Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix 2009

  • Thread starter GT4 genius
  • 606 comments
  • 27,321 views
I think it was McLaren who shot him ... but now I am with Scaff in this question. I want to see the transcripts (if there are any, I don't know) of the post-race conversation between the stweards, LH and the McLaren representative.

Because if LH and his team were just "evasive" in their replies is one thing (even if they were wrong to act that way). But if it's true that Lewis made up that "I was looking at the wheel display and that's why I got off the line and went slowly" ... that's a lot more serious.

Because, as I understand this, Trulli must have said to the stewards that LH slowed, got off the line and let him pass. So, it's only natural that the stewards would ask LH "why" did that happen.

Again ... all this is based in rumour and speculation. Transcripts are needed.
 
I don't think FIA have a choice. It's all down to McLarens stupidity and unnecessary caution.

Hamilton had the place when Trulli went off and should've stayed there. If there's a doubt then you stay there until you get told otherwise from the stewards.

Trulli lost his place but Hamilton gave it back. Once you give it back there's no way FIA can give it back because you were being nice, not knowing the rules and being cautious.

I don't understand why Mclaren would appeal for 3rd place because if they told them the full account which we're all aware of then FIA would say what the hell are you doing here wasting our time? You gave the place back unnecessarily and it's tough tit. If you make out you didn't give it back in any way and turns out from evidence you actually did give Trulli the place back then you're deliberately misleading. Mclaren have no business appealing.
 
That's a good point, and probably a fair synopsis of the situation - however it is pretty bad when a team can be accused of cheating and breaking the code of conduct for the sport for the sake of one point, all in the name of "unnecessary caution"...

You might well be right, that McLaren goofed by giving back the place, but it is pretty clear from the radio convo between Hamilton and the team that Hamilton wanted clarification whether or not he was allowed to retake the position, and clearly felt entitled to press the case that Trulli, whether allowed to pass or not, should not be allowed to stay in 3rd place because it wasn't rightfully his... and by the same token, Hamilton probably finished the race thinking that he had a case to appeal to the stewards about the legality of Trulli's behaviour.

However, you make an excellent point in that, by giving the place back to him, in whatever manner, and for whatever reason (i.e. erring on the side of caution), the 3rd place was actually rightfully Trullis from that point on... however, it seems ridiculously unfair that McLaren and Hamilton stand accused of gross misconduct (and possible further action, including disqualification from the Championship) for basically being "stupid" enough to act sportingly, and "stupidly" expect the rules to be applied properly, or to "stupidly" expect Toyota to behave sportingly in return.

Whichever way you slice it, this episode shows that something in the sport of F1 is rotten, and I'm disinclined to believe that Lewis Hamilton's character is the culprit...
 
The way I see it is that McLaren and Hamilton made a mistake and let Trulli go through under the safety car. Then they complained that Trulli illegally passed them under the safety car. Is this correct?

I don't think McLaren should have protested the results and the results should have remained as they were. McLaren were trying to spin the situation in their favor. But yes I do consider the penalty a bit harsh. I think a more fair penalty would be to give Hamilton 4th and to take a couple of grid places from him next race.


edit: tree'd
 
During the hearing, held approximately one hour after the end of the race, the Stewards and the Race Director questioned Lewis Hamilton and his Team Manager David Ryan specifically about whether there had been an instruction given to Hamilton to allow Trulli to overtake. Both the driver and the Team Manager stated that no such instruction had been given. The Race Director specifically asked Hamilton whether he had consciously allowed Trulli to overtake. Hamilton insisted that he had not done so.
Click to expand...



Not a transcript, but at least an official FIA statement.http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/f1_stewards_decision.aspx

As others here, I still don’t understand why they would stated something that is completely contradicted by team radio communications, witch both McLaren and LH could assume the stewards have access too.:confused:

Anyway, this is mostly a team mistake, as they just should have confirmed the “pass” on Trulli to be ok and wait in P3 for the checkered flag. On the other hand I understand why McLaren would have want to play it safe regarding “litigious” passes and “not” giving place back.
 
