@4minutes apparently Lewis did not lie, he gave technically correct answers that deliberately misled.

That doesnt stack up with the FIA statement.

So, after the race he gives an interview to SPEEDTV saying he let Trulli past. He then goes for the meeting with the stewards and on the way Ryan tells him to say he didn't let Trulli past. How monumentally stupid is that?

Quote from nihil :

That's pretty much how it sounds here...

Or somewhere else. I read that stuff after formulating my opinion and thought it was funny, but not surprising. In this case the official truth is the one most believable in my opinion.

The fact that Hamilton did what he was told to is obvious, but it doesn't make it more honourable or, given the outcome and the presence of undeniable evidence that could eventually surface, less stupid. The blame goes to Ryan and Hamilton won't suffer for a poor decision, but his lack of public direct apologies especially to Trulli is revealing. Maybe Coulthard is right:

"There are always the drivers who see things only for themselves," the Red Bull advisor and TV pundit said. "Ayrton Senna was one, Michael Schumacher as well, and Lewis is probably made the same way."


Edit: DWB, I don't think you're in the position to judge what other people would have done... I live my life and I'm not Lewis Hamilton and I don't think winning is more important than everything, so cheating can be part of the game. Each one has his own heroes and I choose my knights in white shiny armour outside of the (un)sporting world. So yes, I can say I wouldn't have done it, but probably even if I had the talent and the occasion I would never have gotten to the pinnacle of motorsports for the same reason.

Quote from BenjiMC :

Hamilton did what he was told to do by his bosses. Simple as that.

Which is what I've been saying all along. (not insinuating that you didn't agree in the first place).

And so much for Hamilton being arrogant, he's apologizing to almost everyone.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Which is what I've been saying all along. (not insinuating that you didn't agree in the first place).

And so much for Hamilton being arrogant, he's apologizing to almost everyone.

He's apologetic because he doesn't want to appear in a bad light so that he can keep all of his sponsorship deals and fan club members. I'm highly cynical so I don't believe what he said in the interview, but I think most people who aren't looking through rose tinted glasses can see that what Hamilton was doing there was damage limitation on the PR side of things. Saying "I'm not a liar, I'm not a dishonest person" AFTER you've been caught lying and being dishonest does not forgive your sins. Can Hamilton do no wrong in your eyes?

Something to bear in mind here is Hungary 2007. Hamilton agreed to let Alonso past in Quali, he was told to do so by the team and he didn't do it. So, he says he does what the team tell him to do without thinking about it?

Ben, I understand what you're saying about the pressure of the environment and doing what your bosses say, but think about it for a second. He did a public interview where he said he let Trulli past. Then he's told by the team to say he didn't let Trulli past. Surely the thing to do there is to inform your bosses you've already told the media and to say you're not going to perjure yourself infront of the stewards? It makes no sense to try and lie your way into getting 3rd place when you stand to lose a lot more than the 1 point you're trying to cheat your way into.

Quote from amp88 :

He's apologetic because he doesn't want to appear in a bad light so that he can keep all of his sponsorship deals and fan club members.

In the interests of rational discourse, could you set out exactly what Hamilton would actually need to do or say, to invoke something along the lines of an "okay, sorted" or some such from you?

Well Amp, it seems like you're looking through thorn-tinted glass, doesn't matter what Hamilton does, you're still gonna have it in for him, what's the point being completely biased and not giving a fair judgement?

Quote from SamH :

In the interests of rational discourse, could you set out exactly what Hamilton would actually need to do or say, to invoke something along the lines of an "okay, sorted" or some such from you?

If he had told the truth in the stewards inquiry and accepted the 4th place in the first place.

He cheated, he got caught, he apologised and blamed it on his team manager. He's not taking any responsibility.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well Amp, it seems like you're looking through thorn-tinted glass, doesn't matter what Hamilton does, you're still gonna have it in for him, what's the point being completely biased and not giving a fair judgement?

Rose tinted glasses mean you look past bad points or negative aspects about something. What I'm doing is looking at the facts of the matter and coming to a conclusion. You seem to be ignoring the facts if you think Hamilton is innocent in all of this.

Quote from SamH :

In the interests of rational discourse, could you set out exactly what Hamilton would actually need to do or say, to invoke something along the lines of an "okay, sorted" or some such from you?

I had the same sort of reaction initially, like "well of course he's going to say that". But then like you I thought, well what can he say even if he's genuinely apologetic if that's the reaction that what he has said provokes. Can someone not honestly apologise without the apology being deemed false, just because he would have motive to make a false apology?

Perhaps not.

Of course it's suspect, he has a lot of reasons to make the apology. Anyone that thought he knowingly did something dishonest before this most likely will only have a worse opinion of him now.

Quote from amp88 :

If he had told the truth in the stewards inquiry and accepted the 4th place in the first place.

He cheated, he got caught, he apologised and blamed it on his team manager. He's not taking any responsibility.

He said he was misled and apologized for being misled, what MORE do you want!? HONESTLY.

Quote from BlueFlame :

He said he was misled and apologized for being misled, what MORE do you want!? HONESTLY.

For him to think for himself? He knew what he said to the TV and he immediately contradicted that in a stewards inquiry. Do you not understand that?

Quote from amp88 :

For him to think for himself? He knew what he said to the TV and he immediately contradicted that in a stewards inquiry. Do you not understand that?

So now your 'looking out for him' are you? Clearly you have something against him and he can never live up to your expectations.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Clearly you have something against him and he can never live up to your expectations.

It's the opposite actually. I know that he can drive, I've said so in the past. I've acknowledged he's put in some very good performances. It seems to me that it's you who can't recognise when he does something wrong.

