanish drivers after he got a penalty for an incident with Sainz. That one is also hard to see as it was Spanish v Spanish, and with stewards from India, France, Italy and China it is hard put any weight to it.

He did this again after Qatar, where he said that if he had been in Russell's seat, it would've been a different verdict because he is Spanish.
If Sainz had been hard done by, it could've carried weight, but that's not the case.

 

It's the Verstappen claims/reactions that have cause a stir and also caused stewards to lose their role. Herbert is one, due to comments on a gambling site. While Tim Mayer was fired after MBS apparently didn't like how he handled the USGP track invasion. Incidentally, those are the two that have had the most flak from fans for being "anti-Verstappen".

[PrinceBira]

But Liuzzi praising Red Bull (and blaming Berger for his exit from Toro Rosso, and thanking Marko & Mateschitz for all they have done) is fine?

Huh, where did I say this?

I'll repeat this. 10 second penalty was not an "exaggerated penalty". It was, on request from drivers/teams, decided before 2024 that the standard penalty for driving infringements would be raised from 5 sec to 10 sec. In every race in 2024, except for the USGP in Austin, 10 sec were the default penalty. In Austin the penalties were 5 sec for some reason. (Or, the reason are mentioned in the steward docs but... ye). It was the USGP that had lenient penalties. Not Mexico being exaggerated.

10s for that specific infraction had not been given the entire year. Because every other instance had ‘mitigating circumstances’ afaik.

[New Britain]

 

I am extremely serious and yes, we are talking about THE Garry Connelly, did you not look at the link to this very forum discussing his bias https://forums.autos...er-japanese-gp/ with members finding him to cross the ethics line.

 

Summary

 

• In a first meeting, three out of four stewards decided not to penalize Verstappens' move. Only Gary Connelly wanted a penalty.

• Connelly didn't want to accept the decision, so he went to the Mercedes motorhome to try to convince Toto Wolff and Niki Lauda to protest.

• At that moment, Wolff and Lauda had already left the circuit, so Paddy Lowe and Ron Meadows decided to yield and file the protest.

• A "furious" Toto Wolff mandated the protest to be withdrawn, as soon as he heard about it.

 

• Link http://www.autobild....v-10881067.html

 

And this is Saward's understanding of what happened:

 

'Thus stories of one steward being outvoted by the others lie somewhere between supposition and utter fantasy. I did look into the whole thing and it appears that the steward (Garry Connelly) met Paddy Lowe of Mercedes in the Paddock a couple of hours after the race was finished. Lowe seems to have expressed some frustration that Verstappen had not been penalised. Verstappen was spoken to by the stewards after the race, but in an unofficial manner. He then departed the track. Connelly seems to have told Lowe that if a team does not agree with a steward’s decision they have a right to protest (as long as the protest is made within a hour of the decision).'

 

Regardless of which version is correct, you appear not to grasp the fundamental point here. Even if your version were correct, it would not imply - let alone prove - that Connelly had an anti-Verstappen bias. Rather, if correct, it would suggest that Connelly did not have a pro-Verstappen bias, which would be a very different thing, just as my examples of Spa21 and AD21, whilst far more compelling than your example, do not suggest that Connelly has a pro-Verstappen bias, but rather suggest that he does not have the anti-Verstappen bias that you allege.

[New Britain]

Herbert is not referring to the stewards when he says "I wasn't the only one to think" because he names Zak and Lando as the people that agreed with him directly afterwards. If he was talking about the stewards, he would have named them in this discussion, which he did not. 

 

Its like a judge saying, I am not the only one thinking X is guilty, the prosecution think so too..

 

Wholly and utterly biased.

Your analogy is a poor one.

Norris and Brown would not be 'prosecutors'. The closest thing to a prosecutor would have been the Race Director who referred Verstappen's action to the Stewards.

To continue the criminal court analogy that you introduced, Norris would be the victim and Brown would be a witness.

[New Britain]

Apart from the fact that it looks bad, how can a Steward argue his decision was right by referring to the opinion of two persons involved that have an interest in penalizing the other driver?

Surely, they cannot be considered objective.

I could not say why Herbert cited those two. At least two of the Stewards themselves agreed with him, hence the penalty.

 

It's funny. When Johnny Herbert said this:

 

‘Personally, I just saw it as hard racing, and I loved that about Max,’

 

and this:

 

'I am such a big fan of Verstappen...',

 

I do not recall you, or anyone else now participating in this thread, arguing that Johnny Herbert should be sacked as a steward because of his self-evident pro-Verstappen bias.

Did I miss something?