I thought the whole "I was looking at instructions on my steering wheel" thing was an April fools joke. Was this actually true?
 
Touring Mars
... however, it seems ridiculously unfair that McLaren and Hamilton stand accused of gross misconduct (and possible further action, including disqualification from the Championship) for basically being "stupid" enough to act sportingly, and "stupidly" expect the rules to be applied properly, or to "stupidly" expect Toyota to behave sportingly in return.

Whichever way you slice it, this episode shows that something in the sport of F1 is rotten, and I'm disinclined to believe that Lewis Hamilton's character is the culprit...
Click to expand...


Touring Mars, believe me when I say I have nothing against LH or McLaren. However, I think you are missing the point completely here.

What you describe is what happened in the track, before the end of the race. But neither LH nor McLaren are being penalized for it.

Just put yourself in the position of race steward of any GTP event. And, after the race ends, you suspect GTP_XXX overtook GTP_YYY in a situation where the event rules didn't allow it.

You ask GTP_XXX and he tells you "I overtook because he slowed down, left off the line and gave me way".

You ask GTP_YYY and he says: "No, I didn't give way" (I'm not even going to imagine that driver B gives any reason for slowing down)

So, you assume that GTP_XXX really "made a move" on GTP_YYY, and you act accordingly.

After that happens, you come to know that GTP_YYY indeed slowed down, got off the line and "gave way" to GTP_XXX.

So, he lied to you.

Now you can say to GTP_YYY one of two things:

a) you were over-carefull, the race position was rightfully yours, you shouldn't have given it back;

b) you lied to me and made me penalize GTP_XXX when, after all, he was telling the truth.

or you can say them both, really.

About finishing positions, I guess you have to reinstate GTP_XXX's one. And what will you do about the guy that lied to you, knowing what the consequences were to the other driver? Nothing?

This case - and this sanction - isn't about the mess up of McLaren during the race (LH is the victim really). It's about nottelling the truth after the race was over.
 
I cant find anything about it on the web but the sky news I think I was watching mentioned it in this way "Hamilton was stripped of his race points but could worse be on the way for the Mclaren team" My dad also heard a simalair thing on the radio about the disqualifiction. Why I dont know..
 
Hun200kmh
This case - and this sanction - isn't about the mess up of McLaren during the race (LH is the victim really). It's about nottelling the truth after the race was over.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I think if the FIA can establish beyond doubt that McLaren have cheated, then McLaren deserve punishment. But I don't think that they have established that... far from it actually. The FIA are saying that what Hamilton and McLaren said in the hearing with the stewards amounts to lying in order to score one more point than they should have, but all they have really established is that McLaren subsequently changed their opinion about whether they "meant" to let Trulli pass Hamilton. It is evident even in the radio transcript that they changed their minds almost immediately after the pass occured (indeed, before the team even knew it had happened already), hence why I understand Hamilton's seemingly contradictory statements that he "let him pass" but that he didn't make a conscious decision to permanently yield 3rd place. It is my opinion that Hamilton let Trulli past in the belief that he (Hamilton) was entitled to the place inkeeping with the rules of the sport... But this apparent self-contradiction is enough for the FIA to brand Hamilton a cheat, and I think this is unfair.

For me, it's also about establishing motive and proving guilt, and I think the FIA are coming up short on both fronts... they are claiming that Hamilton's testimony was deliberately inaccurate for the sole reason that McLaren want 6 points instead of 5, and claim that the radio conversation is evidence that McLaren knew that they were being deliberately dishonest in the hearing.

But this is too simplistic, and doesn't answer some rather obvious questions, like why would McLaren do such a thing knowing full well that the radio conversation would be scrutinised? Why would they even risk losing 5 points (let alone a massive fine or being DQ'd from the 2009 season completely) for the potential gain of just one point? Does it not occur to the FIA that McLaren and Hamilton had a legitimate reason to portray the incident in a way that represented their discomfort with Trulli breaking one of the most basic rules in the sport, and not passing under yellow flags? And why would Hamilton contradict himself when he was already on record - is it not possible that the FIA have merely misconstrued the situation, rather than assuming that Hamilton has been instructed to tell a bare-faced lie, surely knowing that it couldn't possibly work?

There may be a chance that McLaren really are trying pulling a fast one, but I'd argue that even McLaren are not that stupid as to risk expulsion from the race (or indeed the entire season) for the sake of one single extra point - all they were trying to do, in my view anyway, was highlight the fact that Trulli shouldn't have been allowed to keep 3rd place, although as Chronos said, the fact that they gave it back voluntarily should probably have been the end of it.
 
Last edited:
Touring Mars
Don't get me wrong, I think if the FIA can establish beyond doubt that McLaren have cheated, then McLaren deserve punishment. But I don't think that they have established that... far from it actually. The FIA are saying that what Hamilton and McLaren said in the hearing with the stewards amounts to lying in order to score one more point than they should have, but all they have really established is that McLaren subsequently changed their opinion about whether they "meant" to let Trulli pass Hamilton. It is evident even in the radio transcript that they changed their minds almost immediately after the pass occured (indeed, before the team even knew it had happened already), hence why I understand Hamilton's seemingly contradictory statements that he "let him pass" but that he didn't make a conscious decision to permanently yield 3rd place. It is my opinion that Hamilton let Trulli past in the belief that he (Hamilton) was entitled to the place inkeeping with the rules of the sport... But this apparent self-contradiction is enough for the FIA to brand Hamilton a cheat, and I think this is unfair.

For me, it's also about establishing motive and proving guilt, and I think the FIA are coming up short on both fronts... they are claiming that Hamilton's testimony was deliberately inaccurate for the sole reason that McLaren want 6 points instead of 5, and claim that the radio conversation is evidence that McLaren knew that they were being deliberately dishonest in the hearing.

But this is too simplistic, and doesn't answer some rather obvious questions, like why would McLaren do such a thing knowing full well that the radio conversation would be scrutinised? Why would they even risk losing 5 points (let alone a massive fine or being DQ'd from the 2009 season completely) for the potential gain of just one point? Does it not occur to the FIA that McLaren and Hamilton had a legitimate reason to portray the incident in a way that represented their discomfort with Trulli breaking one of the most basic rules in the sport, and not passing under yellow flags? And why would Hamilton contradict himself when he was already on record - is it not possible that the FIA have merely misconstrued the situation, rather than assuming that Hamilton has been instructed to tell a bare-faced lie, surely knowing that it couldn't possibly work?

There may be a chance that McLaren really are trying pulling a fast one, but I'd argue that even McLaren are not that stupid as to risk expulsion from the race (or indeed the entire season) for the sake of one single extra point - all they were trying to do, in my view anyway, was highlight the fact that Trulli shouldn't have been allowed to keep 3rd place, although as Chronos said, the fact that they gave it back voluntarily should probably have been the end of it.
Click to expand...
But it still McLaren's fault, not FIA's.

They let Trulli pass Hamilton at the track, which they shouldn't have done if they thought Hamilton deserved 3rd place, and then they lied to the Stewards in the hearing. If they were trying to make a point, they did it the wrong way.

I don't think FIA is to blame here.
 
I think both of them have made mistakes - but whereas Hamilton and McLaren have made a mistake in good faith, the FIA have branded Hamilton a cheat and a liar, when infact what he did on track was actually quite sporting and thoroughly inkeeping with the sport's code of conduct.

McLaren were literally in a no-win situation... As Famine said earlier, what's the betting that if Hamilton didn't give the place back, McLaren would have been disqualified? I'm willing to bet that they would have been...
 
I think what we really can conclude from all this is that Lewis should really consider other teams.....;)
His reputation is really being taken apart piece by piece by McLaren currently.
 
GTP Picture Exclusive!

