Quote from dungbeetle :

Well. I must admit that these responses are pretty much what I'd expected, given the circumstances.

Fair enough.

But I am of the opinion that the punishment for this 'crime' would most likely have been a slap on the wrist, (i.e. a driver/team fine) and a demotion back to fourth place, had this not been a Hamilton+McLaren incident.

I'm afraid history has made me a little bit cynical in these situations.

Well, we wouldn't know, as no other team/driver has been stupid enough to lie when there's clear evidence...

Quote from amp88 :

Pretty damning evidence which has already been posted in the Malaysian thread.

Thx, I hadn't seen the full wording. Of course the situation would still be clearer if the was an actual transcript of the Melbourne hearing available, but I guess even the FIA wouldn't make this stuff up completely. I just wonder wth Whitmarsh is on about?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

What I don't get is that they could have just kept 3rd instead of having Lewis slow to let Trulli by. It's not exactly a unknown rule that you can pass someone who goes off-track under SC. Certainly less controversial than trying to cover it up by "neglecting to mention" that they slowed to let him by.

And why not send someone to race control to clear things up on the spot if you're unsure? It's not like a F1-team can't spare one man for a moment...

Quote from Becky Rose :

Hamilton's penalty is for making the stewards look bad by not helping them to make the wrong decision, but if they hadnt been looking for a penalty to hand out for the sake of stirring up a controversy then they would not have ended up looking so bad, which does indeed make them look quite bad...

I think you're exactly right here. The stewards DID have access to the radio traffic log, they didn't use it. They looked stupid for it (rightly so) and have punished McLaren/Hamilton to cover up their own idiocy.

What McLaren have been punished for, according to the FIA, is "failure to mention, when questioned, something that WE might rely on in court" - which is a perversion of an already-perverse approach to the collection of evidence.

Quote from bbman :

And why not send someone to race control to clear things up on the spot if you're unsure? It's not like a F1-team can't spare one man for a moment...

If you listen to the team radio from the above link you can hear that the team told Hamilton let Trulli past then they started talking about seeking clarification from Charlie Whiting. They acted without seeking clarification then tried to lie about it when asked later.

Quote from 1993weeman :

I admit Hamilton is a good driver and has done well to get where he is now. But he is the most annoying driver there, and i cant belive he ired to get away with that, i cant believe that its shocking. No driver should ever do that and if another driver did that then i would be going mental at them even if he was my fav driver

I agree, I like Hamilton and whole Mclaren crew. But what they did in the hearing (lie) is load of bullship from them and really shames them in my oppinion.

Quote from J.B. :

Thx, I hadn't seen the full wording. Of course the situation would still be clearer if the was an actual transcript of the Melbourne hearing available, but I guess even the FIA wouldn't make this stuff up completely. I just wonder wth Whitmarsh is on about?

I don't think that would help since it seems the FIA is using what WASN'T said as the basis for the penalty. This being distinct from what they're directly implying was a "lie". In my opinion, it was an error of omission for good reason - the presumption that the stewards would refer to the radio traffic, since this would normally be pivotal in determining wrongdoing. Unfortunately I'm obviously demanding more of the stewards than they're capable of - to do their jobs properly.

Quote from SamH :

"failure to mention, when questioned, something that WE might rely on in court"

But that's Whitmarsh's version, not what the official FIA wording says. See amp88's link.

Quote from SamH :

I don't think that would help since it seems the FIA is using what WASN'T said as the basis for the penalty. This being distinct from what they're directly implying was a "lie". In my opinion, it was an error of omission for good reason - the presumption that the stewards would refer to the radio traffic, since this would normally be pivotal in determining wrongdoing. Unfortunately I'm obviously demanding more of the stewards than they're capable of - to do their jobs properly.

That was my first impression also. But the official wording is

Quote from FIA :

During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.

Even the FIA can't make that up. But of course they still look like amateurs. With today's technology they shouldn't have to rely on what McLaren have to say.

Quote from SamH :

I don't think that would help since it seems the FIA is using what WASN'T said as the basis for the penalty. This being distinct from what they're directly implying was a "lie".

Read the above link:

Quote from http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_stewards_decision.aspx :

Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.

That looks like a lie rather than an omission to me...

Sam, stop to look for a loophole so you can once again blame the FIA for McLaren's and Hamilton's wrongdoing - you make yourself look like a fool...

Hamilton is the innocent party in all of this. He kept asking on the radio transmission if it was legal or not to let Trulli repass etc, they didn't tell him to pass Trulli, but they told him to let Trulli back through. That's clear and in the interview above the radio transmission on that FiA link, it proves it. Whitmarsh is just making things more difficult by saying random things that don't clear anything up they just make things more uncertain and the FiA just don't really seem to know what is going on.

I dont get it, the radio clearly shows that McLaren contacted the FIA *BEFORE* they penalised Trulli



something is not right and I suspect that we as the fans do not have all of the jigsaw pieces to make an informed decision. We cannot be judge & jury. We can only guess, and I suspect that is a deliberate ploy of the FIA press machine.

