Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix 2009

  • Thread starter GT4 genius
  • 606 comments
  • 27,300 views
A challenge for you, find me an appeal against the FIA that a team won.

and thanks to the magic of google i have done just that.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00096.html

the whole illegal Fuel controversy surrounding Schumacher and Coulthard. sure it was IMO only half successful seeing as the teams where still penalized but the drivers got off it still proves that it can be done. but i do see where your coming from.

Fixed for spelling
 
I'm not a believer in the conspiracy theories...however, the payments the FIA give to Ferrari do tend to suggest they would be hesitant about making harsh penalties on them as they have other teams. Its gives the idea they want Ferrari around and won't want to do anything that causes them to leave. F1 and Ferrari are two things that cannot exist without each other and they are a valuable part of the sport.
It was FOM who paid Ferrari, not the FIA. Although inherently related to one another, FOM and the FIA exist as separate entities. In other words, it was Benie Ecclestone who paid Ferrari, not Max Mosely.

However, I don't think McLaren get treated any differently to any of the other non-Ferrari teams beyond the fact that they have a history of clashes with the FIA whereas other teams do not. I don't think it would be out of this world to think they may be a little tired of McLaren's constant clashes with the rules and hence may be a little quicker to judge on such incidents than with other teams who haven't been messing about.
I remember way back at Spa I drew parallels between spygate and a polie investigation. McLaren were found guilty of having Ferrari's technical documents, and arned that massive fine. Because they've been proven guilty once, the FIA are more likely to look at them first if something comes up involving them, much the same way as police will look at repeat offenders if a crime similar to the original one has been committed.

I think there are fair grounds for some of the theories really, its not so rediculous as you make it sound but on the other hand I don't think there is anything beyond a slight bias with regards to past histories and perhaps contracts.
Yeah, but to suggest that the FIA is actually the 'Ferrari Interests Authority' and that all of its members - the important ones at least - are in Maranello's pocket is a kick in the pants. There's no way Ferrari could consistently bribe dozens of people and keep it secret for years; all it would take is one conscience and the whole thing falls to pieces. Not only that, but the sport would be destoryed, possibly forever.

It's much easier to believe that maybe Lewis Hamilton keeps making mistakes. Despite what James Allen and Lewisteria rammed down out throats these past two years, he is not a God among men. In fact, he's jut six months older than I am, and I know from experince that twenty-three year olds do make mistakes because of their inexperience. If people like Barrichello, Fisichella, Heidfeld and Raikkonen can make mistakes, Lewis Hamilton sure as hell can, too.

Besides, the FIA has no motive for being biased against Hamilton.

And don't tell me the FIA are beyond having bias when it comes to dealing with a team they have clashed with before...there have been many seasons previously where the same team (not just McLaren) has been harshly penalised purely because of previous incidents rather than the seriousness of the latest incident. Or at the very least heavily watched, and I'm thinking Benetton 1994 here.
Well, that just relates back to the idea of repeat offenders. There's an interview with Sebastian Vettel over at Formula1.com where they talk about his penalty for speeding in pit lane early in his career - six seconds after he left the garage for the first time; he was filling in for the injued Kubica - and he remarks that the second time he did it, the FIA doubled the fine.
 
and thanks to the magic of google i have done just that.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00096.html

the whole illegal Fuel controversy surrounding Schumacher and Coulthard. sure it was IMO only half successful seeing as the teams where still penalized but the drivers got off it still proves that it can be done. but i do see where your coming from.

Fixed for spelling

And just how long ago was that - 1995.

Actually one other has occurred a little more recently than that, in 1999 Ferrari won on appeal in regard to an illegal deflector......

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1999/oct/24/ferrari-wins-appeal-to-keep-f1-championship-race-a/


....however all this does is illustrate the point I was making. I didn't say that it had never happened, simply that its is very, very unlikely that you will win an appeal against the FIA.

Teams simply do not appeal, unless they have absolutely nothing to loose, and this have been the view of teams for a long time.

This is old, but still just as valid today as it was when first published....


The auguries for the success of this appeal are unfavourable, by the most charitable estimate. When Jordan appealed against a one-race ban for Eddie Irvine after an incident in the 1994 Brazilian Grand Prix, the ban was not merely upheld, but tripled. Later that season Michael Schumacher and Benetton appealed against disqualification from the British Grand Prix for ignoring the black flag which demands that a driver stop racing immediately. A $25,000 fine(pounds 14,750) was multiplied by 10, and Schumacher was banned for two races. More recently, Mika Hakkinen raced under appeal in the Belgian Grand Prix following a fuel infringement in practice. When McLaren's appeal was heard, Hakkinen lost his third place and the team's fine was doubled to $50,000. There is a clear lesson here: mess with the FIA at your peril. It is easier to find Lord Lucan than a successful appellant.
Source - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-to-consider-leaving-formula-one-1235878.html

You don't appeal against the FIA even if you know you are right, as being right doesn't mean you will win, and the penalty for loosing is often extreme.

The FIA are incredibly difficult to read and often massively inconsistent is how the deal with things. Given all this would you appeal?


