FIA rejects Spa appeal as 'inadmissible'

Lewis Hamilton has failed in his bid to have his Belgian Grand Prix victory restored after the FIA judges declared that McLaren's appeal against his penalty was 'inadmissible'.


Much of yesterday's hearing in Paris had been devoted to arguments over whether the appeal was actually valid, with the court taking the unusual decision to hear all the evidence in the case before the judges debated whether the regulations even allowed for such an appeal to be considered.


Hamilton had 25s added to his race time in Belgium after the race stewards declared that he had not sufficiently conceded the advantage he gained when he cut across the Bus Stop chicane during a spectacular battle with Kimi Raikkonen.

McLaren's contention was that Hamilton backed off and allowed the Ferrari to move completely ahead before re-passing it under braking for the next corner, but the officials felt he had still been in an advantageous position due to his short-cut.

More info on here http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8417.html

Either you're a journalist in disguise, or you forgot to provide a link/credit to wherever you copied & pasted that from.

If you can't win an argument, declare the argument null and void.

This way the FIA gets nicely around the question of White's role... That outcomming should have been clear after yesterdays discussion. You can say to that cutting / overtaking thing what you want, but the way this was dealt with shows exactly what kind of "organisation" the FIA is.

Basicly we found out is: That the FIA can always throw out 25 seconds "drive through" penalties after a race for any reason and even when the reason is plain bullshit you can't do anything about it. Very clever.

They could have atleast gave Mclaren a fighting chance. After all, I wouldn't be surprised if this decides the championship.

Quote from three_jump :

Basicly we found out is: That the FIA can always throw out 25 seconds "drive through" penalties after a race for any reason and even when the reason is plain bullshit you can't do anything about it. Very clever.

well the rules are rules and have been like this for years
the fia doesnt exactly force f1 teams to race under their rules now do they?

Quote from Shotglass :

well the rules are rules and have been like this for years
the fia doesnt exactly force f1 teams to race under their rules now do they?

I call upon the testimony of a journalist:

Quote from Andrew Benson (BBC) :

Raikkonen three times ran off the track, arguably gaining an advantage each time, and not one of the incidents was even scrutinised.

im talking about the rule that drive throughs cant be appealed

plus a 25 second penalty on a 15th or whatever place wouldnt make much of a difference so that discussion has no point at all

That's irrelevant as the penalty was not a drivethrough - it was 25 seconds timed.

No it wasn't, the penalty was a drivethrough.

The 25 second penalty was only applied because the race had finished and so the drivethrough couldn't be served.

Quote from Shotglass :

well the rules are rules and have been like this for years
the fia doesnt exactly force f1 teams to race under their rules now do they?

And look how fast the changed the rules the last time and they prooved not useful.
It just leaves a bad taste when the at that moment responsible person says it should be ok and then after the race the same person sets the Stewards in action. If Whiting is not sure then he has to say so or stay with his decision. It's not like McLaren didn't want to do it right (well at least make sure that that pass was OK) while still having the chance to call Hamilton to drop back again.

Then they claim an after race decision as DT, knowing that this only results in a time penalty as the race was clearly over at that point (in which case apparently nobody can protest against a DT). You said it, the rule that you can't protest against a DT is not new, but I'm not sure if this has been the only option they had on that day...

If Hamilton had been driving a red car, things would likely be very different.

Joking, but you should never trust an organisation headed by someone with Nazi tendancies.

lol this is bulls**t

Quote from mythdat :

No it wasn't, the penalty was a drivethrough.

The 25 second penalty was only applied because the race had finished and so the drivethrough couldn't be served.

No, the 25 second penalty is not a drivethrough. It as a 25 second penalty instead of a drivethrough but not a drivethrough. IIRC didn't Liuzzi successfully appeal a 25 second penalty?

Quote from duke_toaster :

No, the 25 second penalty is not a drivethrough. It as a 25 second penalty instead of a drivethrough but not a drivethrough. IIRC didn't Liuzzi successfully appeal a 25 second penalty?

Read - second paragraph. http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2008/9/8417.html

Quote from three_jump :

And look how fast the changed the rules the last time and they prooved not useful.

i wouldnt call it change since its more of a clarification to get it in even the thickest skulls
also even if a change of rules might be a good idea as far as post race dts are concerned (the rule makes absolute sense with those served during the race) they werent changed and imho the rules of the day should apply

Quote :

It just leaves a bad taste when the at that moment responsible person says it should be ok and then after the race the same person sets the Stewards in action.

i havent seen anything that implies that whiting set the steward off and afaik they decide to look into incidents on their own accord

Quote :

but I'm not sure if this has been the only option they had on that day...

dunno im not sure what the overtaking off track rule says about the choice of penalties... anyone willing to search and copy paste it?

Quote from duke_toaster :

No, the 25 second penalty is not a drivethrough. It as a 25 second penalty instead of a drivethrough but not a drivethrough.

the rules are very clear that a dt handed out after the race is executed by adding 25 seconds so it is a dt

Quote :

IIRC didn't Liuzzi successfully appeal a 25 second penalty?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/63281

Quote from Shotglass :

i havent seen anything that implies that whiting set the steward off and afaik they decide to look into incidents on their own accord

http://www.motorsport-magazin. ... verworrene-wendungen.html (german)
http://www.motorsport-total.co ... von_Whiting_08091003.html (german)

Quote from Shotglass :

i havent seen anything that implies that whiting set the steward off and afaik they decide to look into incidents on their own accord

My understanding is that the stewards are normally directed by the race director to examine incidents. In cases of blatant breaches of the rules they can instigate investigations off their own backs. It's still a question of perspective whether or not Hamilton's action was blatant or a profound breach, though.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns20792.html

Just as a bit of a joke here.

FIA - Ferrari International Aid

I bet Bernie [I hate my own country] Ecelstone and the owner of ferrari have abit of bum fun.

It is obvious that Hamilton had no choice. What did they think he should do? Crash?

I bet they would have banned him from F1 if he did. And how can Kimi deserve to be given first. He fing crashed for f sake.

Kimi crashed.. he didn't win

Oh, and you forgot Max [my country hates me and my dad] Mosley

putting all the racing details aside, i would stake a weeks wages that this was just another stab at ron dennis and mclaren by the FIA and a certain "person" within that organisation.

Ron Dennis says he "has to believe" that it isn't. I suspect those words are carefully and deliberately chosen.

Whether or not there is a bias I really don't know. To some, it is impossible to prove, while to many in the pitlane and paddock it's been thoroughly proven. When the FIA rejects an appeal, citing a statement from a chief steward on the precedent for the appeal, that the guy said the FIA completely fabricated, it does seem a bit damning.

Great

Quote from three_jump :

http://www.motorsport-magazin. ... verworrene-wendungen.html (german)
http://www.motorsport-total.co ... von_Whiting_08091003.html (german)

ok i have now but at least that means its not an italian conspiracy



oh btw
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70793

18. Article 16.3 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations stipulates that: “The stewards may impose any one of three penalties on any driver involved in an Incident:

a) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.

b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.

c) A drop of ten grid positions at the driver’s next Event.

However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.”



27. The Court, in a judgment of 12 October 2007 rendered in the Toro Rosso case concerning the 2007 Japanese Grand Prix (driver Vitantonio Liuzzi), concluded, in similar circumstances, that the appeal against a decision to impose a 25- second penalty was admissible. However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated. Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.

case law ftw?

Free to pick and choose as it sees fit, it decides. Yeah, that inspires confidence in its impartiality for sure!