Mohammed ben Sulayem

[TypeRTim]

angrymoby said:

TypeRTim said:

Both had ear piercings at the time the rule came in to effect. I know the rule also covered 'Heavy Chains' whatever the hell that actually means...

this was /is the rule:

"2.2.1 appendix L of the sporting regulations: The wearing of jewellery in the form of body piercing or metal neck chains is prohibited,"

not sure where the word 'heavy' got introduced ...i'd imagine from a CW (sensible) conversation/ clarification- as Schumi seemed to get a waiver for his 'lucky' amulet

also Lewis seemed to have been given the green light for his piercings in 2010 & might explain his current irritation:

https://www.motor1.com/news/21992/fia-has-no-conce...

On one hand, those ear studs are quite different to what he has now.

But on the other, there's nothing in the rules that defines an 'acceptable' level of jewellery - so he is right to feel aggrieved if some studs were given a pass and now things are being called in to question.

My point still stands though that he should not have gotten them pierced in the first place as the rule was already in place. The FIA should not have given him a 'pass' at that point either if they ever wanted to enforce the rules. Either that, or the rule should have been re-written to allow for small studs - or scrapped entirely.

But if you do that every time someone breaks the rules, you end up in a sticky situation not unlike what we have now where people feel emboldened to break the rules because you have bent over before...

[sparta6]

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

Poor effort. See me after class paulguitar

It's clear to see that paulguitar and philasia are actually topping the Hamilton Obsessed charts

But where's vdn when you need him ? He'd round out the Top 3 nicely

Back to MBS, if he tightens up on ALL the rules he'll be doing a better job than Todt.

So you can't/won't answer then.

Wow! You responded within 1 minute. You actually live inside PH

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me
You're hallucinatory accusations are worth sympathy only.


Back on topic
Ham was also infringing the seat belt rule for a long time until it was brought to Charlie Whiting's attention.
IIRC it was Grosjean that snitched on him

[HighwayStar]

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

paulguitar said:

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

Poor effort. See me after class paulguitar

It's clear to see that paulguitar and philasia are actually topping the Hamilton Obsessed charts

But where's vdn when you need him ? He'd round out the Top 3 nicely

Back to MBS, if he tightens up on ALL the rules he'll be doing a better job than Todt.

So you can't/won't answer then.

Wow! You responded within 1 minute. You actually live inside PH

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me
You're hallucinatory accusations are worth sympathy only.


Back on topic
Ham was also infringing the seat belt rule for a long time until it was brought to Charlie Whiting's attention.
IIRC it was Grosjean that snitched on him

Oh the irony…

Sparta back on topic… obsession with Lewis Hamilton.

[paulguitar]

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

[HighwayStar]

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

You know he’ll never answer… nobody here is obsessed with Sparta though he’d like to think so. Whenever he pops up it’s GENERALLY to have a pop at his favourite target no matter who else has winged, benefitted from a rule infringement or whatever.
I suspect not answering your/anyones questions amuses him.

[Siao]

HighwayStar said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

You know he’ll never answer… nobody here is obsessed with Sparta though he’d like to think so. Whenever he pops up it’s GENERALLY to have a pop at his favourite target no matter who else has winged, benefitted from a rule infringement or whatever.
I suspect not answering your/anyones questions amuses him.

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

[angrymoby]

Siao said:

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

there was a far more serious breach of that rule by Leclerc who drove around a live track with his undone ...stewards didn't even look at it

yet the FIA later fined Hamilton for another warm down lap breach in Brasil

[Siao]

angrymoby said:

Siao said:

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

there was a far more serious breach of that rule by Leclerc who drove around a live track with his undone ...stewards didn't even look at it

yet the FIA later fined Hamilton for another warm down lap breach in Brasil

And Leclerc should have been penalised. The inconsistency of policing the rules is a separate matter though. The rules themselves are there for a reason and should be adhered to.

