Ferrari and the court appeal
Discussion
Good morning all, today we should find out the result of the appeal againist the Spa penalty, fingers crossed justice prevails, although i for 1 am not counting my chickens.
One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
megy said:
Good morning all, today we should find out the result of the appeal againist the Spa penalty, fingers crossed justice prevails, although i for 1 am not counting my chickens.
One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
I was just about to post this. It doesn't make any sense, unless the pres are just laughing at the FIA and it was actually an FIA lawyer, but i guess it wasn't. Apparently Lewis rounded on him though which will either have been amusing, or shot him in the foot.One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
there is another interesting aspect to this, from Ed Gorman's (Times F1) blog:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/
http://timesonline.typepad.com/formula_one/
said:
McLaren revealed some very strange goings-on involving the legal department at the FIA in the last couple of days.
McLaren had submitted papers in advance of the hearing making clear they were going to rely on the Liuzzi-Sutil case at the Japanese GP last year as a precedent. In this case the stewards handed Liuzzi a time penalty which was then found to be open to appeal. Responding to McLaren's submissions, Charlie Whiting phoned Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at Fuji, on Friday, to ask about that decision. Whiting then informed the legal department at the FIA that Scott Andrews had indicated in that phone call that he was mistaken about the time penalty and had confirmed, in as many words, that it should have been a drive-through(which, of course, could not be appealed).
The FIA lawyers then wrote to McLaren's lawyers at 6.30pm on Friday informing them that Scott Andrews had made a mistake. "Having checked with the permanent chief of stewards who signed the Decision in Japan, we wish to inform you that there is an error on the face of the Decision document," the FIA told McLaren. McLaren's lawyers did not take this at face value and sought out Scott Andrews who was officiating at Brands Hatch on Sunday. When informed of what the FIA had alleged, Scott Andrews was outraged. He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'", Scott Andrews wrote in a lengthy submission which was read to the court by Phillips.
McLaren had submitted papers in advance of the hearing making clear they were going to rely on the Liuzzi-Sutil case at the Japanese GP last year as a precedent. In this case the stewards handed Liuzzi a time penalty which was then found to be open to appeal. Responding to McLaren's submissions, Charlie Whiting phoned Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at Fuji, on Friday, to ask about that decision. Whiting then informed the legal department at the FIA that Scott Andrews had indicated in that phone call that he was mistaken about the time penalty and had confirmed, in as many words, that it should have been a drive-through(which, of course, could not be appealed).
The FIA lawyers then wrote to McLaren's lawyers at 6.30pm on Friday informing them that Scott Andrews had made a mistake. "Having checked with the permanent chief of stewards who signed the Decision in Japan, we wish to inform you that there is an error on the face of the Decision document," the FIA told McLaren. McLaren's lawyers did not take this at face value and sought out Scott Andrews who was officiating at Brands Hatch on Sunday. When informed of what the FIA had alleged, Scott Andrews was outraged. He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'", Scott Andrews wrote in a lengthy submission which was read to the court by Phillips.
An interesting change of mood from Whiting in here:
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=503
"Whiting at one point said that it was not possible to have rules that were black and white, and he explained his change in opinion - for he said now that he thinks Lewis should have been punished - was due to the complexity of the situation. Where he felt at first it was okay, upon further analysis, he changed his mind."
So, Max has now got him to play ball as well.
As mentioned above, it'll be a whitewash.
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=503
"Whiting at one point said that it was not possible to have rules that were black and white, and he explained his change in opinion - for he said now that he thinks Lewis should have been punished - was due to the complexity of the situation. Where he felt at first it was okay, upon further analysis, he changed his mind."
So, Max has now got him to play ball as well.
As mentioned above, it'll be a whitewash.
jacobyte said:
An interesting change of mood from Whiting in here:
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=503
"Whiting at one point said that it was not possible to have rules that were black and white, and he explained his change in opinion - for he said now that he thinks Lewis should have been punished - was due to the complexity of the situation. Where he felt at first it was okay, upon further analysis, he changed his mind."
So, Max has now got him to play ball as well.
As mentioned above, it'll be a whitewash.
I dont see why it's complex at all.http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=503
"Whiting at one point said that it was not possible to have rules that were black and white, and he explained his change in opinion - for he said now that he thinks Lewis should have been punished - was due to the complexity of the situation. Where he felt at first it was okay, upon further analysis, he changed his mind."
So, Max has now got him to play ball as well.
As mentioned above, it'll be a whitewash.
He was pushed wide, came back, gave the place back, and then re-took it. Simple.
I think pointing out to the FIA that they have been caught being less than wholesome with the truth will be a mistake for McLaren.
Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar s
te happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.
They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar s
te happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
I can fully understand why the Ferrari legal team were present and may be called to give evidence. Their team driver was involved in the original chicane incident and they stand to lose a race victory which would drop FM further behind in the WDC if McLaren's appeal is upheld.
However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
Murph7355 said:
I think pointing out to the FIA that they have been caught being less than wholesome with the truth will be a mistake for McLaren.
Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar ste happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.
They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
Re: your first point - I agree. Had it been an unbiased, independant bench sitting then showing the FIA for what they are would have been a very wise idea as it completely undermines anything they say/do. However, and this is where I fully agree, to point it out to the FIA when they are Judge & Jury, was not possibly the wisest thing to do.Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar s
te happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
Asterix said:
Murph7355 said:
I think pointing out to the FIA that they have been caught being less than wholesome with the truth will be a mistake for McLaren.
Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar ste happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.
They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
Re: your first point - I agree. Had it been an unbiased, independant bench sitting then showing the FIA for what they are would have been a very wise idea as it completely undermines anything they say/do. However, and this is where I fully agree, to point it out to the FIA when they are Judge & Jury, was not possibly the wisest thing to do.Tricky one this - they either roll with it and keep quiet. But then risk similar s
te happening in the remaining 4 races (and every season from then on) and potentially lose the championship that way. Or they stand their corner and do what's right and risk more harsh punishment and sanctions from the governing body. Seems like a no win situation.They could, I guess, tell the FIA to stick their "sport" and walk. But then they have sponsor obligations, staff obligations etc. And tbh I think this would hand Max exactly what he wants.
Farcical. But then that's what the 'F' stands for in FIA.
PS Don't Ferrari have a permanent seat on he FIA? Perhaps they offered their lawyers services to keep the costs down. I would imagine MM's counsel costs a fair bit more these days.
Edited by Wanta996Gotta on Tuesday 23 September 09:58
zac510 said:
I think Asterix's point may be that it's short term gain for a long term misery from the FIA's future decisions.
Yes. Thanks.Edited by zac510 on Tuesday 23 September 10:02
I'm wondering that if there are another few points like this that come up, if McLaren actually take the FIA to court to prove beyond doubt that their integrity is completely compromised.
We all know it is after spanky's case but to have it written in stone.
As has been said - there should be a separate head of Motorsport for the FIA which should have a short to medium fixed term (2-4yrs only with only one term ever being served maximum) and should be nominated and voted in by the motorsport associations of the various member countries.
This would leave the main part of the FIA to carry on with road safety etc... but not control the sporting side anywhere near as much but with far more impartiality.
Edited by Asterix on Tuesday 23 September 10:23
Wanta996Gotta said:
...
Why Not? It needs to be pointed out to the whole world that a bunch of currupt cowboys are actually running the FIA, and only then will something maybe get done about it. ...
Because I think enough dirty water has gone under the bridge that we can safely say that the FIA don't care how they're perceived by the public at large (including and especially the fans of the "sport"). They have shown, and will continue to show, utter contempt for fair play in this sport. Personal grudges, money, power, who knows why...but that's how it is.Why Not? It needs to be pointed out to the whole world that a bunch of currupt cowboys are actually running the FIA, and only then will something maybe get done about it. ...
I don't think independent courts are a sensible way forwards - the sport needs to sort itself out internally. It would be nice to think that the teams themselves would start taking hold of the situation and rest control back from the morons who are running it right now. I would have been against a manufacturers' break away 12mths ago, however now I think it might not be such a bad thing.
The trouble is, my heart still has an element of red running through it, and I can't see Flav playing ball either...so it could lead to a truly divided sport and its ultimate collapse.
Murph7355 said:
Wanta996Gotta said:
...
Why Not? It needs to be pointed out to the whole world that a bunch of currupt cowboys are actually running the FIA, and only then will something maybe get done about it. ...
Because I think enough dirty water has gone under the bridge that we can safely say that the FIA don't care how they're perceived by the public at large (including and especially the fans of the "sport"). They have shown, and will continue to show, utter contempt for fair play in this sport. Personal grudges, money, power, who knows why...but that's how it is.Why Not? It needs to be pointed out to the whole world that a bunch of currupt cowboys are actually running the FIA, and only then will something maybe get done about it. ...
I don't think independent courts are a sensible way forwards - the sport needs to sort itself out internally. It would be nice to think that the teams themselves would start taking hold of the situation and rest control back from the morons who are running it right now. I would have been against a manufacturers' break away 12mths ago, however now I think it might not be such a bad thing.
The trouble is, my heart still has an element of red running through it, and I can't see Flav playing ball either...so it could lead to a truly divided sport and its ultimate collapse.
The phoenix could be a stunning spectacle if they could start anew.
Al W said:
I can fully understand why the Ferrari legal team were present and may be called to give evidence. Their team driver was involved in the original chicane incident and they stand to lose a race victory which would drop FM further behind in the WDC if McLaren's appeal is upheld.
However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
Agree 100%However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
Alfie Noakes said:
Al W said:
I can fully understand why the Ferrari legal team were present and may be called to give evidence. Their team driver was involved in the original chicane incident and they stand to lose a race victory which would drop FM further behind in the WDC if McLaren's appeal is upheld.
However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
Agree 100%However, I too am struggling to understand why LH would have been cross-examined by a Ferrari legal bod. Their only role in court should be as witnesses, as the dispute over the penalty is between Mclaren and the FIA stewards.
I look forward to reading the transcripts of the hearing this time. Last time around was a dark parody of justice.
johnnywb said:
megy said:
Good morning all, today we should find out the result of the appeal againist the Spa penalty, fingers crossed justice prevails, although i for 1 am not counting my chickens.
One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
I was just about to post this. It doesn't make any sense, unless the pres are just laughing at the FIA and it was actually an FIA lawyer, but i guess it wasn't. Apparently Lewis rounded on him though which will either have been amusing, or shot him in the foot.One thing that does bother me, and i cant understand at the mo why, but all the news reports say about Lewis being cross examined by the Ferrari lawyer, what reason would he have to be in the court? Its an appeal by McLaren against the FIA appointed stewards, nothing to do with Ferrari. I know this will spark off even more heated debate about favoritism but once again it appears to be the case.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff