2008 Belgian Grand Prix

  • Thread starter PeterJB
  • 493 comments
  • 18,197 views
I can only imagine...

6yoawpv.jpg
 
I thought the penalty was a bit harsh but after Hamilton's antics at Monza I hope they add a 10 starting spot penalty to it for them appealing!
 
Verdict tomorrow. Meanwhile, it seems LH got angry when cross-examined by Ferrari's legal representative. Acording to www.autosport.com, this is what he said:

And at one stage, when angered about some comments regarding his behaviour, Hamilton said to Tozzi: "Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job. We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."
 
from formula1.com

Should McLaren’s appeal be successful, Hamilton’s lead in the drivers’ standings will go from one point to seven. If it fails, he will head to this weekend’s Singapore Grand Prix with a one-point advantage over Massa. Either way, the Court’s decision, expected Tuesday, could play a vital role in the outcome of the 2008 championship.

VMM will also over take Ferrari in the constructor standings if this goes through.

I'm praying that it does
 
Last edited:
SUPER NUMBBER
Vmm?
Click to expand...

Vodafone McLaren Mercedes ;) They are allowed an acronym you know, like STR, RBR or SF....though STR is the only one that is commonly used as they are the only ones named as such on the time boards/championship boards.
 
Last edited:
And the award for least surprising news of teh day goes to the FIA.

The FIA has rejected McLaren's appeal against the penalty imposed on Lewis Hamilton at the Belgian Grand Prix at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit.

The decision means Hamilton remains just one point ahead of Ferrari rival Felipe Massa in the championship with four races to go.

Hamilton had received a drive-through for benefiting from cutting through a chicane at the Spa race, but was given a 25-second penalty because the event was already over.

The penalty dropped Hamilton from first to third.

McLaren had maintained Hamilton had not gained any advantage from jumping the chicane and decided to appeal the penalty.

The FIA said, however, that drive-through penalties could not be appealed.

"Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal'," a statement from the FIA's Court of Appeal said on Tuesday.

"The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward's decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

"Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible."

McLaren claimed in the court that a precedent to appeal Hamilton's 25-second penalty had been set at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, when Scuderia Toro Rosso were allowed to challenge a similar punishment handed down to Vitantonio Liuzzi for overtaking under yellow flags.

The FIA told McLaren, however, that there had been a mistake in Liuzzi's original penalty - and that he too should have been given a drive-through penalty. FIA race director Charlie Whiting claimed that the chief race steward at the time, Tony Scott-Andrews, had told him there had been an error.

However, McLaren produced a statement from Scott-Andrews in court countering the claims of the FIA.

In his statement, he set the record straight by stating: "I have seen the email and I'm extremely surprised by its content. In short, it is grossly inaccurate and misleading."

Although Whiting stood by his belief that Scott-Andrews had informed him he made an error, McLaren's lawyer Mark Phillips made sure that the court should be made aware of the implication.

Phillips labeled it as an 'unfortunate email' and pleaded with the judges: "to reflect when you come to consider your judgment the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted themselves. I won't say any more."
Click to expand...
source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/70792

Seems they have stuck with the notion of drive through penalties not being subject to appeal still stands when they are turned into time penalties (despite a precedent that says otherwise). Which quite handedly means they don't have to bothering discussing or explaining the actual case at all.

Rough translation to my ears - go away were not interested.

However, as I said before no big surprise. Appeals to the FIA generally have a snowflakes chance in hell of being upheld.


Regards

Scaff
 
Autosport
The full judgement from the ICA

Tuesday, September 23rd 2008, 14:32 GMT


FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE CASE:

Appeal lodged by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes, against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 Formula One World Championship

Hearing of Monday 22 September 2008 in Paris

The FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL ("the Court"), comprised of Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), who was elected President, Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria), Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain) and Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland), met in Paris on Monday 22 September 2008 at the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, 8 place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris.

The Court, ruling on the appeal submitted by the Motor Sports Association (MSA) on behalf of its licence-holder Vodafone McLaren Mercedes ("McLaren") against Decision N° 49 taken by the Panel of Stewards on 7 September 2008 at the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, run on 7 September 2008 and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, heard presentations and considered arguments presented by the MSA/Vodafone McLaren Mercedes and by the Fédération Internationale Automobile (“FIA”).

