Comments on: Fresh insight into McLaren case

By: Harshwit

Harshwit — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:47:36 +0000

People seem to have missed something about the BBC Whitmarsh interview post Melbourne race.
After Ted has asked for clarification as to what happened during the safety car period, Whitmarsh gives his explanation, and Ted follows up with; ‘You would normally expect Lewis to be given that place and it could be six points(for third place)’,
Whitmarsh replies ‘We would, that’s our position at the moment, and we’ll see what happens in the coming minutes and hours’
That looks like a blatant declaration of the intention to hold the stance that Trulli took the position unlawfully, and a deliberate decision to omit the information that Lewis had forced him to pass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7970546.stm

By: Alastair

Alastair — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:29:01 +0000

While on the subject of Alonso in 2007, don’t forget that he and Pedro De la Rosa were up to some pretty serious cheating, using text messages from Nigel Stepney detailing Ferrari pit stop strategy, etc.

By: Was Martin Whitmarsh implicated? « vee8 - a Formula 1 blog

Was Martin Whitmarsh implicated? « vee8 - a Formula 1 blog — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:32:28 +0000

[...] I first mentioned this in a comment to one of the posts below. Afterwards I decided to write a comment about it on James Allen’s blog. He then saw fit to use my comment as the foundation of a separate post which he called “Fresh insight into McLaren case“. [...]

By: Steve Rodgers

Steve Rodgers — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:45:04 +0000

I was thinking yesterday that it seemed strange that both Whitmarsh and Hamilton went on mini vacations immediately after the Australian GP…. I mean, with the situation being what it is wouldn’t the time for mini breaks be err… not allowed just as the season starts? Or…is it perhaps a dog ate my homework excuse to take the heat off the team being seen to conspire together for the Truli 3rd place? I can’t help thinking that the idea of a mini break with the season just underway for the obsessed F1 folk in the teams would be seen as ridiculous…that’d be the equivalent of putting in for leave during the go-live week of a new software product… wouldn’t it?

By: Peter Freeman

Peter Freeman — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 20:11:13 +0000

I think the ruling that Renaults mass damper was actually an aerodynamic device kind of spelled out for me that none of the bodies within any F1 circles are actually independent.

It was also very clear to me that the ‘powers that be’ had deemed a final championship for Schumacher was in their best interests and so when they suddenly banned the hither-till-then perfectly legal mass damper I for one was convinced that commercial interests and not sporting fairness was being pursued.

The fact that the ‘independent’ court of appeal upheld the [.. ]notion that a device that lived inside the nose of the car and had no air movement over it what so ever was somehow an [aero] device after all was proof enough to me that the court was not independent at all and I for one felt the decision was predetermined before the court sat.

So I personally would not think for one second that the WMSC will be making a single decision or finding. It is my opinion that the results of the ‘hearing’ will be decided before hand and presented as a finding and a conclusion no matter what evidence is presented on the day.

By: Peter Freeman

Peter Freeman — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:40:11 +0000

You fail to mention that at Spa Hamilton was interviewed by Ferrari’s business associate, Allan Donnelly, or that Kimmi drove about 5 miles of the race off the track but not a word was said about him! Or that in the history of F1 no such penalty has ever been levied on any other driver…

If going of the track was an inherently penalised offense then why was Trulli not immediately and automatically penalised in Australia?

You also fail to mention that when Ferrari released Massa directly into Sutil in Valencia, the very clear rules declaring such a release as being unsafe and illegal were somehow not applied and ‘some how’ no penalty was given.

It is inherently wrong that a man who has been in business with Ferrari is placed in charge of ‘overseeing’ the stewards. Such a move can only cast a bad light over the FIA and the decisions that the stewards come to concerning Ferrari or Ferrari’s opposition. Spa and Valencia are clear examples of how this just looks like utter dishonesty.

By: Peter Freeman

Peter Freeman — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 19:19:57 +0000

Dude Ferrari have a business associate in the stewards box who ‘oversees’ the stewards and gets to ask Ferrari’s opposition difficult questions before they get penalised etc!

biggest or worst (not sure which) liars in F1? Who is this?

By: jw1980

jw1980 — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:44:44 +0000

James Allen raises the issue that Lewis Hamilton and McLaren could be banned for a number of races. I sense that many people are excited by this prospect. In all of the post race analysis one sector of the sport that is being forgottern are the fans. I have been to many gps but in recent years have only attended the British GP. The reason for this is the risk of a huge outlay of money being a waste. Consider the Belgian GP last year – a classic ruined by the stewards’ decisions; Malaysia this year stopped early, and drivers/teams possibly being banned from races. If I was a McLaren employee right now I would be nervous about my future job prospects. After everyone worked so hard to ensure that Brawn were on the grid for 2009 surely the sport does not want to lose McLaren? I would not be at all suprised if either Renault or Toyota pulled out of F1 at the end of the year so any potential new teams would be merely replacing those that are leaving. McLaren are at fault for what happened in the Australian GP (with LH) no doubt. However, they have received their punishment (disqualifiction and terrible publicity). (At the court case for the Belgian GP last year was Charlie Whiting not considered to be misleading when giving evidence? This is a side point).
As a final point if LH was to be banned for a number of races (likely to be May) he could consider entering the Indy 500. Publicity generated by this would probably far outweigh anything F1 could offer this season and although the race probably does not hold the same appeal as in years gone by a good result would still look great on anyone’s c.v. Bernie Ecclestone should take note before making comments on the upcoming WMSC review.
By the way this is a fantastic blog. It’s much better than others where to say the least the thoughts and views of many of the participants are pretty extreme and ridiculous!

By: JEFF

JEFF — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 05:02:25 +0000

that is semantics.
the ceo would not expect to over rule the sporting director on sporting matters, even though he has powers to do so.
you would also not expect the ceo to be as aware of the whole picture as the sporting director. He does not get briefed as to what to say on sporting matters by the ceo. quite the reverse, the ceo gets briefed by the SD.

By: Luciano

Luciano — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:36:56 +0000

I don’t see any problem with what Trulli has said. He has not said in the quote you’ve given that Lewis was wrong to overtake him, it’s just a factual statement. Why should he mention he was off track?

Nothing disingenuous there.

As for the ambiguity of McLaren Statements that Nick alludes to, McLaren have fully admitted that Lewis and Ryan have ‘mis-led’ the stewards. Not much ambiguity there. Only question is was this a team instruction or Ryan acting on his own.