Dramatic final moments of the Australian Grand Prix...

f12007belxp0221rh8.jpg
 
^I remember I won that round with a penis joke. :)

Touring Mars
McLaren were literally in a no-win situation... As Famine said earlier, what's the betting that if Hamilton didn't give the place back, McLaren would have been disqualified? I'm willing to bet that they would have been...
Click to expand...
Yes, I don't doubt they would. But why didn't McLaren explain that to the stewards instead of answering "No, we didn't let Trulli pass."?

It's their own fault for not being clear about it.
 
I agree, why lie for one measly point (though one point won the World Championship last year). Still, it's not believable that they would risk so much on something so small, considering they were expecting to win 0 points.

To me it sounds like the Stewards and the FIA can only see one version of events and are disinterested in any other versions, particularly if they are McLarens version. There was a mess, to be sure, but the penalties are harsh and the image it creates of McLaren, Hamilton and F1 in general is not a good one.
 
Touring Mars
Don't get me wrong, I think if the FIA can establish beyond doubt that McLaren have cheated, then McLaren deserve punishment.
Click to expand...

McLaren made a mistake and let Trulli through and then they said that they want their point back.


I'm wondering whether there were any similar incidents like this where a team was unsure of what to do under a safety car and then tried to get a place back.
 
McLaren interview regarding the DQ....


Four days after being moved into a podium position, Lewis Hamilton and his McLaren team were left with no points from the first race of the season in Australia.

The FIA deemed both the team and the driver had not been completely honest during a meeting to discuss Hamilton's incident with Jarno Trulli during the race.

McLaren team boss Martin Whitmarsh gave his take on the decision on Thursday evening and AUTOSPORT was there.

Q. What is your reaction to what has happened?

Martin Whitmarsh: Well it goes without saying that obviously we are disappointed with what has happened. But under the circumstances we are not going to appeal.

As we see it, what happened here is that during the closing stages of the Australian Grand Prix, under difficult conditions, there was a safety car incident whereby Jarno Trulli fell off the circuit and Lewis [Hamilton] could legitimately pass Trulli. I don't think that is in question.

Of course, the team could not see it. Lewis informed the team that he had passed Trulli - and there was understandably concern within the team that he had passed Trulli under a safety car. At that time, we did not know that Trulli was right off the circuit and Lewis was asked to give back the place to Trulli. That was a team view, having not seen it, and we thought it was the safest thing to do.

Once that instruction was given to Lewis, he did not agree. He said: 'Look, the guy was off the circuit, I don't need to do this.' A discussion was occurring and before that discussion was finished, Trulli had re-passed. If we look at the speed traces at that time, and compare it to other periods behind the safety car, then Lewis did not do anything abnormal. And I think it is also quite clear that Trulli should not have re-passed.

As soon as that happened, we then spoke to Race Control, to explain that and ask if we could retake that place. At the time, understandably Race Control was busy and they were not able to give us an answer. We asked several times, but clearly they were very busy. So we had to then deal with it. We felt it would be resolved by the stewards after the race.

At the stewards' meeting, we mistakenly believed that the stewards were aware, Charlie [Whiting] was there, and the FIA was there, of that radio conversation. The stewards now believe that we were not explicit enough about that radio conversation, and felt therefore that that was prejudicial to the decision that they reached. Obviously we regret that, and that was a mistake by the team, but we have got to accept the decision that has now been made.

Q. But the indication in the ruling is that Lewis [Hamilton] lied to the stewards. What do you say to that?

MW: I don't think there is any indication of that. There is no suggestion that Lewis lied to the stewards.

Q. The FIA statement said ‘deliberate' though. What did they mean by that?

MW: I don't know what they meant by it, you will have to ask them. But from what I understand there was a belief that the team was not explicit enough in terms of the content of the radio conversations. We don't believe that those radio conversations had a material effect on the fact that he was passed by Trulli under the safety car, but they clearly feel that despite that information, which was listened to by Race Control who was present, that the team did not give enough information about that radio conversation. I don't think there is any implication that Lewis lied, or such a statement is contained in what they said or what they believe.

Q. But the ruling says that Lewis provided evidence that was ‘deliberately misleading.'

MW: What they believe is that... the information about that radio conversation with the team was withheld, and that is what they believe was misleading.

Q. But it sounds like what Trulli said about the incident was very different from how Lewis presented it to the stewards?

MW: No, I don't think it is. There is no dispute about how Lewis overtook Trulli. Trulli was off the circuit and that was quite legitimate. With regard to then how Trulli then took [Lewis], I believe it was still considered by the stewards to not have been legitimate. What the stewards were concerned about was that there had been, and was, a conversation going on between the team and Lewis, and the feeling is that the team was not explicit enough about it.

Q. But the FIA deems it is a grave breach of sporting conduct, and has already indicated that this could go to the World Motor Sport Council, where further sanctions could be taken against McLaren…

MW: Well, you've got more information about that than me. I think the problem that the stewards have, is that they believe the team were not explicit enough in releasing that information. We do not think that it affected the outcome and the decisions, but that was their opinion.

Q. Do you believe the stewards have been right in what they have done? Have they been fair?

MW: I believe it was a harsh decision. I think the facts of the case are that Lewis made a legitimate pass and subsequently was re-passed. At the time the team asked several times to Race Control if it could re-pass and at the time, understandably, Race Control was too busy to be able to answer that question. So, we felt that the decision of the stewards in the immediate aftermath of the race was fair. But the stewards now believe that the radio conversation, which occurred and was listened to by the FIA, because in their opinion that was not explicitly made in the submission that the team made, that we withheld that. And therefore they came to this decision today.

Q. Would you agree it is a bleak day for McLaren, in the wake of Spygate a few years ago and the biggest ever fine?

MW: I think it is a regrettable day, and the fact is, the belief is, that we were not explicit. But I don't believe that that information would have made any difference to the decisions and the deliberations at the time. It certainly was not a deliberate attempt. It is quite clear that the radio conversations are listened to by the FIA, they are open, and the FIA was present during that hearing. So in the opinion of the team representative, there was a belief that it was known and there had been a conversation with the FIA.

Q. But they have reopened a case that was already closed, so something showed that the new evidence was something you had not given them?

MW: I think there has been a range of media speculation and therefore it was right to just look and see if there was any information that they didn't have. I don't believe there was any information that they didn't have – but they believed the team was not explicit enough in providing that information.

Q. Lewis after the race only spoke about getting past Trulli, but never mentioned stopping and giving the place back…

MW: He didn't stop, and the telemetry data which was shown to the stewards today showed that the lap on which he was overtaken was no different from the succeeding lap that was under the safety car. It was difficult conditions but there was no evidence from the data that Lewis did anything that induced Trulli to go past.

Q. How has Lewis taken this, as this is the start of his title defence?

MW: Well, as you would imagine, Lewis is extremely disappointed with it.

Q. Do you accept the decision?

MW: I think it is a harsh decision but I think experience has told us that you have to accept these decisions and these things that come along, and you have to build on your focus for this weekend and the races beyond that. There is no point dwelling on it.

Q. But isn't the whole point about the moment that Trulli passed Hamilton, rather than the radio conversations?

MW: I don't believe that there is anything in the statement, or there has been anything from the stewards, that indicated that they were lied to.

Q. But they said you were ‘deliberately misleading'..

MW: What I believe is that the stewards are saying, is that the information was not provided to them. And that information was about the radio conversation between the team and Lewis, and they feel the team could have been more explicit about that than it was.

Q. But do you really feel that, given the strong wording of the statement?

MW: I do believe that, because I believe that to be the case. There was no lie in that hearing. We, the team, made a mistake. We did not provide a full account of a radio conversation which we believe was being listened to in any case, and we don't believe was material to the decisions being made by the stewards.

Q. But did you not give them that conversation deliberately?

MW: I wasn't party to the actual meeting, but as you can imagine in those situations, you focus on the points that you believe are relevant. And the team, in the opinion of the stewards, was mistaken in not providing all the information. I think the people who were there, representing the team, supposed the conversations were known about because our radio conversations are open to the FIA in any case.

Q. In interviews after the race, Lewis said he was told by the team to let Trulli pass. The indications from this hearing are that he said something completely different?

MW: I think what Lewis told the media afterwards was that he had been asked by the team to let the driver through.

Q. And then told the stewards something completely different?

MW: I don't believe he did. All of the content of the conversation between the team and Lewis was not fully and explicitly shared with the stewards.

Q. So he was economical with the truth then?

MW: He answered the questions that were put to him in an honest manner, but the team should have provided, according to the stewards, a fuller account of what happened.

Q. Did you let Lewis down in that way then?

MW: We are a team and we are disappointed about this. I am sure when you look back on it we could have dealt with it in a different way. I think the radio conversation was not something that the team sought to conceal – it is with the FIA in any case and the people who were there felt the FIA was aware of that conversation. With hindsight it would have been better to have very explicitly gone through that conversation. The people who were there did not do that.

Q. So you believe you are Lewis have been honest?

MW: I believe the team and Lewis are completely honest in how we go about F1.
Click to expand...
Source - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/74153


And this bit......

MW: I don't believe he did. All of the content of the conversation between the team and Lewis was not fully and explicitly shared with the stewards.

...is exactly why I would like to see transcripts of both the radio chatter (which we have) and the stewards enquiry (which we don't have).


Regards

Scaff
 
I don't see anywhere in that interview where MW explains/reveals the team giving orders to to Lewis to let Trulli pass, and him doing so, as the radio transmission reveals. If they said it just once, and Lewis let him pass, it's done. Game over. They lost the position and the FIA's decision should have been swift post-race on that front. The lying after-the-fact, new evidence etc., etc., and this whole debacle seems irrelevant to me. We'll never know all the details I suppose...
 
Last edited:
5 hours to first practice in Malaysia and the only thing anybody is talking about is Australia. Well done FIA. That's the way to run a sport into the ground.
 
Well, I'll try to be excited (assuming this case doesn't take up most of the headlines). Its not so much the rear diffusers thats killed my excitment.
 
Oh and I'm obviously ignoring this penalty debacle as well.....this is one time too many now and its becoming difficult to follow.
 
Touring Mars
...by giving the place back to him, in whatever manner, and for whatever reason (i.e. erring on the side of caution), the 3rd place was actually rightfully Trullis from that point on... however, it seems ridiculously unfair that McLaren and Hamilton stand accused of gross misconduct (and possible further action, including disqualification from the Championship) for basically being "stupid" enough to act sportingly, and "stupidly" expect the rules to be applied properly, or to "stupidly" expect Toyota to behave sportingly in return.

Whichever way you slice it, this episode shows that something in the sport of F1 is rotten, and I'm disinclined to believe that Lewis Hamilton's character is the culprit...
Click to expand...

Just when I felt that F1 was winning its way back to my heart, it makes a decision like this that makes no goddamn sense at all. No matter how you want to paint it, McLaren was supporting another team's decision, not standing in the way nor challenging it, nor making mockery of the sport.

The FIA is just like the Internal Revenue Service, and that unctuously by-the-book co-worker all rolled into one.

At the end of the day, it's an automobile race with drivers behind the wheel.
 
As I've said, I consider myself a Hamilton fan, and I completely disagreed with the FIA penalizing Trulli. I don't know why they can't just leave the results be, with Trulli 3rd and Hamilton 4th. On the upside, my Fantasy F1 will definitely like this...
 
Skyline49
I don't know why they can't just leave the results be, with Trulli 3rd and Hamilton 4th.
Click to expand...
Because Hamilton and McLaren lied to the stewards. And in doing so, it looked as if Trulli ran off the road and the reclaimed his position from Hamilton when he shouldn't have. The end result was that Trulli got a penalty he didn't deserve afted Hamilton and McLaren engaged in entrapment and got an extra position out of it.
 

Latest Posts

Back