[HighwayStar]

Siao said:

HighwayStar said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

You know he’ll never answer… nobody here is obsessed with Sparta though he’d like to think so. Whenever he pops up it’s GENERALLY to have a pop at his favourite target no matter who else has winged, benefitted from a rule infringement or whatever.
I suspect not answering your/anyones questions amuses him.

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

Nah… he has post history re anything to stick it to Hamilton is long, he’s committed to it. If you’ve been here in the F1 threads long enough you’d see it. It’s actually amusing now.

[Siao]

HighwayStar said:

Siao said:

HighwayStar said:

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

You know he’ll never answer… nobody here is obsessed with Sparta though he’d like to think so. Whenever he pops up it’s GENERALLY to have a pop at his favourite target no matter who else has winged, benefitted from a rule infringement or whatever.
I suspect not answering your/anyones questions amuses him.

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

Nah… he has post history re anything to stick it to Hamilton is long, he’s committed to it. If you’ve been here in the F1 threads long enough you’d see it. It’s actually amusing now.

A broken clock and all of that... Even Horner is right sometimes!!!

[sparta6]

paulguitar said:

sparta6 said:

Wow! You responded within 1 minute.

Yes, I was on PH at the time you posted.

sparta6 said:

Double Wow! You're obsessed with me

No, I asked you a question, which you have still failed to answer.

sparta6 said:

Back on topic
Ham...

And........You're straight back into your routine.

Are you insinuating that I have a routine that differs from your routine ?

If you wish to ask me a direct question, do it. Don't insinuate

[sparta6]

Siao said:

I think he is highlighting another rule that had been broken consistently by a driver but not penalised until someone snitched on said driver (let's ignore who the driver is and the pathological hatred/love one may have for that driver).

Yes you're correct. Ofcourse nobody knows precisely how long that breach had been going on for, once again under Todt's relaxed reign.

MBS must be bad news for rule breakers

[paulguitar]

sparta6 said:

If you wish to ask me a direct question, do it. Don't insinuate

Here's the question:

paulguitar said:

I'd be interested to know what Hamilton did to Sparta to cause the pathological obsession. It can't be at all healthy.

[jm doc]

TypeRTim said:

angrymoby said:

TypeRTim said:

Both had ear piercings at the time the rule came in to effect. I know the rule also covered 'Heavy Chains' whatever the hell that actually means...

this was /is the rule:

"2.2.1 appendix L of the sporting regulations: The wearing of jewellery in the form of body piercing or metal neck chains is prohibited,"

not sure where the word 'heavy' got introduced ...i'd imagine from a CW (sensible) conversation/ clarification- as Schumi seemed to get a waiver for his 'lucky' amulet

also Lewis seemed to have been given the green light for his piercings in 2010 & might explain his current irritation:

https://www.motor1.com/news/21992/fia-has-no-conce...

On one hand, those ear studs are quite different to what he has now.

But on the other, there's nothing in the rules that defines an 'acceptable' level of jewellery - so he is right to feel aggrieved if some studs were given a pass and now things are being called in to question.

My point still stands though that he should not have gotten them pierced in the first place as the rule was already in place. The FIA should not have given him a 'pass' at that point either if they ever wanted to enforce the rules. Either that, or the rule should have been re-written to allow for small studs - or scrapped entirely.

But if you do that every time someone breaks the rules, you end up in a sticky situation not unlike what we have now where people feel emboldened to break the rules because you have bent over before...

it’s amazing, I don’t recall you being so concerned last year when the race director completely trashed the rule book, yet you’ve written pages on here about Lewis and his piercings.

It’s very strange and quite worrying.

Edited by jm doc on Tuesday 14th June 21:54

[TypeRTim]

jm doc said:

it’s amazing, I don’t recall you being so concerned last year when the race director completely trashed the rule book, yet you’ve written pages on here about Lewis and his piercings.

It’s very strange and quite worrying.