If you want to know where this whole problem.. the whole situation has stemmed from, it's very simple. Lewis let Trulli through out of fear of retribution from the FIA. Experience has shown that, IF the FIA can stick something on Hamilton and/or McLaren, they will. This episode proves to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the whole McLaren TEAM sees it that way.

There was no reason to let Trulli though. Lewis knew it at the time, the team on the radio knew it as well. The ONLY reason why they'd instruct Lewis to surrender 3rd is fear. The FIA's recent history of disproportionate punishment for the team has obviously created a bully vs geek scenario.

I find it rather disappointing that McLaren have done what they did. I also know that they KNEW that 3rd should have been theirs, and that the only reason it wasn't theirs at the end of the race was because of their own knee trembling before the FIA/stewards, and because the race director was so slack-arsed he didn't get back to the team to say it was okay to re-pass Trulli by the time the race ended.

So HaMcLaren, deserving of 3rd, instinctively answered the stewards' questions "technically" correctly but conversationally misleading, effectively taking what WAS rightly theirs.

Quote from SamH :

So HaMcLaren, deserving of 3rd, instinctively answered the stewards' questions "technically" correctly but conversationally misleading, effectively taking what WAS rightly theirs.

And in the process they completely forgot about Trulli being unjustly sacked of his rightful 4th position, going by your logic. Homo Homini Lupus. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

Quote from Albieg :

And in the process they completely forgot about Trulli being unjustly sacked of his rightful 4th position, going by your logic. Homo Homini Lupus. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.

I don't think McLaren's intention was to drop Trulli in it. Trulli should have stayed behind Hami though. He ALSO knew that Hami's pass had been legitimate - he was the one that went off the track, after all. If Hami could drive slowly under a SC, I'm damn sure Trulli could. Hami didn't stop on the track and he didn't pull off the track.

Right?

Quote from SamH :

I don't think McLaren's intention was to drop Trulli in it.

That's what they did.
And Trulli clearly stated he passed Hamilton because he was way more slow than the pace car, and didn't lie about it, and we know it.

Quote from Albieg :

That's what they did.

It was indirect.

Quote from SamH :

It was indirect.

And this should excuse or justify McLaren even if they knew the truth?
No matter how you call it, I call it unsporting behaviour. Anything else sounds just like an apology, taken in a strictly ethimological meaning.

Quote from Albieg :

And this should excuse or justify McLaren even if they knew the truth?

Quote from SamH :

I find it rather disappointing that McLaren have done what they did.

I'm neither excusing nor justifying. Christ knows F1 has all but obliterated the very last ounce of curiosity I have left in it, after the last 3 laughable years of internal politics and organizational amateurism. I'm observing. And only JUST observing. For now.

They let Trulli past and then after the race complained that he passed them.

The team made a mistake in letting Jarno through almost straight away - I say team because Hamilton seemed pretty aware he passed Trulli in a legal fashion. They rushed the decision, despite having two or three more laps to sort out what actually happened.

I also don't think the FIA are biased against McLaren, it's just that they seem blunderingly incompetent at times and bring it on themselves. I've watched F1 since 1998 and in that time McLaren must be second only to Tom Walkinshaw and Arrows in completely peeing off their drivers and leaving a sour reputation around the paddock.

Quote from SamH :

I don't think McLaren's intention was to drop Trulli in it. Trulli should have stayed behind Hami though. He ALSO knew that Hami's pass had been legitimate - he was the one that went off the track, after all. If Hami could drive slowly under a SC, I'm damn sure Trulli could. Hami didn't stop on the track and he didn't pull off the track.

Right?

Hamilton was told by his team to let Trulli past. If we are to believe Hamilton follows his team's instructions then Hamilton would have done anything to let Trulli past. I don't understand the point you're making. If Hamilton believed he was in the right keeping 3rd position (which he was at this point) he would have told the team to consult the FIA before giving up the position. They were under the safety car with several minutes to make the decision.

Quote from Albieg :

And Trulli clearly stated he passed Hamilton because he was way more slow than the pace car, and didn't lie about it, and we know it.

Trulli said he had to pass Hamilton because "he was way more slow than the pace car" http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/h ... t/formula_one/7979304.stm what pace car ?

Trulli also stated that he tried to do everything he could to avoid passing Hamilton....really ? Does it look like he's doing everything he can to avoid passing him ? [edit] Also, why didn't Trulli let Hamilton pass him again when he realised he may have overtaken him illegally ? there was still 3 laps of the race left, after all.

I'm splitting hairs i know, but, one could argue a case against Trulli being 'economical with the truth' on those statements when viewing the in-car footage.

As far as i see it, Mclaren took a dive in the box and hoped to get a penalty kick out of it, but failed, and have been punished for it (rightly so). It was wrong of them to 'lie', but, this is a professional sport, you'd have to be really nieve to believe this kind of stuff has never happened before, especially in F1, and even more of a fool to believe it won't happen again. But will we ever hear of future wrong-doings if it's not Mclaren doing the wrong-doing....ermmm


Edit @Amp88, see Sam's post 798 for the answer

Quote from amp88 :

If Hamilton believed he was in the right keeping 3rd position (which he was at this point) he would have told the team to consult the FIA before giving up the position.

Hamilton and/or the team letting Trulli through is learned behaviour.

Quote from SamH :

Lewis let Trulli through out of fear of retribution from the FIA. Experience has shown that, IF the FIA can stick something on Hamilton and/or McLaren, they will. This episode proves to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the whole McLaren TEAM sees it that way.

Quote from SamH :

Hamilton and/or the team letting Trulli through is learned behaviour.

rumour has it that both bernie and max are known only as the cigarette smoking men around the paddock these days