planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 7:55 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.


It is a rule. I believe the results are fixed the day of their prize giving gala. No changes can be made to the results from then.
That's the way it has been described to me many times, and I therefore believe that is indeed the FIA's procedure. But simply having the procedure could (and does, by the way some seasons have gone) stand in the way of keeping the sport a sport.

So I would like to read the rule for myself, also to see whether it does indeed forbid the FIA to review results in the light of later evidence.
(The rule Whiting explained about when a driver is allowed to run another off the track is also something I've never come across. Where might I find that, I still wonder?)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23911
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

cause and effect. He would have taken different lines etc and who knows how things may have turned out?

In any event, the punishment shouldn't only be based on what long-term advantage a driver may have had, but on whether he transgressed or not and whether a punishment would serve to deter any future copycat offence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

Exactly. It was a debatable call anyway as to whether or not Hamilton had sufficiently surrendered the position. The fact that Raikkonen regained the position following Rosberg's unsafe return to the track and then crashed out of the race should have meant that there was no further action taken or (if available) a reprimand at the most. To step in and alter the outcome of the race; handing a driver who was 15 seconds behind them the win, was just ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

Exactly. It was a debatable call anyway as to whether or not Hamilton had sufficiently surrendered the position. The fact that Raikkonen regained the position following Rosberg's unsafe return to the track and then crashed out of the race should have meant that there was no further action taken or (if available) a reprimand at the most. To step in and alter the outcome of the race; handing a driver who was 15 seconds behind them the win, was just ridiculous.
Debatable call? Perhaps, up to the moment the stewards looked at it.
There was a transgression, handing the position back wasn't the only thing to do; the advantage wasn't given up. Which was amply demonstrated by Hamilton's team worrying about what had happened. I can understand Hamilton believing all was well, but his team already knew better.

Whoever was behind the car under investigation is not something that comes, or should even come, into the stewards' deliberations. So there's nothing ridiculous about Massa's win.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
Fiki wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

Exactly. It was a debatable call anyway as to whether or not Hamilton had sufficiently surrendered the position. The fact that Raikkonen regained the position following Rosberg's unsafe return to the track and then crashed out of the race should have meant that there was no further action taken or (if available) a reprimand at the most. To step in and alter the outcome of the race; handing a driver who was 15 seconds behind them the win, was just ridiculous.
Debatable call? Perhaps, up to the moment the stewards looked at it.
There was a transgression, handing the position back wasn't the only thing to do; the advantage wasn't given up. Which was amply demonstrated by Hamilton's team worrying about what had happened. I can understand Hamilton believing all was well, but his team already knew better.

Whoever was behind the car under investigation is not something that comes, or should even come, into the stewards' deliberations. So there's nothing ridiculous about Massa's win.

I totally disagree. For this particular transgression (an illegal overtake) there is only one car aggrieved (the car that has been illegally overtaken), thus the return of the position to the aggrieved party essentially removes any need for a penalty. Now I personally don't think that Hamilton sufficiently returned the position but all of that became moot the moment Raikkonen crashed out of the race. There was no one left in the race who had lost out due to that overtake and thus there was no compensatory action warranted. When Max made that illegal move on Kimi in Austin last year, they didn't allow other drivers to gain positions on him. They simply gave Kimi back the position that he lost illegally. The penalty at Spa in 2008 effectively doctored the race result in a way that defies any sense of logic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:12 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

cause and effect. He would have taken different lines etc and who knows how things may have turned out?

In any event, the punishment shouldn't only be based on what long-term advantage a driver may have had, but on whether he transgressed or not and whether a punishment would serve to deter any future copycat offence.


Isn't the rule that you can't gain a lasting advantage?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:14 am
Posts: 510
Location: Stratford
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.


It is a rule. I believe the results are fixed the day of their prize giving gala. No changes can be made to the results from then.
That's the way it has been described to me many times, and I therefore believe that is indeed the FIA's procedure. But simply having the procedure could (and does, by the way some seasons have gone) stand in the way of keeping the sport a sport.

So I would like to read the rule for myself, also to see whether it does indeed forbid the FIA to review results in the light of later evidence.
(The rule Whiting explained about when a driver is allowed to run another off the track is also something I've never come across. Where might I find that, I still wonder?)


In a hypothetical situation where Team A wins the constructors championship but it comes to light after the prize giving gala that they had cheated/had an illegal part on the car etc. What would happen if Team B who came second took the FIA to court on the basis they believe they should have won the championship? I guess the court can't rule that Team A has to be excluded from the championship, but could they rule that the FIA has to pay Team B the money they would have got from finishing first?

It's a bizarre rule.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23911
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Bobafett wrote:
Spa 2008, the problem I have is in any race where a driver is judged not to have given the place back properly.. Can't due to the driver he passed crashing out, held up in the pits or generally retiring.. Its not his fault, I mean kimi retired and for all we know it would happened regardless, thus giving Lewis the win.. But to punish him to the point someone not even involved benefits is.. Extreme, he should been punished the next race instead
That would be unwise. The person not involved was guilty of staying on the black stuff, as far as I'm aware. Something neither Räikkönen nor Hamilton were able to do. A nice little factor to the whole problem, was McLaren contacting race control twice about Hamilton's transgression, thus making race control refer the matter to the stewards in the end.

Also, the punishment should fit the crime, shouldn't it? Surely not the potential eventual outcome of the aftermath? It might be interesting to know what Ferrari would have done, had they known that the matter was to be investigated after the race, before Räikkönen went off and wrecked his car. They might just have called him to ease off and stay within x amount of seconds, hoping Kimi would end up the winner after all, or take all the points for second. If...


Kimi was in the lead when he went off. He'd already got the position back.

cause and effect. He would have taken different lines etc and who knows how things may have turned out?

In any event, the punishment shouldn't only be based on what long-term advantage a driver may have had, but on whether he transgressed or not and whether a punishment would serve to deter any future copycat offence.


Isn't the rule that you can't gain a lasting advantage?

I think that's a component of it, but not the only thing. When a driver makes an illegal overtake they don't wait to see what his advantage is before saying he has to give the place back - unless there's some doubt about the transgression. But the punishment isn't for the advantage gained, but the nature of the transgression. If they give a token punishment that has no effect, then basically it's no punishment at all and makes a mockery of the whole thing


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
[quote="Zoue"]
But that is what usually occurs. Driver A is asked to move back behind driver B. No punishment occurs. And we've seen that take laps to sort out before. The stewards had no interest in justice that day. Look at Rosberg for example. It was him rejoining the track in a dangerous fashion that put Kimi back ahead anyway but as far as I know not so much of an investigation. Hamilton got a couple of odd penalties in 2008.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 9:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23911
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But that is what usually occurs. Driver A is asked to move back behind driver B. No punishment occurs. And we've seen that take laps to sort out before. The stewards had no interest in justice that day. Look at Rosberg for example. It was him rejoining the track in a dangerous fashion that put Kimi back ahead anyway but as far as I know not so much of an investigation. Hamilton got a couple of odd penalties in 2008.

But they didn't get the opportunity to ask him to give the place back, so instead they had to come up with another punishment that was also a deterrent.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Hamilton was wrong, just for the purposes of the discussion. So what would be the point of a punishment that had no effect? It wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against a possible future repeat, so what would a driver have to lose by trying it again? If a punishment doesn't change behaviour, then why bother having it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 21, 2018 10:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:21 am
Posts: 3525
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Is that an actual rule? Or just a stupid attitude to cheating?

Actual rule, otherwise the FIA could decide on a whim to change results from the 60s or whatever.
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.


It is a rule. I believe the results are fixed the day of their prize giving gala. No changes can be made to the results from then.
That's the way it has been described to me many times, and I therefore believe that is indeed the FIA's procedure. But simply having the procedure could (and does, by the way some seasons have gone) stand in the way of keeping the sport a sport.

So I would like to read the rule for myself, also to see whether it does indeed forbid the FIA to review results in the light of later evidence.
(The rule Whiting explained about when a driver is allowed to run another off the track is also something I've never come across. Where might I find that, I still wonder?)

These are a few years old, but the rule predates this link so it should be there somewhere: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -02-28.pdf

_________________
AlienTurnedHuman wrote:
Eurytus probably thought he was God. At least until he was banned. Which means if he was God, it makes me very scared of PF1-Mod.