Edited by jm doc on Tuesday 14th June 21:54

I wrote quite a bit about that and how the FIA would justify it and try to remedy it at the time (and was proven right). Was quite a lengthy thread. But that doesn't concern the topic that this thread is about or what my posts are about above. Why you brought it up is a bit beyond me, unless you ran out of constructive rebuttals to my argument and just felt like you wanted the last word?

[PhilAsia]

PhilAsia said:

TypeRTim said:

PhilAsia said:

And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?

Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."

As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?

Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!

Nope.

You bring in weddings and why wearing rings is correct and to hell with safety.

I bring in the Highway Code and why no contact with the lines is safer.

Side-stepped

[TypeRTim]

PhilAsia said:

PhilAsia said:

TypeRTim said:

PhilAsia said:

And what about adhering to Highway Code rule 129?

Rule 129
"...Where the line nearest you is solid. This means you MUST NOT cross or straddle it..."

As safety is #1, I wonder why "straddle" is linked to MUST NOT? Maybe coming into conflict with another vehicle?

Think you quoted the wrong post there bud!

Nope.

You bring in weddings and why wearing rings is correct and to hell with safety.

I bring in the Highway Code and why no contact with the lines is safer.

Side-stepped

Sorry, your reply got buried and i didn't notice it.

I thought you misquoted me as you were going on at someone else about tyres crossing lines with regards to pit entry/exit lines.

I was saying that wedding rings are a common exception to jewellery mandates across industries due to their common cultural and symbolic significance, so it would make sense if the FIA also had followed this. Many places with no jewellery policies for safety reasons (such as machine operation etc.) have exceptions for wedding rings due to their importance across many different cultures.

AFAIK, there is no equivalent necklace, bangle, piercing, broach or bracelet etc. with the same significance across cultures and traditions.

It's just enforcing a rule. A rule that existed when the decision to get the piercings was made. The fact that the other cheek was turned under previous management doesn't make it right, arguably the rule should have been re-written or scrapped when it was deemed that Hamilton's piercings were 'ok'. But here we are. People have been clamouring for the FIA to get their house in order and enforce the rules as they are written, with clarity and no ambiguity. But now, people are complaining about them being 'petty' about trying to enforce the rules.

I'll agree, it's a strange hill to die on (for both sides) - But this has now become a power play between one of the most recognisable personalities in the sport and the new chief of the governing body. I can't see the FIA climbing down on it as it is a direct threat to their authority and their ownership of the sporting rules. A compromise will probably have to be struck where plain ear studs of a small size will be allowed, but that's the limit.

[vaud]

TypeRTim said:

A compromise will probably have to be struck where plain ear studs of a small size will be allowed, but that's the limit.

If it's about fire risk then I can only see a full ban.

If it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.

[TypeRTim]

vaud said:

TypeRTim said:

A compromise will probably have to be struck where plain ear studs of a small size will be allowed, but that's the limit.

If it's about fire risk then I can only see a full ban.

If it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.

Oh, I agree, but many are arguing that because of prior leniency, the rule should be scrapped or rewritten to allow the leniency.

Full ban is what is currently in the rules (and has been since 2005). And what they are trying to enforce.

But because of the public nature of the dispute now and the public refusal to adhere to the rules, a compromise position will probably have to be reached. The 'extraction test' as you put it is a good compromise, or jewellery that has to be removed when racing but can be worn in the paddock etc.

[angrymoby]

vaud said:

If it's about fire risk then I can only see a full ban.

If it's about the risk of metal in an MRI then I can only see a full ban, or "jewellery that can be removed in 5 seconds" - a la the extraction test to eliminate more permanent piercings.

as previously posted certain metals are both fire/heat transfer safe & MRI safe & jewellery of a certain size are snag safe ...& as safe as wedding bands

so ban everything or have a sensible pragmatic approach & allow small items of personal significance (which seemed to be CW's approach)

either solutions are fine by me