Mohammed ben Sulayem
Discussion
Evercross said:
Exactly. Merc didn't appeal because they knew the conclusion of a successful appeal would be the annulment of the race result, which wouldn't have made Hamilton champion anyway, and would not have reflected so well on them.
without F1 being signed up to CAS Merc's options were indeed the ICA (& a possible outcome would indeed have been a duplicitous annulment if they had won) ...or go nuclear & use the French judiciaryfor the good of the sport (& i suspect their brand image) they decided against the latter ...but don't be fooled into thinking that a judicial court couldn't overturn a result rather than annul it- as even CAS have overturned results
jm doc said:
sparta6 said:
FeelingLucky said:
I'm baffled people keep reacting to this bellend, if you ignore him, he will, eventually go away.
Ham makes it too easy for the non-fansHe really hams it up for the cameras & sympathy, must be after a Bafta
I was referring to Ham's poor impression of his idol Senna at Brazil '91
"It was 100 times worse than it looked" no doubt accurately measured with his Hamometer device. Bafta material
Meanwhile Leclerc needs to remind Ferrari of their 3 Year Warranty. Rules should be changed to just penalize the team for tech failures.
carl_w said:
jm doc said:
8 titles, doesn't need to ham it up for anyone. Be honest, that's what really gets you. Your klompen kop hero might yet get one, who knows. Until then, he'll always be seen as a loser.
8 titles? Are you counting the knighthood as one?sparta6 said:
carl_w said:
jm doc said:
8 titles, doesn't need to ham it up for anyone. Be honest, that's what really gets you. Your klompen kop hero might yet get one, who knows. Until then, he'll always be seen as a loser.
8 titles? Are you counting the knighthood as one?
t with a Napoleon complex?jm doc said:
So you're claiming the rules were correctly applied at the end of the safety car period?
No? Are you Cathy Newman or something?angrymoby said:
Evercross said:
Exactly. Merc didn't appeal because they knew the conclusion of a successful appeal would be the annulment of the race result, which wouldn't have made Hamilton champion anyway, and would not have reflected so well on them.
without F1 being signed up to CAS Merc's options were indeed the ICA (& a possible outcome would indeed have been a duplicitous annulment if they had won) ...or go nuclear & use the French judiciaryfor the good of the sport (& i suspect their brand image) they decided against the latter ...but don't be fooled into thinking that a judicial court couldn't overturn a result rather than annul it- as even CAS have overturned results
Evercross said:
Overturning results is less complex if it is a binary outcome to a single result such as a football or tennis match, but to have overturned the Abu Dhabi result would and could have led to all sorts of counter claims all the way down the paddock as any speculative race outcome based on a different rule interpretation would be just that - speculative. The nature of racing is that is isn't over until it is over, as Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa (and Timo Glock) can testify to from 2008...
2008, no rules braking by race director. Completely different story. Evercross said:
Overturning results is less complex if it is a binary outcome to a single result such as a football or tennis match, but to have overturned the Abu Dhabi result would and could have led to all sorts of counter claims all the way down the paddock
like in the Women’s 2015 5000 Meters at DIII National Championships? ...they sorted that outEvercross said:
as any speculative race outcome based on a different rule interpretation would be just that - speculative.
it wasn't 'different' interpretation ...it was a wrong interpretation, as per the FIA's own subsequent statementso which AD bingo card number we going to next? "Merc should've pitted Lewis"??
Evercross said:
No one said it was a rule breach you halfwit. Get over yourselves and move on. The Rest of World has. You are starting to behave like a cult.
First of all, refrain from insults.We are still talking about Prost-Senna, Msc-Hill and others, why should wrong doing not be talk about? Because it doesn't suit your narrative?
Edited by M5-911 on Monday 27th June 19:42
Evercross said:
jm doc said:
So you're claiming the rules were correctly applied at the end of the safety car period?
No? Are you Cathy Newman or something?The nature of racing is that is isn't over until it is over, as Lewis Hamilton and Felipe Massa (and Timo Glock) can testify to from 2008...
I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
jsf said:
TheDeuce said:
Seems like a plank to me!
I don't think he'll be around for long, he doesn't seem to have the tact to hold such a visible role in modern F1.