Please report forum problems to us, via PM/Feedback Thread. Screenshots will also help.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2062
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But that is what usually occurs. Driver A is asked to move back behind driver B. No punishment occurs. And we've seen that take laps to sort out before. The stewards had no interest in justice that day. Look at Rosberg for example. It was him rejoining the track in a dangerous fashion that put Kimi back ahead anyway but as far as I know not so much of an investigation. Hamilton got a couple of odd penalties in 2008.

But they didn't get the opportunity to ask him to give the place back, so instead they had to come up with another punishment that was also a deterrent.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Hamilton was wrong, just for the purposes of the discussion. So what would be the point of a punishment that had no effect? It wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against a possible future repeat, so what would a driver have to lose by trying it again? If a punishment doesn't change behaviour, then why bother having it?


Well, while I share your sentiment, we did have punishments without effects quite some times in F1, time penalties in particular, in rare cases even drive-throughs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2380
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23911
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
But that is what usually occurs. Driver A is asked to move back behind driver B. No punishment occurs. And we've seen that take laps to sort out before. The stewards had no interest in justice that day. Look at Rosberg for example. It was him rejoining the track in a dangerous fashion that put Kimi back ahead anyway but as far as I know not so much of an investigation. Hamilton got a couple of odd penalties in 2008.

But they didn't get the opportunity to ask him to give the place back, so instead they had to come up with another punishment that was also a deterrent.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Hamilton was wrong, just for the purposes of the discussion. So what would be the point of a punishment that had no effect? It wouldn't be any kind of deterrent against a possible future repeat, so what would a driver have to lose by trying it again? If a punishment doesn't change behaviour, then why bother having it?


Well, while I share your sentiment, we did have punishments without effects quite some times in F1, time penalties in particular, in rare cases even drive-throughs.

Yeah not defending their consistency or how effective their punishments are in general. But in this instance, I think the punishment fit the crime as they saw it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6643
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)


August 2009 according to Wiki!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

I see. So you're okay with a team deliberately and with extensive premeditation cheating their way to a victory unless overturning it can help Ferrari? That's a very appropriate perspective for this forum.


Last edited by sandman1347 on Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
P-F1 Mod wrote:
Fiki wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Would you be able to direct me to where I can find that rule? Because it seems to me that if athletics can throw out a fraudulent result 8 years after the Olympics, why should the FIA hold on just a month or two after the final race? It makes no sense to me.


It is a rule. I believe the results are fixed the day of their prize giving gala. No changes can be made to the results from then.
That's the way it has been described to me many times, and I therefore believe that is indeed the FIA's procedure. But simply having the procedure could (and does, by the way some seasons have gone) stand in the way of keeping the sport a sport.

So I would like to read the rule for myself, also to see whether it does indeed forbid the FIA to review results in the light of later evidence.
(The rule Whiting explained about when a driver is allowed to run another off the track is also something I've never come across. Where might I find that, I still wonder?)

These are a few years old, but the rule predates this link so it should be there somewhere: http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/ ... -02-28.pdf
Thanks for the link!

The only rule I can find in which mention of the Prize Giving Ceremony is made, states that the drivers who finish 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the championship have to be present. Perhaps the rule fixing the result against any later evidence is somewhere else, but I can't say I have ever heard of it. And I can't find it in this document.

Also, I can't imagine a sport that puts more importance on a "sell by date", than on keeping the sport fair for all entrants.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2380
sandman1347 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

I see. So you're okay with a team deliberately and with extensive premeditation cheating their way to a victory unless overturning it can help Ferrari? That's a very appropriate perspective for this forum.


No, obviously not.

And I couldn't care less about Ferrari.

If it hadn't happened, chances are Massa would have been WDC, so why would I be okay with it?

The problem is that it threw the result totally out and affected things more than simply handing victory to Alonso. That's one of the reasons I can't see the point of changing things now.

On the other hand, Schumacher taking his penalty in the pits after the race had finished was totally ridiculous and in that case a time penalty would have been entirely appropriate.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7404
Location: Belgium
ALESI wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

I see. So you're okay with a team deliberately and with extensive premeditation cheating their way to a victory unless overturning it can help Ferrari? That's a very appropriate perspective for this forum.


