Lewis third, Jarno given 25s penalty > Trulli 3rd, Lewis DSQ

[vall]

I don't think Hamilton lied. Its easy to say anything when you are in the hot seat. I dont think he had intentions to get truli penalized. From the transcript its obvious everyone was confused and misinformed. Lying is different from answering a question ignorantly.
Lewis knew he rightfully passed truli, and he knew truli went ahead of him.
He didn't wave to truli and indicating "pass me" so literally truli used his own discretion.
lewis saying that truli slowed down infront of him is irrelevant to him being a liar because at that time truli already passed.

I also don't like the idea of penalizing a driver for what they said of the track when these words should have little influence on the outcome of a decision when there is a wealth of evidence available from the race. I would raise an eyebrow to LH but to DQ him

This is just politically motivated to get all the good non diffuser teams back on equal terms to increase competition.

Perhaps you did not read the previous posts. I say that again, I am done with this thread. In Melbourne, the Stewards asked McLaren if the asked LH to let Truli, they asked LH did you let him pass you? Bit answered "No", which is now plain lies. What more do you want?

[PlatinumZealot]

That means the second place driver at the end of the season will be six points closer to Hamilton.. aw shucks..

[The FOZ]

Jesus H. Christ. What a mess.

I may be fanning the flames, but here goes...

Hamilton needs to learn the bloody rules. As in, be an authority on the rules, know them better than anyone else, sleep with the rulebook under his pillow. I don't mean the precisions, max front wing width, minimum dry weight, etc. but as the competitor, he is responsible for his own race, and should know the rules as they apply to him. He should not have to radio in to ask what to do, he should know what to do, and say "I'm doing this"...

When Trulli left the track, Lewis should have gotten on the radio and said "Trulli just left the track, I'm passing him" - because that is his right. Further, it's due dilligence, because then you're making a record of your action over the radio, so it can be used after the fact in an appeal. That's what he should have ideally done.

Now, when Lewis was asked by the Stewards and by a reporter following the race, "Did you let Trulli past you, or did he have to do that on his own?", Lewis said that Trulli did it on his own, clearly implying that Trulli had broken the rules. Lewis was there during the radio conversation, and he let Trulli pass him. Yet he said something totally different, on multiple occasions afterward, knowing it would cast a bad light on a fellow driver. Further, when Trulli recieved a 25 second penalty, Lewis didn't speak up with the truth. Nobody at McLaren did, either.

If that's not as greasy as it gets, I don't know what is.

[Saabjock]

Is this a joke? Whether Lewis was asked to let Jarno through or not is irrelevant.... He did the right thing in letting Jarno by. How far has F1 come since the SPA debacle? Did they learn nothing? Trulli went sliding off the track. I think what McLaren did in asking Lewis to let Jarno by again after he (LH) was forced to go by, was the right decision...afterall Jarno did go off while following the safety car. Trulli should not have received a penalty either at the end of the race. He was just resuming station. What the heck was Lewis to do in that situation...STOP on the racing line and create a greater hazard? Jesus! Is this what my beloved Formula 1 has come to? In thirty-eight years of following this sport, I have never seen such nonsense. This incident is not even newsworthy. In lieu of the rash of bad decisions lately, I can only advocate that the current stewards be replaced with retired racing drivers who understand this sport....it's the only way to ensure good decisions going foward.

[ringo]

how do you not think that LH lied. He did not answer the question ignorantly. He was asked by stewards whether he consciously let trulli through, which he said he did not. radio transcripts report him saying "i let him pass" not "he passed me" meaning he did consciously let trulli pass. this is not ignorantly answering a question-this is lying

Since when does a drivers consciousness comes into the decision the stewards make? Since when does the FIA care what LH thinks. formula 1 is quickly turning ito a soap opera. Truli should then be penalized for consciously believing he deserved to be in 3rd since he was the first to transgress

How did Hamilton let him pass? He surely didnt wave to truli or talk to him over the radio.
" i let him pass" means i allowed him to do what he was doing. What was hamilton to do?
Fight for the spot behind the safety car?

If it makes your day labeling the man as a liar then no problem. lets just hope he doesnt tell another lie this weekend

[ringo]

Jesus H. Christ. What a mess.

I may be fanning the flames, but here goes...

Hamilton needs to learn the bloody rules. As in, be an authority on the rules, know them better than anyone else, sleep with the rulebook under his pillow. I don't mean the precisions, max front wing width, minimum dry weight, etc. but as the competitor, he is responsible for his own race, and should know the rules as they apply to him. He should not have to radio in to ask what to do, he should know what to do, and say "I'm doing this"...