The Commissione Sportiva Automobilista Italiana (CSAI) notified the Court on 12 September 2008 of the request of its licence-holder Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro (“Ferrari”) to be heard in the present case in accordance with article 21 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal. The Court therefore heard the presentations and considered the arguments presented by Ferrari.

Attending the above hearing were:

MSA: Robert Jones (Secretary General)

for Vodafone McLaren Mercedes:

Mark Philips QC (Lawyer)
Lewis Hamilton (Driver)
Philip Prew (Race Engineer)
Martin Whitmarsh (Chief Executive)
Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton)
Tim Murnane (Legal representative)
Matt Bishop (McLaren)
David Ryan (Team Manager)
Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren)
Ben Allgrove (Legal representative for McLaren)

for Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro:

Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer)
Stefano Domenicali (Team Principal)
Luca Baldisserri (Team Manager)
Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel)
Andrea Fioravanti (Legal representative)
Henry Peter (Legal representative)

for the FIA:

Mr Paul Harris (Lawyer)
Mr Pierre de Coninck (Secretary General FIA Sport, on behalf of FIA Sport)
Mr Sébastien Bernard (Head of Legal Department)
Mr Charlie Whiting (Race Director)

The parties presented oral arguments at the hearing. The witnesses or knowledgeable parties answered questions put to them by the parties and by the Court. The hearing took place in accordance with the applicable rules, with the aid of simultaneous translation; no objection to any element of the simultaneous translation was raised by anyone. During the discussions, the adversarial principle was respected.

Reminder of the facts

1. This case concerns the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix, an event that was run at Spa Francorchamps (Belgium) on 7 September 2008, counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship (“the event”).

2. On lap 42 of the event, the car belonging to the Ferrari team, driven by Mr Kimi Räikkönen, was leading the race at turn 18. The car belonging to the McLaren team, driven by Mr Lewis Hamilton, drew level with Mr Räikkönen's car on the approach to turn 19, cut the chicane and took the slip road. Mr Hamilton thus found himself in the lead, in front of Mr Räikkönen's car, at the exit from turn 19. On rejoining the track, Mr Hamilton allowed Mr Räikkönen to overtake him in order to cede back the latter's place. Immediately afterwards, Mr Hamilton carried out another overtaking manoeuvre at turn 1 (La Source) and again overtook Mr Räikkönen. Mr Hamilton finished the event in the lead.

3. In its decision N° 49 (the “contested decision”), taken on 7 September 2008, the Panel of Stewards considered that Mr Hamilton had not sufficiently ceded back the advantage he had gained by cutting the chicane, and had thus breached Article 30.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code. On the basis of Article 16.3.a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, the Panel imposed a drive-through penalty on Mr Hamilton. Article 30.3.a) of those regulations stipulates that “during practice and the race, drivers may use only the track and must at all times observe the provisions of the Code relating to driving behaviour on circuits”. Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code states that “the race track alone shall be used by the drivers during the race”. As the penalty was to be applied at the end of the race, the Panel of Stewards added 25 seconds to the driver's race time, in accordance with the provisions of Article 16.3, final paragraph.

Procedure and forms of order sought by the parties

4. McLaren lodged the present appeal with the Court Secretariat on 9 September
2008.

5. McLaren claims that the Court should:

- declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;

- annul the contested decision.

6. The FIA, in its submission of 19 September 2008, claims that the Court should:

– declare the appeal inadmissible pursuant to Article 152 of the International
Sporting Code;

– if the appeal is admissible, dismiss the appeal as unfounded and confirm the
contested decision in its entirety.

7. Ferrari, as an intervening party, claims that the Court should:
– declare the appeal inadmissible;

– if the appeal is admissible, confirm the contested decision in its entirety.

Arguments presented by the parties

McLaren

8. Concerning admissibility, McLaren points out in its submission that according to Article 152, three types of penalty are not susceptible to appeal: (i) drivethrough penalties; (ii) stop-and-go penalties; and (iii) penalties expressly specified in FIA Championship regulations. McLaren claims that, as the penalty imposed in this case consists of adding 25 seconds to the race time, it does not fall into any of those three categories and that, consequently, it does fall within the scope of the restriction upon the right of appeal under Article 152.

9. On the substance, McLaren claims that while Mr Hamilton did indeed cut the chicane, he gained no advantage from this, since immediately upon taking the lead of the race he allowed Mr Räikkönen to pass him and retake first place. McLaren considers that since its driver and its car were faster, Mr Hamilton was able to overtake his rival again properly, without in any way using all or part of the advantage he had obtained by cutting the chicane.

FIA

10. Concerning admissibility, the FIA claims that in the contested decision, the Stewards clearly indicated that the penalty imposed was a drive-through penalty. In accordance with Article 152, this type of penalty is not susceptible to appeal. The fact that the penalty came into effect at the end of the race and thus took the form of an addition of 25 seconds to the race time does nothing to change the nature of the penalty.

11. On the substance, the FIA considers that the decision taken by the Stewards is not to be criticised, since Mr Hamilton incontestably gained an advantage by leaving the track. The FIA considers that while this advantage was ceded back to Mr Räikkönen, it was only partially so, and that it had not been ceded back in its entirety.

Ferrari

12. Regarding admissibility, Ferrari also claim that the penalty imposed in the present case constitutes a drive-through penalty, which is not susceptible to appeal pursuant to Article 152.

13. Concerning the substance of the case, Ferrari considers that the Stewards' decision was justified, and claims that Mr Hamilton would not have been able to overtake Mr Räikkönen if he had not gained an advantage from the disputed manoeuvre undertaken at the chicane.

Decision of the Court

Regularity of the appeal

14. Ferrari raised the question of whether or not the appeal submitted against the contested decision had been notified within the time limits stipulated in the Rules of the Court. McLaren claim that the appeal was indeed submitted within the given time limit.

Nothing in the dossiers submitted to the Court establishes that the appeal was not lodged properly, and in particular that the appeal time limits were not respected. The documents produced suggest, on the contrary, that the time limits were observed. It follows that the appeal must be declared properly formed.

Competence of the competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes

15. The competitor Ferrari, having claimed that only Lewis Hamilton was penalised by the Stewards’ decision, and having observed that the driver concerned had not appealed, deduced that McLaren could not appeal. However, it must be noted that, with regard to this decision, the Stewards did indeed record a breach of the rules committed by “the competitor named below’, which referred expressly to the “competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes”.

16. In these conditions, it is clear that this competitor was sanctioned, even if the penalty of 25 seconds was added to the race time of the driver Hamilton. 17. It follows that McLaren, through its ASN, is competent to submit the appeal that is now before the Court.

Admissibility of the appeal

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.”

19. Furthermore, Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that:
“Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties
specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not
susceptible to appeal. ”

20. The above-mentioned decision of 7 September 2008 demonstrates that the Stewards, after having noted that the driver Lewis Hamilton “cut the chicane and gained an advantage”, considered that an infringement of Article 30.3a) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations and of Article 2.g) of Chapter 4 of Appendix L to the International Sporting Code had been committed. As a consequence, they decided to pronounce the following penalty: “drive-through penalty (Article 16.3(a)), since this is being applied at the end of the Race, 25 seconds will be added to the driver’s elapsed race time”.

21. The foregoing demonstrates that the Panel of Stewards intended to impose a drive-through penalty within the meaning of Article 16.3.a) of the Sporting Regulations. In applying Article 16.3, final paragraph of those Regulations, they added 25 seconds to the elapsed time of the driver concerned.

22. The provisions of Article 16.3 must be read in their entirety, as the three points a), b) and c) and the last paragraph of this Article are manifestly linked. There is no indication that one is allowed to confer an autonomous character to the last paragraph of this provision. On the contrary, this paragraph sets out a specific mode of execution of penalties a) and b) and aims to determine the implementation of these sanctions when they must be imposed during the last five laps of the race or after the end of the race.

