OllieF1
McLaren Lodge Intention Of Appeal To Stewards Decision

McLaren Lodge Intention Of Appeal To Stewards Decision

As expected, McLaren have announced they will be appealing the decision made by the stewards after the Belgian Grand Prix. As it stands currently, McLaren have lodged their intention to appeal and firmly believe Lewis Hamilton played fair by backing off and allowing Kimi Raikkonen to move ahead before continuing. And as the previous post here on BlogF1 shows, a fair few fans are behind Ron Dennis as well.

The incident, which saw Hamilton attempt a move to pass Raikkonen, run over the run-off area and rejoin ahead of Kimi, has brought the world of Formula One to the fore as fans voice their shock at changing a result and their annoyance that the FIA once again look to be giving an advantage to Ferrari. However, in this case McLaren believe they have enough evidence to claim the decision by the stewards was wrong. Should the decision stand though, McLaren could face an even larger penalty, such is the way the FIA operate.

The official decision is that Hamilton received a post-race drive-thru, which because it happened after the completion of the grand prix, means 25 seconds was added to the driver’s total time. This demoted Lewis down to third, promoting Ferrari driver Felipe Massa to the victors position and Nick Heidfeld into second. Here’s what some of the key people involved had to day on the matter…

What is really the advantage that you are taking in such conditions that can be used in the second situation at the first corner? That, in my view, is the most important thing. But this is racing. Stefano Domenicali.

Ferrari deny making any complaint to the stewards at the time, indicating (and only indicating at the time) they felt Hamilton fairly returned Kimi to the lead before re-attacking the position. It is also interesting that Domenicali states “this is racing”. A fair point, I believe, and if I may add; it is not a political battle, it really is just racing.

We looked at all our data and also made it available to the FIA stewards. It showed that, having lifted, Lewis was 6km/h slower than Kimi as they crossed the start/finish line. Having passed the lead back to Kimi, Lewis repositioned his car, moving across and behind Kimi to the right-hand line and then outbraked him into the hairpin. Based on this data, we have no option other than to register our intention to appeal. McLaren Spokesperson.

McLaren now have eight days to write to the FIA and officially lodge their appeal, the outcome of which will not be heard until a meeting has been scheduled. The final, final result of the 2008 Belgium Grand Prix will not be known until after this hearing.

Oliver White

72 comments

  • I heard similar, but willing to go with it for now. I don’t think McLaren are going to let this one go away though. They’ll do whatever they can to overturn this. I think Ron is pretty furious right now, albeit in a RonSpeak kinda way.

  • Frist let’s make it clear that I am not happy with the decision by the race stewards and I would very much stand by Domenicali’s statement.
    However I do not like at all the cutting of the chicane that Lewis did. I am tired to see drivers go out the track and come back on it without even easing the throttle. That is not acceptable to me. The fight was fantastic and I don’t blame any of the 2 drivers even if they touched each other during the fight. But when Lewis lost the line to Kimi in the chicane he shouldn’t be allowed to take the shortcut and come back on the track IN FRONT of Kimi. Indeed he reduced his speed -one should not push his luck too far- to let Kimi get in front but this is not fooling anybody -at least not me- : Lewis had the pace and kept momentum!
    I believe that was a silly move as I am almost convinced that Lewis would have been able to ovetake Kimi in some other place before the end of the race.
    The picture attached to this F1 news on Autosport’s speaks for itself: Lewis’s car is not even pointing in the right direction! And that is something I cannot shut my mouth about…
    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70381

  • A drive-through cannot be appealed, but only because it has to be served in the race. A post-race penalty can be appealed because there is no regulation against appealing any penalty and removing a post-race penalty does not require time travel to accomplish.

  • I’m all for not allowing the result of a race being changed AFTER the race is over…

    But from the video, just check how far back was Hamilton from Kimi before the chicane, then he “backed down” to a millimiter after Kimi’s wing, and overtook him again with all the speed he was carrying.

    I asume that was more or less the thinking of the stewards.

    I really think Hamilton didn’t backed down “properly” and took advantage from his speedier position.

    But the changing results thing really sucks.

    As Ago above has said “Lewis had the pace and kept momentum!”

  • I agree with Haplo.

    Before the chicane, Lewis was catching Kimi there is no doubt about that. Kimi went wide, as is his right, and Lewis took to the escape route claiming Kimi forced him off the road – this is incorrect as Lewis could easily have slowed down instead. However, obviously short-cutting the chicane was a much more attractive option as it would lose him less time.

    Coming back in front of Kimi meant he had to give him the place back but he did so by only lifting the absolute minimum to allow him to do so. This meant that he was still much closer than he had been before the whole chicane incident had happened.

    To me, this is the important thing – I think the stewards were of the opinion that Lewis did gain an advantage by taking to the escape road even though he susequently allowed Kimi to pass him again.

    I’m not sure McLaren appealing is a good idea though, they will no doubt be handed a hefty fine to go along with the drive-thru!

    Also, are the people who were unhappy with the race result being changed equally unhappy at this attempt to have it changed yet again lol?

  • Best race of the season… the first to have me standing in the room shouting and screaming and thinking… this is racing. Then the stewards get involved again and turn it political.

    Hamilton was fighting for position on a damp/wet road and Kimi was defending his position, the regulations say if a ‘short cut’ provides you with a position advantage then you are to swap places which is what happened.

    All the rest about momentum, angle etc. is suggestion or ‘What if’. This is racing and the best 3 minutes we have seen all season.

  • Yes indeed, if he were to take the chicane properly, then he would have been at least 2 meters behind Kimi, with all the straight to catch up and overtake. Wich is very different from only lifting enough so Kimi ragain position by a couple of millimeters.

    It’s really ridiculous that McLaren and Lewis fans fail blatantly (as the FIA, lol) to realize this. It’s certainly an unfair advantage.

    But still, changing the result after is really nonsense.

  • No offense seisteve, but this is F1 and this is how it is. If you want simple racing with no rules whatsoever and none of this “momentum and angles”, well, swich to nascar.

    Really, if we want F1 to be te utmost racing sport in the world, all this tricky things come in the package.

  • I have to agree with what Seisteve has said.

    The last three or four laps were Very exciting and I think the battle between Kimi and Lewis was very clean and fair.

    Perhaps, as some of you experts have suggested, Lewis should have lifted before the chicane and said to Kimi:

    “I guess your first in the procession, here you go!”

    That wouldn’t have been racing, but instead they both got involved and did what racing drivers should do, which is racing.

    I’m very disappointed at the stewards decision to doc 25 seconds from Lewis’s finishing time and it does bring back the Ferrari conspiracy theory. I almost feel like not watching the rest of the season because with all the help Ferrari are getting from the FIA, it’s almost certain that they’ll win the Drivers championship.

    I’m appalled!

  • It seems we are witnessing a con before our eyes. I’ve heard that a deal was done before the start of the season that ferrari would win. Hysterical paranoia? Well, we’ll see… but look how the tide always turns against mclaren, despite a clear win here today…..(turn your minds back to the last race and the stewards decision with the pit lane debate)

  • This is track motor racing. If you are fans you know the difficulty on a track is to get around it as fast as you can but staying on the track.

    This is called a trajectory (yes it has a name!).

    All the art of the racer is to find the trajectory… on the track indeed else why the hell would somebody care about designing a race track?

    In the past so many brave drivers died because they left the track, so to avoid these unwanted death and casualties the track were made safer by improving the surroundings and certainly not the help cheaters to save lap time.

    So, do you think I am an “expert” or just a fan?

    Stephen I’m appaled by people who do not know the rules and judge bluntly πŸ˜‰ I would nevertheless agree with you on one point: the last laps were fantastic… until Lewis lost his mind πŸ˜‰

  • Having watched the sport avidly for the last 34 years, I’m totally disgusted with the decision of the stewards.

    At the end of the day Hamilton did give back the place. I could understand this argument raging if Kimi had still been in the race at the end, but he stuffed it!

    It seems to me that MacClaren are the whipping boys of the FIA. I agree totally that it’s all gone political again, which is a very sad day for the sport.

    I haven’t seen racing like that for years, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Unfortunately it looks like I’ll have to find something else to do with my weekends, following the F(errari) I(mprovement) A(ssociation)’s decision!

  • I couldn’t agree more with Ago et al. While I think changing the final order after the race is ridiculous (perhaps docking LH’s Championship points would have been more suitable).

    I do agree he maintained A LOT more momentum by avoiding the chicane and lifting for a millisecond so that KR would go back by him.

    Anyone who denies this, are obviously on the LH bandwagon, and that’s all find and good, but it’s clouding your judgement gentlemen!

  • Very good Dominic- indeed this post-race decision has been a terrible deal that was completely uncalled for, in my opinion. I also heard that the penalty cannot be challenged, but let’s see if McLaren figures out a way to appeal it in some sense.

    If the penalty dose stand, it will forever cast a black cloud over the 2008 championship, in particular if the final margin of victory in the title fight is affected by the number of points Lewis lost/Felipe gained. In my mind, F1 has had way, way too much bad PR lately….

    – The entire Max mosley scandal

    – Spygate of 2007 (funny how the FIA sticks it to McLaren at Spa for 2 years in a row!!)

    – The slap in the face to fans in many nations in terms of races- no USGP, and the terrible lack of respect for the future of the British and French GPs.

    ….this farce of a decision will no doubt serve to further hamper the sport’s ability to grow and establish itself with new fans, and will only serve to isolate and inslut veteran fans who remember many great moments like this that weren’t ruined by post-race tampering.

  • Haplo, thanks for reminding me how boring Nascar and most of the US motor sport is like, but might I suggest you have missed my point.

    I believe that F1 is the best motor sport in the world but is awash with political correctness. I remember a day when the only time a decision was reversed is if another team lodged a complaint. This is my view should be the only way that a steward should be involved with a racing incident. ( ignore the obvious safety penalties or jump starts etc.)

    In this case Ferrari didn’t appeal, nor BMW!, so we must assume that they saw this as a normal racing incident and accepted that Hamilton lifted as per the regulations.

    My point is that even if Hamilton lifted for a longer period before resuming ‘the chase’, say after leaving a gap of 4 metres as he had prior to the chicane, this penalty would have stood as he was deemed to have gained an advantage. If 4 metres negated the stewards decision to apply a penalty then it is about the definition of when a car is deemed to be in front of you.

    Rules are rules and in this case if you are deemed to have taken an advantage you let the injured party pass, this is simple and understood by all. Only in this case there are a group of people who seem to be able to override the rules with opinion, it happened this week and it happened in Spain in the previous race.

    Nascar has simple rules that allow the drivers to race and be rewarded (even if it is boring and makes you dizzy) in F1 today you follow your natural racing instincts and hope the stewards judge the race by the same regulations that everyone else is working to.

    Unfortunately they don’t always do that.

  • so what was lewis supposed to do?

    Pull up for a tea break before setting off again? would that have pleased the stewards.

    Once again McLaren are unduly punished for a minor driving incident.

    It seems Ferrari can get away with most things. ie. massa and sutil last race 10,000 euro fine. which was more dangerous? massa backed off slightly just the same as Lewis did. Cant see the difference myself?

    If Lewis had of kept the same line he would have crashed.

  • For all those who believe that Hamilton kept his advantage after the chicane please watch the pass made by Kimi on the next set of turns under the yellow.. Hamilton slows to avoid the other car on the track and Kimi pass him under the yellow flag and then makes no effort to give back the place.

    if Kimi did not crash does anyone believe the stewards would have given him a drive through, and if Hamilton had spun before the end of the race and finished after Massa do you believe the stewards still would have made the call on the chicane? also calling a race in retrospect is killing this sport do we really expect every driver to be 100 percent faultless before they have the right to earn points and finish the race!? Surely if its that blatant an infringement then 10 minutes.. 15 minutes maybe should be enough to call it black or white ?? a few hours of discussion means there is nothing to discuss (as the racing is done and no protests by other teams received)

    lastly this is “racing” just incase anyone has forgotten that fact and the reason this race was so impressive and exciting was because talented men like Kimi and Hamilton actually raced.. if we let this travesty of FIA judgment stand then all we are watching is a competition to see which driver is the safest and most technically proficient at getting around a race track.

    Which would leave us with a full day of time trails and a trophy handed out to the nicest driver at the end of the day!

  • I think it’s truly disgusting the way the FIA allow Ferrari to get away things. I’m sick of Ferrari. They have a long history of cheating. Remember MS in 94 and 95 when he tussled with Damon Hill? He cost Hill the championship in Adelaide. He pushed Villeneuve off the track in Jerez. Then MS had an on going feud with David Coulthard, and at Spa, MS got out of his car, stormed into the McLaren garage, and tried t attack DC.

    I can’t believe people have such short memories. In my mind there is no doubt that the FIA and the Stewards are corrupt. They allowed Kimi R to get away with a damaged exhaust that was scraping along the track. They allowed Massa to get away with tussling with Sutil in the pits at Valencia. I can’t believe Massa tried to blame Sutil for the incident. What a moron.

  • I have followed Formula 1 since 1976 and put up with sum of the stupidity of the FIA but this is the final straw!

    Do the FIA / stewards have shares in Ferrari?

    I am not sure I can continue to support a sport that can shoot itself in the foot so many times πŸ™

  • It seems that Lewis is destined to have to win the championship against a backdrop of the FIA once again getting it all wrong.

    How can Lewis be said to have gained an advantage? He was clearly much faster than Kimi in the wet conditions and indeed was in front entering the corner, Kimi openly pushed Lewis so wide that he had no choice but to take the avoiding action he did, Hamilton followed the rules by slowing to allow the Ferrari to retake the lead then nailed him into the next corner. Yes Hamilton did have an advantage of speed because he is simply faster and better than Raikkonen in the wet – nothing to do with keeping up his momentum.

    I have been following F1 since for 35 years and rarely miss a race, I have seen stewards make some pretty strange decisions in the past, not least allowing Ferrari to get away with a pit lane offence in Valencia. This one is as openly ridiculous as allowing Schumacher to deliberately crash into Hill to win a championship.

  • The incident, which saw Hamilton attempt a move to pass Raikkonen, run over the run-off area and rejoin ahead of Kimi, has brought the world of Formula One to the fore as fans voice their shock at changing a result and their annoyance that the FIA once again look to be giving an advantage to Ferrari.

    Correct me if i am wrong, but arent Marshalls independent of the FIA ?

  • It was supposed to be a motor race – but no!

    The conditions were extremely difficult at the end with the fresh rain and Kimi gave no quarter to Hamilton at the chicane so Hamilton was forced to shortcut or take Kimi out. It certainly was not his intent to gain an advantage it was the only place he could go. Hamilton gave the place back to Kimi immediately – tough if Kimi couldn’t then make it stick because he couldn’t maintain the same pace as Hamilton in the conditions. Kimi subsequently crashed out!

    Why isn’t Kimi being hauled up for squeezing Hamimlton out at the chicane – hey? Because its supposed to be a motor race and they were being aggressive which is what they are supposed to do and why we watch it. It was give and take and it was the most exciting race of the season. But we will not see the like again, because the stewards cannot be relied upon to be impartial (check out the backgrounds of the three stewards!) and lack the judgement required to differentiate fair racing from deliberate cheating.

    It simply does not pay the drivers to race. Watch the rest of the season descend into processional races with passing only possible via pit stops.

    F1 is now completely pointless – and Ferrari will win once again, not by what their drivers do on the track, but by their influence behind the scenes – F1 certainly isn’t motor racing!

    If like me you think this decision sucks then please sign the following petition to the FIA:

    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/belgp08/

  • Maybe we should review the whole race and change the results accordingly, as I saw many other drivers cutting the chicane. Did anyone else get an unfair advantage?

  • We, the one’s who have been closely following F1 for decades, have seen a fair share of absolute erroneous and truly controversial rulings / penalties by the sports governing bodies.
    Yet, this decision is of such blatant disregard to the book of rules and thus a serious threat to the few & last remaining credibility’s the sport has, namely, the honest virtuosity of proper head to head dueling in adverse weather conditions.
    All parties must call on the powers that be to refrain from telling the public that black is blue. We have all seen the facts, a flawless and stellar driving to the exact letter of the rule-book.

    Racing stewards Nicholas Deschaux (France), Surinder Thatthi (Kenya) und Yves Bacquelaine (Belgian) need to be banned for all times from the sport for having signed this, “the worst ruling in the History of Formula 1” (Nicky Lauda).
    My fellow F1 aficionados I call on you to refrain from discussing the ruling and thus giving it credence, but instead to lodge your protest with all parties involved, the Mosley & FIA, Ecclestone & the empire, the racing teams and the media….let’s not have the wool pulled over our eyes!!

    Bernie tell Max to behave and hand back to the kid what is rightfully his!

  • @ seisteve

    I really think we can’t have a simpler F1. The most technical and difficult racing sport in the world has to be the most complicated one also. And the proof is that there it is, getting ever so complicated as the years go by and the cars get more technical.

    We all agree that the penalty was completely out of line, they could have asked Lewis to let Kimi pass again, for example.

    And we all agree too that there’s no way in the rules for a driver to know how much he has to “let pass” another driver. How many metres is that?

    But we all also agree that there has to be some sportmanship there. Lewis knew exactly how far he was at the chicane, the proper thing to do was to give Kimi that same distance, and not “barely” let him pass. We, except the most mental LH fans, all can see that.

    So, what’s to do? The FIA are Ferrari biased. This specifically rule is not clear. Use common sense! Ask Lewis to let Kimi pass again!

    And, btw, Kimi’s accident was a consecuence of all this, seems to me that he got all messed up inside, rage and adrenalin and all that, and he overcook it (his fault totally, but what IF?)

    @ Steve

    Prost and Senna did the same thing some time.

    @ Ankit

    As far as I know, the marshals get paid by the FIA, or im I wrong?

    @ Simon

    Last time the FIA was so blatantly protecting Ferrari, Alonso won the championship.

  • Here is a quiz for those “not mental with LH” F1 fans. If Kimi or Massa was behind LH and did the same overtake whould there be a penalty? No, for me. It would have been simply called a “racing incident” like so many times in the past.

    Did Kimi gain an advantage when he “missed” the same turn at the beginning of the race? Yes, he did. He managed to get behing Massa and overtake him later on. I didn’t see the stewards do something about that. Were they taking a nap?

    What about what he did next as Dartanian said “For all those who believe that Hamilton kept his advantage after the chicane please watch the pass made by Kimi on the next set of turns under the yellow.. Hamilton slows to avoid the other car on the track and Kimi pass him under the yellow flag and then makes no effort to give back the place.” I didn’t see any investigation there.

    FIA is giving advantage to ferrari and everybody in their right minds (except ferrari fans) see that in the last decade at least.

    Maybe we should call the sport F(errari)1 from now on. Shame on them!!!!!!

  • The distance Lewis is behind Kimi before they get to the chicane is irrelevant. In the chicane he was damn near level.

    No he could not have just lifted off and let Kimi through. Basic physics tell you that if you lift of in the wet on a bend in an F1 car the tail will step out and you will spin. Believe me I have been dumb enough to do it in Formula Ford and I ended up in a barrier.

    Lewis chose to cut the corner to avoid a collision. Te idea that he gained and advantage in traction on the grass in the wet doesn’t hold up.

    Going across the finish line he is 6 km/h slower than Kimi so he did not maintain momentum. He was level with Kimi on his left side and slowed to go completely behind him. He cannot go slower than another car and maintain momentum. The only reason Lewis was in any position to take Kimi at the first corner was because Kimi went in ridiculously wide and slow as if he was the only car on the track.

    No offence was committed. Cesare Fiorio who used to run Ferrari said live on TV in Italy that the decision was stupid and ruined a great race.

  • Almost every year without fail a decision is taken in F1 that manages to favour ferrari last year was no different.

    Anytime there is a chance of changing a result to the detriment of others (not only Mclaren – Ferrari usually benefit) and if your really watched the results and outcomes or causes of certain results over the years you would see even the great Schumy (would NOT have won 7 titles) One of those belongs to Eddie Irvine. How many times did Rubens Barrichelo suffer some fate for Michael Schumacer to benefit?

    History was made but with a little assistance.

    As for this Sunday:

    How could LH have gained an advantage when he was doing his best not to drive into KR? After LH backed off and let KR pass him he re-passed KR and if you get to watch any highligts KR almost took LH out by driving into the back of LH with a pretty poor attempt at late breaking.

    If the original result stands it is clear that the championship would be heading elsewhere, but BE and MM wouldn’t want a championship that was a forgone conclusion.

    Conspiracy theory? There’s one every year with F1 (even schumy wouldnt have won as many championships as he did if certain results and decisions didnt favour Ferrari….

  • Felipe Massa said : “If Lewis had taken the chicane correctly, he would never have been able to pass Kimi on the very short straight that follows it. That was my immediate opinion after seeing the replay. Maybe if Lewis had waited and tried to pass on the next straight, that would have been a different matter.”

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70428

    May be this guy knows a little bit more than we do, or maybe he is just a Ferrari driver…

  • The article which Hamilton is said to have breached (Article 30.3) doesn’t have a “sporting advantage” clause, nor does it have a mitigation clause, for handing places back or anything else. All it says is that all drivers must stay on the track during the race weekend. So in theory, Hamilton could have parked the car, stopped for a tea break, found the engine wouldn’t start afterwards and still been punished with a 10-place grid drop at the next event. Of course, nearly everyone else at Spa went off the track at some stage. How many of them were punished?

  • Ago,

    How was Lewis supposed to take the chicane properly when Kimi was squeezing him off the road? Lewis tried to go round him on the right hand part of the chicane and didn’t make the move stick. Kimi made a move which 20 years ago would have been illegal but since Schumacher it has been acceptable to squeeze someone off the track.

    Lewis had 2 options. He could have braked and spun. Probably into Kimi. Or he could take avoiding action. Regardless of any advantage gained at this stage by the finish line he was travelling 6 km/h slower than Kimi and went completely behind him into the dirty air so it should not have been possible for him to pass Kimi by the first corner. The only reason he got past was because Kimi took a really wide slow entry into the corner. Do we really want a racing driver to sit while another takes a line like that and not try to take the place back? I have always liked Kimi’s driving but I cannot imagine what he was thinking taking that line. He could have taken a tight entry and practically parked it on the apex until Lewis was right behind him (as Senna and Prost used to do with each other) then he would have been on the throttle one car length in fornt of Lewis at very slow speed and would have had a guaranteed advantage.

  • I completely agree with Steven Roy and all others…

    Lewis had no choice but to go across the escape route to avoid spinning or crashing.

    You also have to remember that this, even though it’s a tight chicane, is still happening at around 60mph(100kph)+. Any driver decision has to be made in a split second.

    Hamilton was clearly the better driver of the entire race as Kimi proved on the penultimate lap.

  • The FIA have gone too far again and I believe its time for the serious F1 racing teams to pull out of the FIA circus and start there own association rivalling that of the FIA, and make the sport more appealing for the fans. Leave the politics, bias and cheats with the FIA. And move on. β€œF” the FIA

  • I put this on KeithΒ΄s BLOG and is very interesting:

    “From the pit wall, we then asked Race Control to confirm that they were comfortable that Lewis had allowed Kimi to repass, and they confirmed twice that they believed that the position had been given back in a manner that was ‘OK’.

    If Race Control had instead expressed any concern regarding Lewis’s actions at that time, we would have instructed Lewis to allow Kimi to repass for a second time.”

  • I’d like to place a question. Is the F1 rules book made of rubber. Very tight in favor of a certain team and quite loose against. I belive we’ll see more of it, because Interlagos has to sell out to Massa’s suporters.

  • Hi guys I’m not going to discuss much here πŸ˜‰ When one feels he represents a minority (here) common practice is to shut one’s mouth πŸ˜‰

    But only for the record i’ll answer this question from Steven Roy:

    “How was Lewis supposed to take the chicane properly when Kimi was squeezing him off the road?”

    That one is very simple : Brake / Back off wait until next corner!

    Watch the onboard video he could have done so. The driver leading the race is not supposed to give up when someone in breathing in his neck. What Fernando did when Lewis squeezed him last year? He jumped on his brakes. This happens all the time I have thousand of examples…

    Racing is about trying to get the advantage not about asking for it. Lewis tried to overtake and couldn’t he had to BACK OFF.

    Now I am not saying the penalty is fair, I am only saying stop getting at Ferrari they didn’t ask for that penalty… and stop thinking Lewis is a little angel out of heaven he is a gifted and blunt racing driver like all the great drivers… but he is still a bit of a freshout there, he was nicely trapped by Kimi who is a much more experienced driver… that’s all.

    May I remind you that Kimi had a drive through this year because his wheels were not mounted 3mn before the race starts, Kimi was hit by Lewis in Canada in the pitlane… so Ferrari got their share of penalties too.

    A few more examples? Who asked the stewards to interfere with a private matter in Hungary last year? Why Lewis disobbeyed team orders in Hungary last year… Don’t try to fool yourselves Lewis too is a tough driver πŸ˜‰ and he will demonstrate that again in the future no doubt, no doubt either he will be a World Champion.

    Have a good night mates I’ll come back on a less “sensitive” matter later, pretty sure Ollie has plenty of other subjects to entertain us with πŸ˜‰

  • Ago,

    You canot brake on a bend in an F1 car in the wet without spinning.

    I don’t know if you are aware how much influence Ferrari have in the FIA. All members of the World Motor Sport Council of the FIA are personally chosen and appointed by Max. Max’s deputy is Marco Piccinini who used to run Ferrari and is still on their board of directors. THe teams representative and Max’s choice of successor is Jean Todt who used to run Ferrari and is still on their board of directors. Karting is represented by Piero Ferrari’s childhood friend. No-one on the WMSC has any connection or has had any connection with any other existing F1 team.

    Alan Donnelly who ‘supervises’ the stewards runs a PR company which had Ferrari on its customer list on its website but Ferrari’s name was removed from the list weeks before his appointment. It is not clear whether Ferrari is or is not any longer a client.

    Ferrari as a team may not have asked for this decision but Ferrari frankly has a ridiculous level of influence within the FIA. At the very least there are multiple people with serious conflicts of interest.

  • Steven, “you cannot break on a bend” well so you must manage not to put yourself in this situation in the first place. Overtaking is always a risk, the risk of leaving the proper trajectory to try to gain a position. the highway code doesn’t apply to track racing, you can try to stop the guy that wants to overtake you. The driver in front has ALWAYS the right to choose his trajectory.

    The rest of your accusations is a shame:

    (1) the WMSC is neither choosen nor appointed by the president. They are elected by the General Assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport_Council have you any proof that is is named and not elected?

    (2) you are saying that if somebody works or has wordked for Ferrari then he cannot be trusted.

    OK why not… Then let me tell you what I could say (on the same unfair note…) there are too many brits everywhere in F1 (FIA: Mosley F1: Ecclestone,Many F1 teams…etc…) so because they are brits I cannot believe they are fair to other counties’s participants in F1. I guess you don’t like this one do you?

    Another one? Why is it that McLaren was selected for the ECU? What would have you said if it was Ferrari? No confluct of interest there? Honestly this sort of accusation is taking us nowhere…

    As we say in french “one should clean his doorstep before looking at the other’s…”

    Life is not black or white it is grey with lots of shades…

  • Ago,

    You really don’t understand my position even if you think you do. I have already today posted on another site that it is wrong for McLaren to be supplying the ECU and it would have been wrong for Ferrari or any other team to do the same.

    My problem with Mr Donnelly is that Ferrari were removed from his company’s customer list on their website just before he got the job. None of us have any idea how much Ferrari could affect his income. They may control 80% of his income or 0%. But it is wrong that anyone with a connection to any team should be put in his position. It is like one of the teams in a football match appointing the referee. As a matter of fact I don’t think his position should exist. Until the end of last season the move was towards permanent stewards, something I have argued for for 20 years plus. Now we have the ridiculous situation where Max appoints someone who as far as we know has no qualifications whatever as a steward to help the stewards reach a decision. How can four people reach a decision faster than three?

    My position is that either no team should be represented in the Presidency, Senate, WMSC, stewards etc or multiple teams (minimum 4, optimum all) should be represented. It is plain wrong that so many people from one team should be in positions of power regardless whether that is Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Force India or anyone else.

    The FIA (ie Max) clearly don’t understand the concept of conflict of interest. Max’s official representative since his hobby became public is on the board of directors of Ferrari. Regardless whether he or Max had done anything wrong the potential for conflict of interest exists. When Donnelly’s company removed Ferrari’s name from their website it looks like they are hiding his connection with them. Again regardless of whether or not he does anything wrong there is a potential conflict of interest.

    We have all these people in positions of power with connections to Ferrari and Ferrari consistently get decisions in their favour including those where new rules appear out of thin air. Mass dampers, brake cooling ducts that have to be removed to stop brakes overheating, barge boards that are illegal on the car but legal on a jig on a different continent despite there being no traceablity and a whole litany of other cases.

    Quite clearly the current management of F1 is unacceptable. When you have a former Sporting Director of Ferrari live on Italian TV not only disagreeing with the decision to penalise Lewis Hamilton but being incensed by it something is very, very wrong.

    I would be equally unhappy if McLaren were runnig the sport or Williams or anyone else. The FIA (actually it should be FISA) have to be entirely neutral. How can it even be contemplated that Max’s choice of successor was until last season running one of the teams competing in F1. There are many good capable people who could run the FIA and a re-instated FISA in a far better manner than Max and his friends. I only hope they get the chance soon.

  • (1) the WMSC is neither choosen nor appointed by the president. They are elected by the General Assembly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport_Council
    Have you any proof that it is named and not elected?

    Wikipedia may well think that but the FIA disagrees. The following is taken from the FIA statutes as listed on the FIA website. I have included article 19 in full but the second paragraph (bold) says that the president of the FIA choose the members of the WMSC. I believe Max changed this rule to make it more difficult for someone to challenge him or that may apply to the senate. I have asked Alianora for clarification as she knows all this stuff much better than me.

    Article 19: PRESIDENT – DEPUTY PRESIDENTS – VICE-PRESIDENTS
    The President of the FIA, the 2 Deputy Presidents, the President of the Senate and the 5 members of the Senate other than the members by right, and the Vice-Presidents of the FIA shall be elected for 4 years in accordance with Article 9-4 of these Statutes. They shall be eligible for re-election.

    The President of the FIA will choose, after his election, the World Council which he will personally chair. The appropriate deputy President will chair the other World Council. In the absence of the President of the FIA, the deputy President for the World Council which the President chairs will chair it.

    The President of the FIA will assign missions and delegate specific responsibilities to the Vice-Presidents and to the Deputy Presidents, the latter being also responsible to him for the coordination of the activities of their respective World Councils.

    From October 2005, the President of the FIA may not serve more than two consecutive terms of office, subject always to Article 12.1.

    This comes from the FIA statutes as listed at http://www.fia.com/en-GB/the-fia/statutes/Pages/Article19.aspx

    OllieEdit: This comment was altered very slightly by Ollie to include some details that Steven missed when the comment was re-attempted after the first try went straight to the spam bin (due to links). The sentiment of the comment remains. Hope you don’t mind, Steven.

  • From October 2005, the President of the FIA may not serve more than two consecutive terms of office, subject always to Article 12.1.

    Just to add that, while this is the best part of this ruling and even thoough it was added in October 2005, it won’t actually come into effect until after Mosley has resigned or been defeated. It starts with Mosley’s successor. Annoyingly.

  • Hi Steven very quick answer on your latest post.

    (and another later to discuss the rest of your conclusions..)

    You wrote “the president of the FIA choose the members of the WMSC”

    NO he DOES NOT.

    There are 2 WC one for Sport (WMSC) one for Automobile Mobility and Tourism. The president chooses the one he wants to chair NOT the one he wants to select the members πŸ˜‰ I’m afraid when you read something you twist it your way πŸ˜‰

    It it the article 14 that you should have read and posted here:

    “The World Motor Sport Council shall consist of :

    β€’ the President of the FIA;

    β€’ the Deputy President;

    β€’ the 7 Vice-Presidents;

    β€’ the 17 Members;

    a total of 26 Members who, with the exception of the President of the FIA, must represent an ASN having at least one event entered on the International Sporting Calendar of the current year, of whom 21, with the exception of the President, the Deputy President and the 3 Members by right, shall be of different nationalities.”

    These people come from various ASN and countries as explicitely written. And you know why? To avoid CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

    There are enough people to have a WMSC without people from the concerned parties whatever matter is submitted to them. A close look to the WMSC that issued the McLaren punishment last year will prove me right πŸ˜‰

    Same with Donnelly: Didn’t it ever came to your mind that maybe this gentleman stopped making business with Ferrari BECAUSE he took these responsabilities???

    Don’t always go for the dark side of things and the Big Ferrari Conspiracy… I know it’s convenient but… as I said the world is not black and white.

    Until now these things you mention are not proved but the ECU is McLaren that is proved… without any doubt πŸ˜‰

    (to be continued, if Olivier says this is what he wants?)

  • At the time of the overtake RACE CONTROL stated TWICE that the overtake was OK. Ron Dennis said that Charlie Whiting (FIA) was OK with that at the time.

    After the race the stewards in their report say “after receiving a report from the RACE DIRECTOR etc etc.” WHO’S the race director?

    Guess what: it’s Charlie Whiting. So first he says it’s ok and then he reports it to the stewards?

    There is no conspiracy theory here, just the conspiracy.

  • (to be continued, if Olivier says this is what he wants?)

    As long everyone remains respectful to one another you guys can discuss until the cows come home! πŸ™‚

    Side note: this post has become the most commented on BlogF1. And that was Ago’s 100th comment here.

  • Sorry but to make the election absolutely clear and unquestionnable I refer the the FIA Statutes (available on the FIA web site)

    Article 9

    The General Assembly shall have sovereign rights. Its main terms of reference shall be the following:

    (…)

    4) To elect for 4 years, by an absolute majority a list which shall consist of:

    (…)

    ? 7 vice Presidents of the FIA for Sport from among the candidates for the World Motor Sport Council proposed by the FIA member clubs holding the sporting power;

    5)To elect for 4 years by a simple majority of the votes cast:

    (…)

    ii) the 14 members of the World Motor Sport Council, other than the members by rights and the 7 vice Presidents elected on the successful list.

    So do we all agree now on facts πŸ˜‰

    PS: (…) means I have removed the other parts to make this post as short as possible.

  • @Teras: Before going for the conspiracy may be reading the FIA regulations (again!) will help :

    The International sporting code states in its paragraph 141 that:

    “The stewards of the meeting shall have supreme authority for the enforcement of the present Code, of national and Supplementary Regulations and of programmes. They shall settle any claim which might arise during a meeting, subject to the right of appeal provided in the present Code (see Chapter XIII).

    ? They shall decide what penalty to enforce in the event of a breach of the regulations.(…)

    The job of the Race Director is specified in the F1 Sporting code as the International Sporting Code article 134 (b) says :

    “A race director may be designated for the entire duration of each Championship, Cup, Trophy or Challenge.

    If so, his duties and responsibilities will be set out in the relevant sporting regulations”

    So the F1SR in his articles 12.3, 12.4, 12.5 says what the Race Director is responsible for. I am not going to quote that here you can see it for yourself, but -trust me- he has no responsability in terms of penalties whatsoever… this belongs to the stewards as stated in ISC article 141

    I am very surprised that Martin Whitmarsh doesn’t know about that…

    So conspiracy or blattant ignorance πŸ˜‰

  • What I wonder is that the ruler book is writing in a so complicated and dubious way that the McLaren staff must be praised for ask a member of the FIA on that moment, remaining only 1 lap to go, about the issue.

    Are the Stewards accessible to be contacted for any member of any team while a racing is happening? I doubt if this procedure is in the ruler book. If it is NOT in the ruler book, I think that the ONLY person who could evaluate this sort of issue in the heat of the moment is, in fact, Charly Whiting…

    I like Mr. Whiting, he has a very friendly and admirable character in the F1 world, but FIA put him in a very fragile spot now. What I fear is that the teams cannot be confident on his judgment again after all this mess…

  • I like Mr. Whiting, he has a very friendly and admirable character in the F1 world, but FIA put him in a very fragile spot now. What I fear is that the teams cannot be confident on his judgment again after all this mess…

    This is actually a very good point.

    Are the Stewards accessible to be contacted for any member of any team while a racing is happening?

    I doubt it too, and they should be. If the teams feel the need to contact race control to ask about something that he cannot officially decide on, then the stewards should be available.

    Unfortunately, as we’ve seen, the stewards cannot make decisions very fast.

  • Having looked at the video for a few days now, I’ve come to a decision. I feel that Lewis Hamilton raced well (and until the end, Raikkonen raced well as well), played relatively fair – as fair as any other driver – and should keep his win with no penalty. At the end of the day, he attempted a pass, went onto the escape road, rejoined and let his opponent re-pass. In doing so he managed to get the inside line into La Source, drew alongside and braked later. I feel no penalty should have been handed out, and I say that without considering any previous incident involving any other team or driver.

  • WOW… Pat Symonds is my hero now.

    From the top of his reputation, He expressed in a good, clear and fluent English what EVERYBODY around the world already knows and wants to state about the incident:

    http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70457

    β€œβ€¦To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I’ve had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early.

    “Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn’t have a big slide, he didn’t have to correct it, he hadn’t gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn’t that much later that Raikkonen went past him.

    “This is racing, this is what we want.”

  • This is racing, this is what we want.

    I agree. I’m posting Symonds’s views tomorrow because I feel they’re important, and I’ve had a couple of drinks this evening in sunny Southampton! But essentially, in my honest view, the man speaks sense. We want racing, Kimi and Lewis provided it, and they both did what they felt to be fair. I’d hazard a guess and say 51% of worldwide fans felt it was fair as well. (The moves, not the penalty.)

  • Ago,

    I should have more sense that post that without checking witch Alianora. I now have her informed opinion and she says in the comments here http://formula1home.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=469&sid=73260b434ba26cf0c59abe82547ee334 that Max appoints the Senate which actually makes more sense since the Senate approves other appointments. So in effect Max appoints everyone.