No, obviously not.

And I couldn't care less about Ferrari.

If it hadn't happened, chances are Massa would have been WDC, so why would I be okay with it?

The problem is that it threw the result totally out and affected things more than simply handing victory to Alonso. That's one of the reasons I can't see the point of changing things now.

On the other hand, Schumacher taking his penalty in the pits after the race had finished was totally ridiculous and in that case a time penalty would have been entirely appropriate.
Why would you not be okay with Massa being world champion? Although there's no guarantee that the Ferrari fuel disaster would not have happened had they been able to make their "normal" scheduled pitstop, things were thrown into disarray by Crashgate, and Massa was doing very well before it.
I would love to have seen how Massa would have celebrated his title, just to see whether he would have been as magnanimous as he was on losing it to Hamilton. Simply because of his behaviour at that moment, I hold him in high regard as a sportsman. And yes, I know Massa once asked Alonso about his pride in "winning" Singapore 2008.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2380
Fiki wrote:
ALESI wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

I see. So you're okay with a team deliberately and with extensive premeditation cheating their way to a victory unless overturning it can help Ferrari? That's a very appropriate perspective for this forum.


No, obviously not.

And I couldn't care less about Ferrari.

If it hadn't happened, chances are Massa would have been WDC, so why would I be okay with it?

The problem is that it threw the result totally out and affected things more than simply handing victory to Alonso. That's one of the reasons I can't see the point of changing things now.

On the other hand, Schumacher taking his penalty in the pits after the race had finished was totally ridiculous and in that case a time penalty would have been entirely appropriate.
Why would you not be okay with Massa being world champion? Although there's no guarantee that the Ferrari fuel disaster would not have happened had they been able to make their "normal" scheduled pitstop, things were thrown into disarray by Crashgate, and Massa was doing very well before it.
I would love to have seen how Massa would have celebrated his title, just to see whether he would have been as magnanimous as he was on losing it to Hamilton. Simply because of his behaviour at that moment, I hold him in high regard as a sportsman. And yes, I know Massa once asked Alonso about his pride in "winning" Singapore 2008.


Fiki, I think you have misunderstood my post... I very much wanted Massa to win.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5607
ALESI wrote:
Fiki wrote:
ALESI wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Re: 2008 and the Renault debacle, it didn't come out until Nelson Piquet Jnr got sacked by Flavio which was a good couple of years later wasn't it?

I think realistically results should stand once the season is finished, especially as changing that one won't give Massa his title. If Massa had finished in the points I'd have been all for it though. :)

I see. So you're okay with a team deliberately and with extensive premeditation cheating their way to a victory unless overturning it can help Ferrari? That's a very appropriate perspective for this forum.


No, obviously not.

And I couldn't care less about Ferrari.

If it hadn't happened, chances are Massa would have been WDC, so why would I be okay with it?

The problem is that it threw the result totally out and affected things more than simply handing victory to Alonso. That's one of the reasons I can't see the point of changing things now.

On the other hand, Schumacher taking his penalty in the pits after the race had finished was totally ridiculous and in that case a time penalty would have been entirely appropriate.
Why would you not be okay with Massa being world champion? Although there's no guarantee that the Ferrari fuel disaster would not have happened had they been able to make their "normal" scheduled pitstop, things were thrown into disarray by Crashgate, and Massa was doing very well before it.
I would love to have seen how Massa would have celebrated his title, just to see whether he would have been as magnanimous as he was on losing it to Hamilton. Simply because of his behaviour at that moment, I hold him in high regard as a sportsman. And yes, I know Massa once asked Alonso about his pride in "winning" Singapore 2008.


Fiki, I think you have misunderstood my post... I very much wanted Massa to win.

The idea that Massa would have won the title had this not happened is extremely dubious. It ignores the butterfly effect and basically assumes that everything else for the remainder of the season would have played out in exactly the same way (which it certainly would not have).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 24
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:54 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


I'm afraid not. Ferrari got away with running illegal bargeboards and that isn't according to Ron Dennis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 24
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


I'm afraid not. Ferrari got away with running illegal bargeboards and that isn't according to Ron Dennis.