[DRSwing]

While I don’t have any problem with Herbert being removed as a steward, and also agree that stewards shouldn’t also act as a pundit and be commenting on drivers, nevertheless I find MBS’ take on it strange to say the least.

 

According to Spanish publication Marca, Ben Sulayem said: “Johnny was a very good commissioner, but then there was a conflict of interest and he knows that.

“You can’t be a journalist in a big company and express your point of view and then play the commissioner, who is a referee. You [might] say: ‘My best case scenario is that so-and-so wins.’

“And what if that driver you prefer has another driver in first or second place? How do you make your judgement?

“He understood [the decision] and he thanked the FIA [for the opportunity] and we thanked him for what he did.”

 

Firstly, did Herbert actually say “My best case scenario is that driver X wins”? I don’t recall this. So MBS is drawing this whole narrative in a direct discussion about removal of Herbert and implying that Herbert has expressed a preference for another driver to win. I find MBS is all over the place with his strange analogies, narratives and way of expressing himself. I’m not sure if it’s a cultural thing, and he’s done the same before with this often repeated narrative about how he is being attacked by the press when it’s really not the case. In short, MBS makes sh*t up and spouts cr*p.

 

He’s also a hypocrite. He says Herbert can’t express his point of view while playing the commissioner. I agree with that, but then why does MBS himself do that? He’s often expressing his view about drivers but plays the ultimate commissioner. Strange guy who probably has no inkling how strange he is.

https://www.si.com/f...ce-01jjek3j009ng

From the article :
“FIA steward and former F1 driver Johnny Herbert has opened up about a "perfect scenario" in the 2025 season, admitting that he would like seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton to win his eighth championship title, especially after his Ferrari arrival. However, the former F1 driver predicts McLaren Racing to be the winner this year, considering its dominant form from last year when it won the Constructors' Championship for the first time since 1998.

….

Speaking on his predictions for the 2025 season, Herbert said: “Yes, I think Lewis Hamilton winning the championship this year would be the perfect scenario.”

This was from a few days before the announcement of Herbert’s removal from his role as a steward. Might have been the last straw. 

 

[MikeTekRacing]

https://www.si.com/f...ce-01jjek3j009ng
From the article :
“FIA steward and former F1 driver Johnny Herbert has opened up about a "perfect scenario" in the 2025 season, admitting that he would like seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton to win his eighth championship title, especially after his Ferrari arrival. However, the former F1 driver predicts McLaren Racing to be the winner this year, considering its dominant form from last year when it won the Constructors' Championship for the first time since 1998.
….
Speaking on his predictions for the 2025 season, Herbert said: “Yes, I think Lewis Hamilton winning the championship this year would be the perfect scenario.”

This was from a few days before the announcement of Herbert’s removal from his role as a steward. Might have been the last straw.

Nothing to see here
No evidence of preference and bias.
;))

[PrinceBira]

I could not say why Herbert cited those two. At least two of the Stewards themselves agreed with him, hence the penalty.

It's funny. When Johnny Herbert said this:

‘Personally, I just saw it as hard racing, and I loved that about Max,’

and this:

'I am such a big fan of Verstappen...',

I do not recall you, or anyone else now participating in this thread, arguing that Johnny Herbert should be sacked as a steward because of his self-evident pro-Verstappen bias.
Did I miss something?

Funny, I said from the beginning that Stewards cannot have media positions. Your examples are a great example of that.

It seemd you forgot my post which you quoted only a few days ago? :-).

Decision makers in such institutions cannot hold a role in the media domain where they freely speak about how they feel about the people they have been judging, are judging and will be judging. Doing so has a very high risk of trust erosion - after all if we hear there feelings about the people under their judgement - who they like, don’t like, what they think psychologically of them, whom they refer to substantiate their decisions (‘see, he’s in my corner’), the trust in objectivity starts to drop.

Thanks for bringing another good example to this discussion.

[PrinceBira]

Speaking on his predictions for the 2025 season, Herbert said: “Yes, I think Lewis Hamilton winning the championship this year would be the perfect scenario.”

I completely missed that Herbert said this.

Case in point, discussion over.

[JBJ]

https://www.si.com/f...ce-01jjek3j009ng

From the article :
“FIA steward and former F1 driver Johnny Herbert has opened up about a "perfect scenario" in the 2025 season, admitting that he would like seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton to win his eighth championship title, especially after his Ferrari arrival. However, the former F1 driver predicts McLaren Racing to be the winner this year, considering its dominant form from last year when it won the Constructors' Championship for the first time since 1998.

….