    OllieEdit: Because of issues surrounding the CMS behind BlogF1, Steven’s comment here went into the spam bin and thus is out of context with the following comments due to it arriving late in the flow of posts. Sorry Steven, I shot you over an email.

  • Hi guys I would like to know if you now agree that the WMSC is elected by the general assembly as per FIA statutes article 9.4.7 and 9.5.ii. The list of candidates being proposed by the various countries that have an ASA.

    Everybody is elected in the FIA, including the president.

    We might not like the outcome of the vote, but there is a vote.

    So can we break the neck to this tale of the allmighty president picking up whoever he wants for the WMSC πŸ˜‰

    Oliver? Steven? Alianora,any clarification? Or is my english that bad that I made a wrong interpretation of the rules πŸ˜‰

  • @Ago: Thing is, I know the rules are so poorly written in a lot of places (I know, I’ve read them) that whenever things like this happen, I just sit back and laugh at the FIA’s incompetancy. That’s partly why I left it until this evening to actually give my own opinion on the whole matter that sparked all this.

    So to answer your question about clarification: I haven’t bothered to check, but your English is perfectly fine. Well, it’s a lot better than my French, anyway. πŸ™‚

    Edit: As all the teams will say, any rule is open to interpretation if it is written that way.

    Edit Edit: I thought that all FIA rules/regs/codes were written in both English and French, because the two recognised languages of the FIA are French and English. Therefore, isn’t there a French version you could read…?

  • Oliver another legend… Legally you can NEVER have 2 languages for ONE text because there is already room for interpretation in one language…

    So the FIA have some texts in english (most of them as far as I know) and some in french (the Code Sportif International) all F1 documents are in english.

    While we are at that, and to break the neck of another tale, FIA is NOT subject to french laws (no matter the FIA HQ are in Paris) it is subject to Swiss laws. In other words if one wants to challenge the FIA textbooks he must go to Swiss Courts.

    To come back to the subject, these are FIA statutes (like the Constitution for a country) so the way the FIA is designating its bodies, coucils and commissions must be cristal clear. In my eyes the article 9 is perfectly clear and the president cannot name people because the article 9 says they must be elected, and for sure a lot of people with sue the FIA if it was not applying its own rules. Some of you have challenged me on something (extract of article 9) where I believe you made an error on the use of the verb “to choose”. I don’t see anything open for interpretation in the FIA statutes, the interpretation only rises if you don’t read the FULL text πŸ˜‰

    Because the objections to my sayings were so quick I was expecting an as quick approval, or maybe another denial?,

    You know… the cartesian frenchmen love the challenge πŸ˜‰

    Last, but not least go to french, italian blogs you will see that this massive support of Lewis is not necessarily there πŸ˜‰ There is a world outside the UK… To be a bit blunt the feeling is more that Lewis pushed his luck a bit too far but I can confirm, from what I have read, that a lot of people believe the penalty was a bit harsh and this is what I believe too… as Kimi was not absolutely clean on that matter either πŸ˜‰

    BTW tell me what nationality Pat Symonds is… Not sure disagreeing with common british feeling will be really a smart move πŸ˜‰ Also if instead of Kimi it was Alonso not sure he will tell the same story… Open your eyes guys πŸ˜‰

    Good night to you all

  • I thought that all FIA rules/regs/codes were written in both English and French, because the two recognised languages of the FIA are French and English. Therefore, isn’t there a French version you could read…?

    The most important character in that whole paragraph is the question mark. If it were a statement, there wouldn’t be a question mark. πŸ™‚

    all F1 documents are in english Ago.

    The present rules have been drafted in French and in
    English. In case of a difference of interpretation, the
    French text shall take precedence. Rules of the FIA International Court of Appeal – published on: 01.02.2008.

    Appologies for thinking that the rules were written in both languages, but I hope you understand why I thought that. Do you get my point about ambiguity now? πŸ˜‰

    BTW tell me what nationality Pat Symonds is…

    And as you will be already well aware Ago, I have no part in any comment regarding the nationality of any particular person in Formula One, the F1-blogosphere or otherwise. While I may describe someone as “the Finnish driver” or “Ross Brawn, a man who loves a well-developed British garden”, prejudice because of nationality has no part in my mind. This is because all the people of the world are all the same. I do hope the same ideal is instituted in all. I do appreciate your smilies, but I just wish nationality wasn’t brought into so many of your comments, completely unnecessarily. Honestly, who gives a flying fish where Symonds comes from? I don’t. He’s good at his job and a well-respected man.

    I wish you a good night, good sir.

  • Ago,

    I have given Alianora a link to this debaste. She knows the FIA rules and structures far better than anyone I have ever found so no doubt she will answer your specific points when she turns up although she did answer my question by saying Max picks the senate.

    Nationality is irrelevant. We must judge things on the facts. As it I happens I consider myself to be Scottish and not British. Historically Scotland has much deeper ties to France than England and at one time any Scotsman had automatic French nationality and vice versa. As I am sure you are aware we Scots have never been the biggest fans of the English so if I am defending an Englishman that must mean something especially as like many of my countrymen I am a fan of all things Brazilian but I don’t think Massa should gain from a bad decision. Either that or nationality is irrelevant to me which is actually the case.

    As I said before Cesare Fiorio an Italian who was Sporting Dirctor of Ferrari was incensed by the decision. Niki Lauda an Austrian who drove for both teams clearly isn’t a fan of the stewards. Becken posted either here or at F1 Fanatic that since the decison by the stewards new Lewis Hamilton fans are popping up all over Brazil. Nationality in this matter is utterly irrelevant. People’s opinions should be judged on their merits not by which country issued their passport.

  • Hi Steven. Yes totally agree with you and true F1 fans are like that. Of course everybody would love his fellow countrynen to achieve some success in the sport but that is not a key factor. Now I (being foreign) can see all the buzz around Lewis in this country, I also know you guys quite well because I live here and speak your language (a beautiful once, that said)well enough to understand what’s behind the scene πŸ˜‰ This blog is not the place to tell you a bit more about British soul and mind but as a frenchman I can spot the differences to my culture (not any better but different) and I know, you know, that the rise of Lewis has seen the F1 fan base rise like hell in the UK… So the current fans that “discovered the sport last year” are they real fans of F1? Do they have the knowledge of track racing? How many times have they attended a race at Brands? Silverstone? And I know what I am talking about, I know what happened in France 20 years ago with the rise of Alain Prost πŸ˜‰ There were not enough words in a dictionnary to tell how bright he was and how nasty Senna was…

    But let’s come back to the subject. I felt I had to react to some of the things I could read here on 3 subjects.