When Trulli left the track, Lewis should have gotten on the radio and said "Trulli just left the track, I'm passing him" - because that is his right. Further, it's due dilligence, because then you're making a record of your action over the radio, so it can be used after the fact in an appeal. That's what he should have ideally done.

Now, when Lewis was asked by the Stewards and by a reporter following the race, "Did you let Trulli past you, or did he have to do that on his own?", Lewis said that Trulli did it on his own, clearly implying that Trulli had broken the rules. Lewis was there during the radio conversation, and he let Trulli pass him. Yet he said something totally different, on multiple occasions afterward, knowing it would cast a bad light on a fellow driver. Further, when Trulli recieved a 25 second penalty, Lewis didn't speak up with the truth. Nobody at McLaren did, either.

If that's not as greasy as it gets, I don't know what is.

Anything lewis does will get him in trouble, they are watching him like a hawk. Its better he gets a white helmet and behave like the stig and only speak morse code from now.

[andartop]

Jesus H. Christ. What a mess.

I may be fanning the flames, but here goes...

Hamilton needs to learn the bloody rules. As in, be an authority on the rules, know them better than anyone else, sleep with the rulebook under his pillow. I don't mean the precisions, max front wing width, minimum dry weight, etc. but as the competitor, he is responsible for his own race, and should know the rules as they apply to him. He should not have to radio in to ask what to do, he should know what to do, and say "I'm doing this"...

When Trulli left the track, Lewis should have gotten on the radio and said "Trulli just left the track, I'm passing him" - because that is his right. Further, it's due dilligence, because then you're making a record of your action over the radio, so it can be used after the fact in an appeal. That's what he should have ideally done.

Now, when Lewis was asked by the Stewards and by a reporter following the race, "Did you let Trulli past you, or did he have to do that on his own?", Lewis said that Trulli did it on his own, clearly implying that Trulli had broken the rules. Lewis was there during the radio conversation, and he let Trulli pass him. Yet he said something totally different, on multiple occasions afterward, knowing it would cast a bad light on a fellow driver. Further, when Trulli recieved a 25 second penalty, Lewis didn't speak up with the truth. Nobody at McLaren did, either.

If that's not as greasy as it gets, I don't know what is.

=D>
I had to learn by heart around 50 different 100-500 page books in different subjects to get my degree! If a "professional" driver who happens to be a World Champion and gets paid tens of million of dollars cannot learn the sporting code, and if a multi-hundred-million dollar Team who want to be World Champions cannot advise him to do the right thing when he is in doubt, then they are rightfully punished for messing up, and even more so for lying about it!

[Ray]

I never heard one word from the McLaren team stating that they told Lewis to let him pass, either in a press release or directly in an interview. All I heard was them state that Trulli passed him. They laid blame squarely on Trulli shoulders. That to me is both lying and in the end an admission of guilt.

Should Trulli be penalised? I would say no. No harm no foul. Then again I haven't seen a video showing just how far he went off track. Can't seem to find one. Because an example is Montoya in Australia a few years ago spinning on the formation lap. I distinctly remember hearing the announcers saying that if he got turned around the right way he could take his spot back. Is that rule still in effect?

[andartop]

Anything lewis does will get him in trouble, they are watching him like a hawk. Its better he gets a white helmet and behave like the stig and only speak morse code from now.

Of course they do! If you're a well known cheater (McLaren 2007) and liar (McLaren 2007), you 're much more likely to be in the spotlight, especially when you 're fighting for the championship!

[BTM]

how do you not think that LH lied. He did not answer the question ignorantly. He was asked by stewards whether he consciously let trulli through, which he said he did not. radio transcripts report him saying "i let him pass" not "he passed me" meaning he did consciously let trulli pass. this is not ignorantly answering a question-this is lying

Since when does a drivers consciousness comes into the decision the stewards make? Since when does the FIA care what LH thinks. formula 1 is quickly turning ito a soap opera. Truli should then be penalized for consciously believing he deserved to be in 3rd since he was the first to transgress

How did Hamilton let him pass? He surely didnt wave to truli or talk to him over the radio.
" i let him pass" means i allowed him to do what he was doing. What was hamilton to do?
Fight for the spot behind the safety car?

If it makes your day labeling the man as a liar then no problem. lets just hope he doesnt tell another lie this weekend

hamilton encouraged trulli pass by slowing down and moving off line. this is further supported by the fact that he said "i already let him pass" to macca. What was trulli to do? slow down and pull off line as well, as well as every driver behind them? for all trulli new hammy was having a breakdown. Slowing down and moving off line is consciously letting trulli pass, which is what he was asked by stewards, and which he denied. if this does not constitute a lie in your view, what does?

[donskar]

McLaren Lied! NOT Lewis Hamilton..

Anything Hamilton said was obviously under instruction.


Are words a form of evidence?

Yes.

I nominate this as a contender for "Post of the Year."

[Spencifer_Murphy]

My problem is as yet all we've got is the FIA saying "We asked Lewis this question, and he said no he didn't conciously allow Trulli to pass him". Unfortunately they've yet to back this up with any evidence to support this claim.

The teams are required by the FIA to give evidence for just about everything. Personally I think the FIA should be just as accountable. If they are going to label someone like this I feel they should rpoove it. Not just say "We're the governing body, so what we say is right, you can trust us ". Considering they KNOW that people are questioning their bias/ethics you'd have thought that to release transcripts of the FIA hearing with Hamilton would be benificial for everyone involved?

FIA prove their case
There's no question on the matter
The situation is dealt with transparantly...its an interesting word that, last time we had a big scandel it popped up, the politician (Bernie, Max et al) like to talk about "Things being more transparant in future", but does it ever happen? Does it hell.

I'm not trying to say Lewis/Mclaren did no wrong, I'm not even saying the FIA are telling lies or twisting stories or trying to stitch them up. I'm just saying that as followers of the sport its nice to be told everything, so we too can evaluate things. And when somebody does not give evidence to prove an allegation they are making its usually for one of two reasons:

A) They have something to hide
B) They have a superiority complex and feel they are above everyone else and can just do as they please without justifying it. Usually this is coupled with a vague quoting of some legal mumbo-jumbo which, in reality, means nothing when read out of context.

Neither of which I'm happy to just "accept". The FIA needs to get off its high horse and deal with issues properly, not only can they not (or choose not to) validate their findings but they also seem incapable of coming to such colcusions within a reasonable time-frame. They are, to all intents and purposes, incompetent, lacking direction, and not fit for purpose. The sooner we get a new president the better, because the current incumbant is drunk at the wheel.

[donskar]

It's all mclhating fiarrari. The fia never started an investigation by themselves before after the stewards's decision. I say this smells. Probably the fia noticed that mcl gained by the whole situation and thought: hmm, we need to get ferrari back in the game. Let's help our italian friend trulli.

This season is already screwed, one race and again. If hamilton loses his title by six points it's al controversial. Another season wrecked, thanks to fia, I --- hate them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yup, it's all a Ferrari conspiracy. In fact, Enzo is NOT dead, but rather is playing drums in Elvis Presley's band, "The REALLY Grateful Dead."

[donskar]

It's really funny to see some people only looking at this from Hamilton's point of view and moaning about unfair decisions, conspiracies, even implicating Ferrari into this!!! It's as simple as this:

Trulli made a mistake and went off track.
LH had no choice but to overtake him.

If McLaren and Lewis knew the rules of the sport they are competing in at the highest level, it should have ended at that. If Toyota or anyone else dared say anything, their defense would be that Trulli's car was off track when LH claimed 3rd, thus LH had every right to do so. End of story.

By not knowing the rules, or by just being confused as to what to do, McLaren (mostly) and Lewis messed up. THEN, they did realize they messed up and tried to cover up everything by lying about what happened. One would have thought that after 2007 McLaren should have known that the worst thing they can do is lie to the sport's governing body (for ANY reason). They didn't. So, they got punished. Again.

Same rules apply to everyday life. You might be completely innocent, but if you testify false you can be punished by law. And it still can take a loooong time before you actually find out about the penalty! (just kidding on the last bit: they should have reached their conclusions much sooner!)

Andartop, please withdraw your comment. It is totally out of place in this thread -- far too rational. Instead, I recommend you suggest that Hamilton is too popular to have to follow rules. If you can't pull that off, see if you can work up an argument that Ferrari was behind the whole thing.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

McLaren Lied! NOT Lewis Hamilton..

Anything Hamilton said was obviously under instruction.


Are words a form of evidence?

Yes.

I nominate this as a contender for "Post of the Year."

lol I know what you mean donskar but I think what he was getting at when he said "Are words a form of evidence" is, are "are the words of one a form of evidence against another." Or more accurately (because they can be, like a witness in court) "Are the words of one, evidence against another, when the first is making an allegation about the latter?", personally I don't think so, not to the extent that they can be relied upon to form a proper verdict or judgement.

Like, in court of law, you cannot be sentenced for a crime purely because the proecutor simply says you did it. The FIA are saying Lewis lied to them, which is all well and good, except we don't know that to be true yet. (until they provide proof, for example transcripts of their "interview" with Lewis...I'd be suprised if they didn't take any notes!)

Again, I'm not saying what the FIA are saying isn't true...just that when allegations of this severity are made, its usually the norm for them to be backed up with proof. As yet we've got nothing but "their word"...which is highly ironic considering the whole issue arises from the unreliability of mere "words".