Think cynical. It's all about the show.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Hamilton is the innocent party in all of this.

Apart from lying to the stewards.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Hamilton is the innocent party in all of this.

>Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given.

is it really that hard to read?

Quote from bbman :

Sam, stop to look for a loophole so you can once again blame the FIA for McLaren's and Hamilton's wrongdoing - you make yourself look like a fool...

I am a fool. Duh.

We don't have all the information, and we have two versions in the public domain that directly contradict each other. I AM pre-disposed to not trusting the FIA in its dealings with McLaren, but I make no apology for that given the history that's there.

Quote from J.B. :

Even the FIA can't make that up. But of course they still look like amateurs. With today's technology they shouldn't have to rely on what McLaren have to say.

I agree, that sounds pretty terminal. And I also agree that the FIA look like amateurs.

Quote from Shotglass :

>Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given.

is it really that hard to read?

What instruction? To pass Trulli? Hamilton of course is just going to stick to his contract and keep his job and say what ever McLaren tell him. McLaren are the dark horse NOT Lewis Hamilton, sure he can go against his team but he's got morals, they got him into F1 and he won't forget that in a hurry.

Quote from BlueFlame :

What instruction? To pass Trulli? Hamilton of course is just going to stick to his contract and keep his job and say what ever McLaren tell him. McLaren are the dark horse NOT Lewis Hamilton, sure he can go against his team but he's got morals, they got him into F1 and he won't forget that in a hurry.

He was asked by the stewards if he allowed Trulli to pass him and he said he didn't. Even though there's a radio conversation in the public domain where he said he actually did. Innocent? Nope...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Hamilton is the innocent party in all of this. ......

Not so. If what the FIA are saying is the truth then he explicitly lied to them after the race about whether he let Trulli passed. He said he hadn't, which meant that Trulli broke the rules and would get penalised. I refuse to believe that he didn't know the consequences of his lie, which makes him guilty of exactly what the FIA have penalised him for ie unsporting behaviour.

Even if that scenario didn't happen, he is still culpable through ommission. Clearly it's not standard procedure to go through radio communications, otherwise the stewards would have done so, and McLaren would have mentioned it so as not to be seen to be doing exactly what they did do. So because they didn't raise it with the stewards it's clear McLaren were banking on them not reviewing the radio commuincations and discovering the instruction to their driver. Hamilton, if he was honest should have come forward himself and made the stewards aware of the radio instruction, but he didn't either, so he lied through ommission in order to gain points. Same conclusion - unsporting behaviour.

Quote from amp88 :

He was asked by the stewards if he allowed Trulli to pass him and he said he didn't. Even though there's a radio conversation in the public domain where he said he actually did. Innocent? Nope...

The FiA are lying, why would they lie when the FiA are the people with the information to know if he is lying or not?

I find it odd how the FIA are sensationalising this. The releases and language used are somewhat provocative

Let's not forget that Schumacher in 06 lied to the stewards by pretending he had a problem with his car. This is no different, and considering it was of greater significance the FIA were much more low-key in their approach to his punishment.

Listening to the audio provided under amp88's link, it sounds like Hamilton is simply trying to establish whether or not he should be letting Trulli through.

Trulli drops it in front of him, and Hamilton goes past. He then asks over the radio if he needs to let Trulli back through because he assumes that when Trulli lost his place, they were under safety car rules. The team then say hang on, we're asking Charlie (who no doubt is frantically thumbing his way through the rule book for the answer). Given the events that took place last season, I can understand Hamilton's concerns over getting this right.

Presumably the key question at this point was, do we have to give the place back to someone who 'drops' it under the safety car?

So the team play it safe and let Trulli through.

The race ends.

OK. Here's the confusing bit.

After the race it's discovered that Hamilton did not in fact have to give the place back. (I don't know why - maybe because Trulli dropped it or maybe because at that time they were not yet actually under the safety car rules. Whatever. Perhaps someone can tell me.).

It turns out that Trulli got his place back in error, and that the correct result should have been Hamilton 3rd and Trulli 4th, so McLaren ask for the place back.

Yes, McLaren made a bad call at the time, and shouldn't have let Trulli through, but if you listen to the recording you can clearly hear the confusion present at the time.

But is this actually 'cheating'?

Quote from Intrepid :

I find it odd how the FIA are sensationalising this. The releases and language used are somewhat provocative

Let's not forget that Schumacher in 06 lied to the stewards by pretending he had a problem with his car. This is no different, and considering it was of greater significance the FIA were much more low-key in their approach to his punishment.

I'm with you on that one mate.

Quote from BlueFlame :

The FiA are lying, why would they lie when the FiA are the people with the information to know if he is lying or not?

Why wouldn't McLaren appeal the decision if they thought the FIA were lying? They're not appealing because they know they made a mistake and they know they'll lose.

Quote from dungbeetle :

But is this actually 'cheating'?

The cheating part is because they (Hamilton and Dave Ryan) both lied to the stewards, saying they hadn't let Trulli back through. IMO they were right to pass Trulli under the SC if Trulli left the track. They made a mistake by letting Trulli back through without consulting the FIA first.