Regards

Scaff
 
And just how long ago was that - 1995.

Actually one other has occurred a little more recently than that, in 1999 Ferrari won on appeal in regard to an illegal deflector......

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/1999/oct/24/ferrari-wins-appeal-to-keep-f1-championship-race-a/


....however all this does is illustrate the point I was making. I didn't say that it had never happened, simply that its is very, very unlikely that you will win an appeal against the FIA.

Teams simply do not appeal, unless they have absolutely nothing to loose, and this have been the view of teams for a long time.

This is old, but still just as valid today as it was when first published....



Source - http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-to-consider-leaving-formula-one-1235878.html

You don't appeal against the FIA even if you know you are right, as being right doesn't mean you will win, and the penalty for loosing is often extreme.

The FIA are incredibly difficult to read and often massively inconsistent is how the deal with things. Given all this would you appeal?


Regards

Scaff

depends on if the rumors of the team possibly getting DQ'd for the whole season cone to be true. if so then yea i would. but i still think McLaren are trying to down play the situation as can be seen in the PR interviews.
 
It was FOM who paid Ferrari, not the FIA. Although inherently related to one another, FOM and the FIA exist as separate entities. In other words, it was Benie Ecclestone who paid Ferrari, not Max Mosely.

I remember way back at Spa I drew parallels between spygate and a polie investigation. McLaren were found guilty of having Ferrari's technical documents, and arned that massive fine. Because they've been proven guilty once, the FIA are more likely to look at them first if something comes up involving them, much the same way as police will look at repeat offenders if a crime similar to the original one has been committed.

Yeah, but to suggest that the FIA is actually the 'Ferrari Interests Authority' and that all of its members - the important ones at least - are in Maranello's pocket is a kick in the pants. There's no way Ferrari could consistently bribe dozens of people and keep it secret for years; all it would take is one conscience and the whole thing falls to pieces. Not only that, but the sport would be destoryed, possibly forever.

It's much easier to believe that maybe Lewis Hamilton keeps making mistakes. Despite what James Allen and Lewisteria rammed down out throats these past two years, he is not a God among men. In fact, he's jut six months older than I am, and I know from experince that twenty-three year olds do make mistakes because of their inexperience. If people like Barrichello, Fisichella, Heidfeld and Raikkonen can make mistakes, Lewis Hamilton sure as hell can, too.

Besides, the FIA has no motive for being biased against Hamilton.

Well, that just relates back to the idea of repeat offenders. There's an interview with Sebastian Vettel over at Formula1.com where they talk about his penalty for speeding in pit lane early in his career - six seconds after he left the garage for the first time; he was filling in for the injued Kubica - and he remarks that the second time he did it, the FIA doubled the fine.

Thats basically what I was trying to say - although I doubt there is any conspiracy at all, there is bias from time to time.
 
Well, he apparently considered quitting the sport over it:

Hamilton considered quitting over Oz GP
By Simon Strang Saturday, April 4th 2009, 23:43 GMT

Lewis Hamilton considered quitting McLaren, and even Formula 1, over the controversy surrounding his exclusion from last week's Australian Grand Prix, according to a report in The Sunday Times newspaper.

The newspaper claims that the world champion was talked out of walking away from the sport by FIA president Max Mosley, after Hamilton contacted the governing body to express his frustration that McLaren had misled him over the affair.

The Briton was disqualified from the Melbourne results after the stewards deemed he and McLaren sporting director Dave Ryan had 'deliberately misled' them about a radio conversation that took place after he had passed Toyota driver Jarno Trulli behind the safety car.

Hamilton and his father Anthony are reported to have been furious that his public perception had been tarnished by the affair, and both apparently insisted McLaren allow him to take the unprecendented step of holding a press conference in the FIA media centre so he could come clean about the situation.

He subsequently made an emotional open apology to the stewards and his fans. "I was misled and that is the way it went," he told the press. "I would like to say a big sorry to all my fans who have believed in me, who have supported me for years, who I showed who I am for the past three years, and it is who I am. I am not a liar. I am not a dishonest person.

Bernie Ecclestone told the Daily Mail: "Lewis is terribly upset but his father is even more upset having his son called a cheat. Anthony has brought Lewis up not to be like that and he is disappointed somebody has called him a liar when he isn't deliberately lying."

Hamilton's future with McLaren now remains unclear. BBC commentator Martin Brundle pointed out in his Sunday Times column today that the 24-year-old could walk free from his multi-year contract citing a breach on the team's behalf.

"McLaren could also now be perceived to be in breach of Lewis's contract for bringing him into disrepute especially as a senior team member has taken the whole rap," said Brundle, who raced for McLaren in 1994. "This would make him a free agent if he wanted to move teams."

Brundle also suggested that the scandal may stay with Hamilton forever. "The Briton's reputation has understandably taken a battering but a sense of perspective is required here.

"He will recover from this in time but he will have to live with the stigma in perpetuity, just as [Michael] Schumacher does. It will always be mentioned in his epitaph."
If you're going to quit, Lewis, your should have don it in 2007 when McLaren were found guilty of having the Ferrari documents. Something like this is small fish.
 
Back