They were not illegal. Dennis tried and failed in his complaint.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 91
I think with spa 2008, it's a case of its hard to see how the punishment fit the crime, he couldn't give the place back cos.. Well kimi crashed later, yet 25 seconds seems excessive as an alternative, a grid place penalty in the next race might have been a bit more acceptable (its not his fault there was no way to give the place back).

As for Singapore how many times have we seen the team do something wrong and the driver get unfairly penalised for it too, yet not this time, its oh Fernando didn't know about it.. OK then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:43 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


I'm afraid not. Ferrari got away with running illegal bargeboards and that isn't according to Ron Dennis.


They were not illegal. Dennis tried and failed in his complaint.


It wasn't Dennis' complaints. It was the stewards that DSQ'd Ferrari after post race scrutineers found the barge boards to be illegal.


Last edited by mikeyg123 on Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 24
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
I've thought of one. The Ferrari win that was taken away and given back in Malaysia 1999. Ferrari had illegal bargeboards and everyone knew it. The stewards made a mistake in impounding the barge boards but not the whole car and thus couldn't conclusively prove they had been run illegally.


Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


I'm afraid not. Ferrari got away with running illegal bargeboards and that isn't according to Ron Dennis.




They were not illegal. Dennis tried and failed in his complaint.


It was Dennis' complaints. It was the stewards that DSQ'd Ferrari after post race scrutineers found the barge boards to be illegal.


The scrutineers were wrong. The DSQ was quashed by the FIA court of appeal. 5 Technical Expert judges ruled on the matter. It wasn't a compromise. It wasn't a gray area. It was an absolute overturn of an incorrect decision and an unequivocal statement that the bargeboards were legal. I reiterate, Dennis got exactly what he deserved, and Ferrari got their fully deserved and justified 1-2.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Salvadoray wrote:
The scrutineers were wrong. The DSQ was quashed by the FIA court of appeal. 5 Technical Expert judges ruled on the matter. It wasn't a compromise. It wasn't a gray area. It was an absolute overturn of an incorrect decision and an unequivocal statement that the bargeboards were legal. I reiterate, Dennis got exactly what he deserved, and Ferrari got their fully deserved and justified 1-2.


Sorry but you seem don't seem to have much background knowledge on this. Do you know why it was overturned? It certainly wasn't that Ferrari could prove they weren't running an illegal car.

The stewards basically turnipped up. Because they didn't impound the whole car they couldn't prove the angle Ferrari ran the barge board plates at. Ferrari argued that had they been running them at an angle then the top plane of the plate would be close enough to the body of the car. Of course everyone knew that they hadn't been run at an angle but by then there was no way to prove it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 9898
Location: Travelling around the world
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
Dennis got his well deserved comeuppance over his cynical trickery concerning the bargeboards complaint. Absolute justice served with the return of the 1-2 to Ferrari.


I'm afraid not. Ferrari got away with running illegal bargeboards and that isn't according to Ron Dennis.




They were not illegal. Dennis tried and failed in his complaint.


It was Dennis' complaints. It was the stewards that DSQ'd Ferrari after post race scrutineers found the barge boards to be illegal.


The scrutineers were wrong. The DSQ was quashed by the FIA court of appeal. 5 Technical Expert judges ruled on the matter. It wasn't a compromise. It wasn't a gray area. It was an absolute overturn of an incorrect decision and an unequivocal statement that the bargeboards were legal. I reiterate, Dennis got exactly what he deserved, and Ferrari got their fully deserved and justified 1-2.

What did Ron Dennis deserve? A WDC for his driver? Fair enough

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God
ImageImage
I rely on Prost



FA#14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6208
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
The scrutineers were wrong. The DSQ was quashed by the FIA court of appeal. 5 Technical Expert judges ruled on the matter. It wasn't a compromise. It wasn't a gray area. It was an absolute overturn of an incorrect decision and an unequivocal statement that the bargeboards were legal. I reiterate, Dennis got exactly what he deserved, and Ferrari got their fully deserved and justified 1-2.


Sorry but you seem don't seem to have much background knowledge on this. Do you know why it was overturned? It certainly wasn't that Ferrari could prove they weren't running an illegal car.