23. It is with this in mind that the Panel issued its decision, as the penalty that it expressly imposed on the competitor is indeed a drive-through penalty pursuant to Article 16.3.a).

24. Therefore, the nature of the penalty mentioned in the last paragraph of Article 16.3 (addition of 25 seconds to the elapsed time) is identical to those mentioned in points a) and b). Its legal regime must for that reason be in line with the regime applicable to the sanctions foreseen under a) and b).

The Court therefore considers that the penalty imposed by the Stewards on 7 September 2008 must be considered to be a drive-through penalty.

25. As a consequence, this sanction falls within the scope of Article 152, paragraph 5, of the International Sporting Code. According to these provisions, “penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal”.

26. The above must thus be taken into account in the present matter by declaring inadmissible the appeal against the contested decision.

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.

On the substance

28. In view of the foregoing, it follows that there is no need to examine the substance of the appeal submitted by McLaren.

On those grounds,

THE FIA INTERNATIONAL COURT OF APPEAL

Hereby:

1. Declares the appeal inadmissible;

2. Orders the Appellant to pay the costs, in accordance with Article 24 of the Rules of the International Court of Appeal.
Click to expand...
.
 
The FIA have just lost the last minuscule shred of respect I had for them.

The judges decision is final - even when the judges decision is not final and the judges decide to change their mind.

In the event that the judges change their mind new rules will be made up on the spot to justify any and all travesties. Precedent may be used if available but, failing that, any old **** and bull may be cited.

Even when the judges final decision is patently ludicrous - The FIA will uphold whichever final decision the judges declare as their final final decision until such a time as the judges decide their final decision needs revising, the revised decision being the final decision in lieu of subsequent final decisions emerging.

In the event that Ferrari doesn't win the championship the judges will ensure that Ferrari wins the championship.
 
That was just a waste of time. The FIA should just emailed them and said "no means no" and would probably do something better. :rolleyes:
Well yeah, kinda hard for McLaren to swallow but lets hope the rest of the race isn't as plagued as this one..... :irked:👍
 
There is no "overwhelming" evidence that the short-cut helped Lewis Hamilton after he waved Kimi Raikkonen by for his mis-step. Hamilton then passed Raikkonen, and shortly afterward, Raikkonen crashed, and Lewis Hamilton was too far in front to be challenged. Am I missing anything here...Was there really any reason for this 25 second penalty, since it was effectively cancelled out by the fact he let him by (which is also a rule)? I know Formula One is a technical exercise in the name of sport, but if this a sporting decision, why the arbitrary mathematical ruling?

Do the drivers need penalties tacked onto their slight mistakes, of which some can be grave and dangerous, not to mention the mental pressures and physical tolls already placed on them? Will drivers be allowed to settle their errors and mis-steps on the track, or in courtrooms?

Some days, this sport repulses me. On most days, it's the governing body.
 
Last edited:
Roo
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3166071&postcount=462
Click to expand...
That was arguably the most exciting FIA ruling of the season :boggled:👍

After a thrilling 45 minute debate, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) pulled off a stunning but controversial riposte to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer). Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) briefly regained the initiative after an unexpected intervention by Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel) with just 2 minutes of the debate left, with both Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) and Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) having to make evasive comments. However, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) was declared to have made an inadmissible comment, so the debate win was awarded to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer), with Mark Philips QC (Lawyer) promoted into second place, and Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren) finishing the day in third place. Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) is considering appealing against the decision...
 
Touring Mars
That was arguably the most exciting FIA ruling of the season :boggled:👍

After a thrilling 45 minute debate, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) pulled off a stunning but controversial riposte to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer). Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) briefly regained the initiative after an unexpected intervention by Massimiliano Maestretti (General Counsel) with just 2 minutes of the debate left, with both Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) and Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer) having to make evasive comments. However, Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) was declared to have made an inadmissible comment, so the debate win was awarded to Nigel Tozzi QC (Lawyer), with Mark Philips QC (Lawyer) promoted into second place, and Tom Cassels (Legal representative for McLaren) finishing the day in third place. Sue Thackeray (Legal representative for Mr Hamilton) is considering appealing against the decision...
Click to expand...

I bet 'ol Nige will say it was the most difficult case he'd ever been a part of, and that Mark held him up in the chambers. Tom's probably whining that both of them were wearing wingtips that were 0.5mm too wide, and that Sue was 5 kg overweight.
 
Tired Tyres
Totally expected. As far as I am concerned FIA stands for Ferrari Interests Authority.
Click to expand...
SO when the FIA penalise a driver for doing the wrong thing, they're favouring Ferrari, but when the driver gets away with breaking the rules, they're doing the right thing?

How does that work!?
 
Pupik
Some days, this sport repulses me. On most days, it's the governing body.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Wish the FIA had just not get involved for an otherwise small incident.... 👎 Well at least this race can be put to rest now, there is still 4 races left in the season. ;)
 
Do you race?
SO when the FIA penalise a driver for doing the wrong thing, they're favouring Ferrari, but when the driver gets away with breaking the rules, they're doing the right thing?

How does that work!?
Click to expand...

From your point of view.

Many of us consider this to be a case of a driver penalised for doing the right thing, just not right enough in the FIA's eyes.

No one has ever claimed that LH did not cut the chicane or that when he returned to the track he was in front of KR. However he then returned the place to KR and at one point was 7 meters behind him and going 6km/h slower, that however has been deemed to be just as serious an offence as not bothering to return the place at all.

As I said quite a while ago in this thread, this now sets a precedent that a driver should not bother returning any advantage gained, after all if the penalty for gaining an advantage is the same as the one for attempting to return it, then why bother returning it.

Finally to pre-empt the point that normally follows, that he didn't give enough back, I ask the questions that has still not been answered.

  • How are both drivers to know and agree what the gap was at the start?
  • How does the driver returning this now measure it?

Now I know why they have not been answered, because you can't know either of these things, certainly not during a race. Which is why it has always been accepted that returning the place (and to my mind being around two car lengths behind and moving slower is returning it) is all that is asked.

The FIA's clarification of the sporting regs was nothing of the sort, I've read the sporting regs and nothing even close to this clarification ever existed before this incident.

Its then rather telling that despite precedent being set, the FIA refuse to even hear the appeal.

Thats why a very large number of us believe the FIA has been unfair in this, now despite a few tongue in cheek posts I have made, I can assure you that I would be equally stubborn in my position regardless of the colour of the car.


Scaff
 
I'm not sure if this is a relevant question or not, but...

Why, in the case of McLaren appealing a penalty with the FIA, were Ferrari invited? What particular benefit to the dispute between McLaren and the FIA was gained by having the McLaren driver in question cross-examined by a lawyer working for Ferrari?
 
Scaff
  • How are both drivers to know and agree what the gap was at the start?
  • How does the driver returning this now measure it?
Click to expand...

Simple - they ask Charlie Whiting and he lies to them

Scaff
Thats why a very large number of us believe the FIA has been unfair in this, now despite a few tongue in cheek posts I have made, I can assure you that I would be equally stubborn in my position regardless of the colour of the car.
Scaff
Click to expand...

+1 - I'm a Hamilton fan but if the shoe had been on the other foot and Kimi had been penalised for doing the same thing to Lewis, it'd still have sucked and I'd still be ranting my guts up in this very forum about the level of suction which was evident.
 
Famine
I'm not sure if this is a relevant question or not, but...

Why, in the case of McLaren appealing a penalty with the FIA, were Ferrari invited? What particular benefit to the dispute between McLaren and the FIA was gained by having the McLaren driver in question cross-examined by a lawyer working for Ferrari?
Click to expand...

I had been thinking the same thing myself - it kind of puts the mockers on the whole "we didn't make any complaints" claim by Ferrari when the steward's decision was first made public...

P3nT4gR4m
+1 - I'm a Hamilton fan but if the shoe had been on the other foot and Kimi had been penalised for doing the same thing to Lewis, it'd still have sucked and I'd still be ranting my guts up in this very forum about the level of suction which was evident.
Click to expand...
Ditto - indeed, this decision sucks so much, I wouldn't be surprised if James Dyson patented it.
 

Latest Posts

Back