    1. Lewis move at the chicane is not fair and many drivers of many teams were punished in the past for such a behaviour. I can give you a list if required. That said I do not believe he deserves to loose this win.

    2. Ferrari is not “the devil in disguise” it is a very legendary team, the only one to built their engine (and almost everything else) the only one to run a successful business of road cars for now more than 50 years. How can somebody seriously believe they are a bunch of cheaters and liars. They are fierce competitors and they will use all the rules by the book to win.

    3. The FIA is not what many people say it is. The stewards are not as bad as many say they are. It is a fact that depending on who is your favourite you (we!) often forget about the decisions they took against the other competitor. Nobody for example seems to discuss the very strange fact that last year in Hungary they had put their nose in a private McLaren matter (quali in Hungary). In more than 30 years of watching the sport I have no other memory of this kind of thing ever happening… Nobody talks much about this drive through penalty Kimi had for not having his wheels attached to the car 3mn before race start in Monaco (I think it is Monaco). What was wrong with that? If that happens to Lewis get ready to see the UK marching to protest in front of the FIA HQ in Paris πŸ˜‰

    … and last Steven you cannot suspect almost anybody linked to Ferrari and then “save” a couple of them Fiorio, Lauda because they have an advice that suits you. Some other might have come to the opposite conclusion without being cheaters. Trulli said Lewis gained advantage, I believe that too, sorry I am not the “bad guy” only a true fan with a different point of view. And watch the onboard footage from premiere.tv you will see for yourself where the proper trajectory is in that chicane. Lewis takes it, Kimi takes it, evrybody takes it… but not Lewis in lap 41 πŸ˜‰

  • My apologies to everybody if you feel offended, that was not, and is not, my intent. I know I can be a bit blunt and I will try to do my best to avoid being rude.

    The nationality stuff is not about judging anybody behaviour it is only to analyse what people say in a given context. I have very much respect for Pat Symonds. I am only saying that if he was a Ferrari Tech director, or if one of his pilots was involved he will voice his opinion differently. So will anybody else, it is not just him. Alain Prost was fired from Ferrari the day he dared to compare the Ferrari to a lorry… Needless to say that was not welcomed in Maranello πŸ˜‰ might it be true or not.

    I hope you have noticed that my posts are trying to counterbalance a couple of things I have read and found unfair. I am making no judgement only trying to soften the picture. And sorry if my words are not carrying that feeling…

    BTW I have sent to Olivier the exact statement and references for the Spa incident. Under no circumstance are the stewards refering to “gaining unfair advantage”… Oliver please correct me if I’m wrong as you have the documents in your mail.

    Have a nice day, Kent is sunny today…hope the sun will be with you all!

  • Ago,

    I only have a short time here just now during lunch but I will deal with all you comments later.

    The rule regarding wheels being on a car 3 minutes before the cars leave the grid was introduced after an Arrows mechanic called Dave Luckett jumped the pit wall to start the engine which one of his drivers (Patrese?) had stalled as the cars left the grid. Most of the other cars dodged round him but the other Arrows driven by Siegfried Stohr didn’t see Patrese’s car had stalled and hit the back of it at speed while Luckett was behind the car trying to start the engine. Fortunately he was not killed but there has to be a time cut off to stop competitive people putting themselves at severe risk.

    Williams a few years ago at Spa left one of their drivers (Ralf/Montoya?) on jacks because they ran out of time. I have no problem with Kimi’s penalty in this case as it is there to stop cars hitting mechanics. A car from the back of the grid can be travelling at over 100mph by the time it reaches the front of the grid and as has been seen with many accidents over the years if a car is not moving at the front of the grid drivers have very little time to react to avoid them. For example in 1982 Riccardo Paletti was killed when he ran into the back of Didier Pironi’s stalled Ferrari.

  • I hope you have noticed that my posts are trying to counterbalance a couple of things I have read and found unfair.

    Of course, this is a discussion.

    Oliver please correct me if I’m wrong as you have the documents in your mail.

    Thanks Ago, I’m at work at the moment but I’ll have a read later when I get home.

    Have a nice day, Kent is sunny today…hope the sun will be with you all!

    It’s sunny in Southampton, but the summer has gone already. Still, I hope the sun will be out in Northern Italy at the weekend – at least I’ll be able to look at some nice weather. πŸ˜€

  • Hi guys

    The stubborn πŸ˜‰ frenchmen would like to know (14 days later) if we all agree on the fact the WMSC is elected by the General Assembly as stated in FIA statutes article 9, and is not picked-up by the president as uncautiously stated by some here πŸ˜‰

    The president has already many powers, it is really necessary to add some he didn’t have πŸ˜‰

    A simple “yes” would be enough… this silence hurts me πŸ˜‰

    Any contracdiction welcomed indeed πŸ˜‰

  • Ago, erm… …whatever it says in the Statutes is what goes. Subject to misinterpretation from the FIA President.

    So the correct answer would appear to be “yes, and thank you for correcting me”. Sorry if I confused anyone.

  • Subject to misinterpretation from the FIA President.

    …or those whom he governs. Or presides, I should probably say. πŸ™‚ ’tis all.

    I will have a post about this later in the week, but I’m snowed under at work at the moment and don’t have the time to do it justice. I hope to get it up before the Friday. Thanks for your patience. In the meantime, obviously feel free to add comment about the verdict (or non-verdict) here.

  • thanks πŸ˜‰

    No question that the General Assembly will remind the president that the WMSC has to be elected. Not all the members are friends of Mr Mosley… I am pretty sure if we had access to internal documents we will see they were elected.

    Now I agree with you on the fact that Mosley might indicate who he would like to be elected… but that has nothing different from ANY election, remember most of us vote for the MP, City Council, according to what the party we like tells us to vote for πŸ˜‰

    After all nobody will be fool enough to ask the people to vote for his opponents πŸ˜‰

  • Thanks Alianora πŸ˜‰ That is a well-known “limit” (but is it really?)to the democracy.

    I often noticed that when a leader is elected he usually get his friends elected too.

    After all if you want the guy to be able to do what he said he will do (I suppose that is the reason why somebody is elected) then you usually give hime the means to achieve what he promissed to achieve… Fair and square!

Your Header Sidebar area is currently empty. Hurry up and add some widgets.