Speaking on his predictions for the 2025 season, Herbert said: “Yes, I think Lewis Hamilton winning the championship this year would be the perfect scenario.”

This was from a few days before the announcement of Herbert’s removal from his role as a steward. Might have been the last straw. 

 

That's just terrible

[New Britain]

Funny, I said from the beginning that Stewards cannot have media positions. Your examples are a great example of that.

It seemd you forgot my post which you quoted only a few days ago? :-).


Thanks for bringing another good example to this discussion.

You fail to understand the distinction between a), whether a given steward has, in his punditry, manifested bias, and b), whether there should be a blanket ban on stewards as pundits.

There are biased court judges - does that mean that there should be no court judges?

There are bent cops - does that mean that we should not have police?

 

In the examples given above, Herbert has evinced bias in favour of both Verstappen ('I'm such a big fan of Verstappen') and Hamilton ('Hamilton winning the championship...would be the perfect scenario'). By making those statements, he has shown preferences and leanings. Although he probably believes that, as a steward, he has always been entirely objective and fair (and indeed one is unaware of any stewards' ruling in which he was not objective and fair), by making the above statements he has unfortunately disqualified himself from being a steward.

If however he had not made such statements, there would be no reason why he should not be a steward.

[PrinceBira]

You fail to understand the distinction between a), whether a given steward has, in his punditry, manifested bias, and b), whether there should be a blanket ban on stewards as pundits.
There are biased court judges - does that mean that there should be no court judges?

Crucial point indeed, because in a legal system it is not necessary to prove the bias of a judge to recuse him, you need to prove that facts and circumstances are such that he could be biased.

That’s the standard of proof.

In the examples given above, Herbert has evinced bias in favour of both Verstappen ('I'm such a big fan of Verstappen') and Hamilton ('Hamilton winning the championship...would be the perfect scenario'). By making those statements, he has shown preferences and leanings. Although he probably believes that, as a steward, he has always been entirely objective and fair (and indeed one is unaware of any stewards' ruling in which he was not objective and fair), by making the above statements he has unfortunately disqualified himself from being a steward.
If however he had not made such statements, there would be no reason why he should not be a steward.

It’s part of being a pundit: you give your opinion on F1, teams and drivers. An opinion you shouldn’t share as a Steward, because it may create the appearance that you are not objective.

Can you give an example of any pundit in the history of F1 who only stated things that are reconcilable with being a Steward at the same time?

[Ruudbackus]

It's hard to combine the roles of official and tv-pundit. That will always open up bias-statements. I remember that last year a video was shown of Alonso and Herbert after the first got a penalty. Wether it was deserved or not it eats at the integrity of the stewards (which is something I don't hold them high on btw). Herberts comments after Mexico didn't help in that matter. The above quated statements about Hamilton and ferrari are made by a race-fan but you cannot let that fan then continue to judge the sport because in each and every debatable decision that will pop up. In the end Herbert dug that grave for himself. 

 

 

You can also say something about Warwick then (the great white hope) but for other reasons. I think it's inevitable to not have some sort of bias in the stewards room, even if we would go to permanent stewards. 

[BobbyRicky]

Cant run around talking smack about drivers as a TV-personality if you are part-timing as a steward. Simple stuff really.

[PrinceBira]

It's hard to combine the roles of official and tv-pundit. That will always open up bias-statements. I remember that last year a video was shown of Alonso and Herbert after the first got a penalty. Wether it was deserved or not it eats at the integrity of the stewards (which is something I don't hold them high on btw). Herberts comments after Mexico didn't help in that matter. The above quated statements about Hamilton and ferrari are made by a race-fan but you cannot let that fan then continue to judge the sport because in each and every debatable decision that will pop up. In the end Herbert dug that grave for himself.


You can also say something about Warwick then (the great white hope) but for other reasons. I think it's inevitable to not have some sort of bias in the stewards room, even if we would go to permanent stewards.

Yeah agreed. Being 100% unbiased is impossible (unless we’d use AI or so - and even then you could have questions how the model is trained).

Nevertheless, the appearance of bias should be avoided whatsoever. And a simple governance rule is that Stewards shouldn’t have media visible roles.

Underlying issue seems to be they don’t get paid for their work. It’s a serious role with massive impact on the outcome of the races. They should be compensated well for that. Just to make the connection to other sports. Football referees in the UK have a base salary of 73k - 148k gbp, exclusive of match fees (gbp 1,100) and other performance bonuses. Champion L matches have much higher mats fees and World Cup even higher (up to 100k).

Top Tier referees in La Liga earn up to 350k.

And then we have F1 where you get a Sandwich and a hotel expensed…

[New Britain]

Crucial point indeed, because in a legal system it is not necessary to prove the bias of a judge to recuse him, you need to prove that facts and circumstances are such that he could be biased.

That’s the standard of proof.


It’s part of being a pundit: you give your opinion on F1, teams and drivers. An opinion you shouldn’t share as a Steward, because it may create the appearance that you are not objective.

Can you give an example of any pundit in the history of F1 who only stated things that are reconcilable with being a Steward at the same time?

Re judges: anyone on Earth 'could be' biased, and often there is no way of knowing whether he or she actually is biased. The mere theoretical possibility in itself is insufficient to bar someone from judging. There needs to be evidence of a specific reason why the judge may be biased.

 

Re pundits: I cannot recall a time when Bernie Collins has manifested any bias for or against a team or driver.

However even if there were no precedent, that fact would be meaningless because normal pundits have always been free to express preferences and indeed in many circumstances are encouraged to do so. If a steward were to offer punditry, he or she would be expected to refrain from implying any sort of preference - a constraint that has never applied to pundits before.

 

 

For NFL games broadcast on CBS in the States, a former senior referee named Gene Steratore is employed as a rules analyst. Several times a game he will be called on to give his opinion on whether a grey-area incident will or will not be called as a penalty, and also after the penalty decision has been made he will sometimes say whether he thinks the decision was right or wrong. The viewer has absolutely no idea whether Steratore likes or dislikes a given player or team. So there is a place for expert explanation of the rules and commentary on referees' and stewards' rulings. In this case it is true that Steratore is no longer an active referee, but the point is that it is perfectly possible for experts to provide insight without the slightest hint that they are biased.

[7MGTEsup]

This is a stretch. But, it is possible to like someone and be objective in analysing if something they did was within the ruels of what they are doing.

 

Just thought I would put that out there.

[MikeTekRacing]

The viewer has absolutely no idea whether Steratore likes or dislikes a given player or team. So there is a place for expert explanation of the rules and commentary on referees' and stewards' rulings. In this case it is true that Steratore is no longer an active referee, but the point is that it is perfectly possible for experts to provide insight without the slightest hint that they are biased.

those are quite differentiating points. The biggest one is Herbert is an active steward, and involved in the decision he is ruling publicly. 

Herbert makes his allegiances public in his interviews. 

The NFL analyst always judges on call at a time. One event at a time is something which Herbert does not. He should as I think his points will be valuable.

[New Britain]

those are quite differentiating points. The biggest one is Herbert is an active steward, and involved in the decision he is ruling publicly. 

Herbert makes his allegiances public in his interviews. 

The NFL analyst always judges on call at a time. One event at a time is something which Herbert does not. He should as I think his points will be valuable.

Hasn't Herbert done that at least part of the time? He has certainly commented on specific incidents involving Verstappen.

[New Britain]

This is a stretch. But, it is possible to like someone and be objective in analysing if something they did was within the ruels of what they are doing.

 

Just thought I would put that out there.

I'm pretty confident that all the stewards believe that they are objective and fair, and that they treat everyone equally, but (at least) all the driver stewards have friends on the teams, and almost certainly friends amongst the twenty drivers as well.

The irony is that, by allowing the driver stewards to do punditry, or to submit to journalists' scrutiny and answer questions, the public would be better placed to judge whether a given steward is objective and unbiased. How do we know that Johnny Herbert might be biased in favour of Hamilton and Verstappen? Because in so many words he told us so. It would not be possible to conclude that from his rulings alone, and yet rulings alone are our only evidence of the mentalities of all the other stewards.

[krea]

Ironically Herbert stated in an interview with a betting website that Verstappen is to blame for losing his position. Crazy

[Cliff]

Ironically he admitted to the exact reason as to why he was ****ed off.

 

"I keep reading about the supposed bias. I read that and then wonder, 'so I can't support a British driver because I'm British?' I can't support Lewis or George or Lando. It’s ridiculous.

 

"But coming the other way is fine apparently as was the case in what happened with me.

"If you’re a Dutchman, you can sort of have a go at the Brits and say the Brits have got no real morals for how they are as race fans. It’s supposed to go both ways isn’t it."

[PrinceBira]

The gift that keeps giving I guess…

[krea]

The Dutch media are also biased is always a claim which is stated in British circles (nice to see so many Dutch speaking people under the British) but people never provide examples of hostile behavior like it is common and accepted in British media. We are talking about the same media which told us that Vettel‘s finger showing was insulting to everyone and their mothers.