You don't understand the FIA then.I don't think he'll be around for long, he doesn't seem to have the tact to hold such a visible role in modern F1.
At least try and add as much back into a thread as you snatch away from others contributions. Otherwise, you may as well be talking to yourself!
jm doc said:
I'm pleased to see you agree the rules didn't apply to the last lap. If the rules aren't applied to the last lap the race is finished before the last lap. As in when the chequered flag was shown one lap early a few years ago. The race finished then even though there was another lap because FIA rules didn't apply any more.
I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
I can see for some that it is still a bitter and toxic debate, but being bitter and throwing bile isn't going to change things for you. There is a rational reason why things ended up the way they did whether you agree with them or not, or are prepared to accept them or not.I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
The race did not end a lap earlier. This is just a projection to attempt to justify a results reversal rather than an annulment, and the reference to 2008 is entirely valid insofar that no-one has the right to claim that 'but for X and Y and Z' the result would be different because anything can happen until the last car crosses the line at the end.
Mercedes top brass did not attempt some of the mental gymnastics some people are applying here because they know they are a stretch too-far and would look equally unjust if they convinced someone in the hierarchy to side with them. They knew then that the best they could hope for was a moral victory for them that would have been pyrrhic as it would not have changed the championship result anyway and would have just delayed the inevitable, put the F1 awards night into jeopardy and hung a big question mark over the sport for months, for what exactly?
Edited by Evercross on Tuesday 28th June 10:27
Evercross said:
jm doc said:
I'm pleased to see you agree the rules didn't apply to the last lap. If the rules aren't applied to the last lap the race is finished before the last lap. As in when the chequered flag was shown one lap early a few years ago. The race finished then even though there was another lap because FIA rules didn't apply any more.
I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
I can see for some that it is still a bitter and toxic debate, but being bitter and throwing bile isn't going to change things for you. There is a rational reason why things ended up the way they did whether you agree with them or not, or are prepared to accept them or not.I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
The race did not end a lap earlier. This is just a projection to attempt to justify a results reversal rather than an annulment.
The bitterness and bile is coming from you trying to justify the unjustifiable, without any rational or factual support, and the suggestion that somehow Brazil 2008 was the same just demonstrated the poverty and irrationality of your argument.
And it's out there in the real world now. Every MSM now reports the championship outcome as incorrect, there was a comment in a national newspaper today, and another at the weekend, stating this. Whenever it comes up that's how it's reported now. Max didn't win, he was a party to what is going down as the biggest sporting robbery in history.
Sulayem had the opportunity to do something about this, as a new broom, he could have swept it all away at the outset. Instead he's left it to fester.
Moderator edit: no naming & shaming
Evercross said:
jm doc said:
I'm pleased to see you agree the rules didn't apply to the last lap. If the rules aren't applied to the last lap the race is finished before the last lap. As in when the chequered flag was shown one lap early a few years ago. The race finished then even though there was another lap because FIA rules didn't apply any more.
I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
I can see for some that it is still a bitter and toxic debate, but being bitter and throwing bile isn't going to change things for you. There is a rational reason why things ended up the way they did whether you agree with them or not, or are prepared to accept them or not.I've no idea wtf you think Brazil 2008 has got to do with it. Except perhaps to demonstrate how warped your thinking is if you believe there is any similarity.
The race did not end a lap earlier. This is just a projection to attempt to justify a results reversal rather than an annulment, and the reference to 2008 is entirely valid insofar that no-one has the right to claim that 'but for X and Y and Z' the result would be different because anything can happen until the last car crosses the line at the end.
“Michael Masi actually didn’t break the rules, he applied them in a way that hadn’t been done previously,” Horner insisted.
I think possession be 9/10ths of the law, with the WDC at RedBull of course he’ll say that. Had Lewis won in the same manner and Toto said the same thing I seriously doubt Horner would’ve gone along with it. His response to the whole thing is from his boy being champion… he isn’t going to say anything else.
https://www.racefans.net/2022/03/08/so-much-for-ab...
Still it’s done, it’s is what it is… all sorts of things and incidents from the past get brought it, discussed and disagreed over. Max’s WDC* is just another one. Personally I’ll never agree with how the race ended from a rules stand point.
Edited by HighwayStar on Tuesday 28th June 11:17
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff