Australian GP 2009 - Race 1/17 (NOT in HD BTW)
- Thread starter jaykay
- Start date
Anyone who suggested that the FIA would change the result of the race twice last weekend would have been called a fool...
I dont see why what anyone said should have any bearing on it, the facts are there in the telemetry and the recordings of the radio communications, and the decision should be based entirely on that. If you comit a murder and then lie about it, you dont get put into prison for the lieing, you get put in prison for the murder!
If Hamilton is deemed to have broken the rules, penalise him 25s like Trulli, if he didnt brake the rules but lied, who cares... its not his ability totell the truth that dictated the result!
Yes, if you withold evidence. The fact is all the evidence already existed. Anything Hamilton said that wasnt true could have been proved so by the recordings, but they werent used.
The difference is this:
You get done for murder and make up a story that you were out fo the country, the eventually find out your lying and you get charged with murder and perverting the course of justice.
OR
You get done for murder and they have you on film doing it, yet you still make up a story that you were out of the country. The evidence just proves you wrong, but you arent charged with perverting the course of justice.
Hamilton is the second. The thought that a prosecutor would go into court without having reviewed all the evidence is unheard of, so why should the FIA be able to make decisions without having viewed or heard the evidence they have. Why would anyone from McLaren have not expected the FIA to have heard the radio convorsations, even considering that Hamilton himself mentioned them to the BBC pit presenter woman straight after the race! If he thought the general public had heard, its fairly safe to assume the FIA would have heard to.
Last edited:
Soldato
Erm what? This is motor racing managed by the FIA and their rule book. It's not a court of law
Man of Honour
Bit silly of McLaren/Hamilton to deny a conversation ever took place when it is all recorded!
Erm what? This is motor racing managed by the FIA and their rule book. It's not a court of law
I was just extending his metaphore of it being a murder
I see your point better now Skeeter, one wonders exactly how they managed to miss these fairly critical bits of evidence first time round...
I dont think they ever denied it, they just didnt mention it. If its because they assumed the FIA already knew about it, then whats the problem?
Regardless of what happened, its stuck a great big black mark on what promised to be such an exciting season.
Im convinced the FIA will find the diffusers illegal and disqualify Williams, Toyota and Brawn from the first 2 races anyway. Its been proved today that the stewards decisions mean squat.
Soldato
I wonder why they have not released a transcript of the first stewards meeting?
I would love to read that.
I would love to read that.
I agree.
We KNOW what happened on the radio and on the track (atleast the Trulli falling off the road bit) but we dont have any proof as to what was said or asked in the Stewards hearing. Going on proof alone, I cannot see what Hamilton did wrong, and think if there as some confusion then the result should just be to put Trulli back to 4th with Hamilton 3rd.
Unfortunately, clear cut cases with all the proof are not something F1 is good at. 90% of the so called 'facts' are just what people have been told or made up or guessed.
![[TW]Taggart](/styles/overclockers/avatars/4.png){kind=avatar}
Associate
- Joined
- 29 May 2005
- Posts
- 1,006
I home MM reconsider and apeal. This really is a farce.
[TW]Taggart;13808119 said:
It makes sence as to why they dont. History shows that if MM make an appeal the outcome gets WORSE for them, not better. They have probubly reached the "screw it, if we challenge it they will just throw us out so may as well just put up with the **** and get on with racing" stage. I know I would
Soldato
Here, you dropped your race card.
Oh and God forbid the stewards actually believed the world champion would be telling the truth.
It's clearly all the FIA's fault, they made Hamilton and McLaren not tell the whole truth. I blame Max Mosley's Nazi hooker friends tbh, we all know the Nazi's hated the blacks too.
Soldato
From the FIA's statement it seems clear they asked 'Did you let Trulli past, and where you told to' they answered 'No' that was a lie.
No they wont, Williams have clarification from the FIA of the rules about the diffusers. The only thing Williams may not have asked is about the hole in the diffuser.
But the point I make is how is this even relivant as to wether or not Trulli passing Hamilton on track was illegal?! If the telemetry shows Hamilton didnt stop to let him past, and Trulli took it on himself to pass, then he was rightfully punished. The fact is one car passed another, what was being talked about at that time and what was said about that convorsation later has no effect on the physical act of passing a car!
Basically, Hamilton has been DQ'ed for either not stating fully or not stating correctly what he was saying on the radio... which sets a very dangerous presedense. If a Driver doesnt tell the truth for trivial things like "did you fart in the race?" are we going to see them excluded too?
Soldato
Exactly, maybe he just did not state it firmly as he knew the stewards/FIA whatever have the recordings anyway.
I think there are just too many rules and regulations which kill the sport
Soldato
He got DSQ for not telling the truth to the stewards, it is quite clearly in the rules, someone quoted it a couple of pages back.
Not punishing him sets an even worse precedent, then you can no longer rely on anything anyone says.
Soldato
Here i found it for you
Yeah i agree, following the rules is a dangerous precedent isn't it.
Yeah i agree, following the rules is a dangerous precedent isn't it.
Soldato
I think the FIA's point (God, I hate having to defend those *******) was that Hamilton and McLaren's testimony initially lead to Trulli getting penalised. When it turned out that they were less than truthful, and by being less than truthful had caused someone to be penalised when they shouldn't have been, they threw the book at them.
Caporegime
But nothing they said has anything to do with whether Trulli deserved to be penalised.