The stewards basically turnipped up. Because they didn't impound the whole car they couldn't prove the angle Ferrari ran the barge board plates at. Ferrari argued that had they been running them at an angle then the top plane of the plate would be close enough to the body of the car. Of course everyone knew that they hadn't been run at an angle but by then there was no way to prove it.

Yeah, it was basically the FIA equivalent of a mistrial. It doesn't mean they didn't cheat.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6421
Location: Nebraska, USA
Nor does it prove they did....

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:48 am
Posts: 24
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Salvadoray wrote:
The scrutineers were wrong. The DSQ was quashed by the FIA court of appeal. 5 Technical Expert judges ruled on the matter. It wasn't a compromise. It wasn't a gray area. It was an absolute overturn of an incorrect decision and an unequivocal statement that the bargeboards were legal. I reiterate, Dennis got exactly what he deserved, and Ferrari got their fully deserved and justified 1-2.


Sorry but you seem don't seem to have much background knowledge on this. Do you know why it was overturned? It certainly wasn't that Ferrari could prove they weren't running an illegal car.

The stewards basically turnipped up. Because they didn't impound the whole car they couldn't prove the angle Ferrari ran the barge board plates at. Ferrari argued that had they been running them at an angle then the top plane of the plate would be close enough to the body of the car. Of course everyone knew that they hadn't been run at an angle but by then there was no way to prove it.

Yeah, it was basically the FIA equivalent of a mistrial. It doesn't mean they didn't cheat.


Ferrari argued that the scrutineers didn't measure the vanes correctly, and that if they did the measurement showed them to be within tolerance. The main argument wasn't that you could no longer measure it. The screw up by the stewards and scrutineers just reinforced Ferrari's point.The FIA said that the measurements were within tolerance in every respect. No gray area, no mistrial. The decision was not put aside, it was overturned. What comes next, the "Ferrari International Assistance" argument?

Furthermore, and although I can't prove it, the main issue is this. Rumors were rife that Dennis and others knew the controversy with the Ferrari bargeboard measurements before qualifying, yet deliberately kept quite until after the race, because he knew that Ferrari could change it easily and still completely dominate. Nearly every other team and commentator knew after the disqualification that the alleged non-compliance had no performance benefit whatsoever. I believe Dennis knew it too, even though he made half hearted noises otherwise. His cynical complaint after the race was designed to exclude the rightful winners. He then got owned by the Ferrari lawyers, with full justification.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:06 am 
Online

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14263
Blake wrote:
Nor does it prove they did....


Most people who have commented and who would know have suggested that there's no way the veins were run at the angle they would have to be for the car to be legal. Of course that's not absolutely 100% certain.

You can also look at the circumstantial evidence too. Ferrari hadn't looked like beating Mclaren on pace for months and hadn't done any car development since Schumacher's accident and then at Malaysia nobody could touch them. By Suzuka they were back well behind Mclaren. Something strange happened. I'm certainly not saying that was all the barge boards but put it alongside what else we know and It makes a compelling case.

So whilst I agree because of a stewarding cock up it couldn't be later proved that the car that ran was illegal the balance of probability certainly points in that direction which is why I brought it up on this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2380
sandman1347 wrote:
The idea that Massa would have won the title had this not happened is extremely dubious. It ignores the butterfly effect and basically assumes that everything else for the remainder of the season would have played out in exactly the same way (which it certainly would not have).


True, but you can't ignore the fact that a blatant and deliberate crash affected Massa's race negatively. But yes, you don't know, it's possible that if the race had carried on as it should he could have been hit by someone else, he could have locked up and took his wing off... anything could have happened. And the same could be said of Hamilton, maybe if the race had continued as it should, maybe he would have encountered misfortune? It works both ways doesn't it?

But you make a good point and one which I think needs bearing in mind when we talk about overturning results. What if driver a (I'm taking names out of this for obvious reasons) needs to finish fourth in the final race, he does finish fourth and wins the WDC. Then they overturn the result of a previous race and he loses the WDC to another driver. It's not really fair on driver a because he went into that final race with a goal and he achieved it, is he supposed to take unnecessary risks to get more points than he needs just to insure against future meddling?

But on the other hand, if there's good reason to overturn a previous result is it fair on driver b to ignore that and leave it alone? Clearly not.

What if concrete evidence was found of cheating three seasons ago, and that affected the outcome of the championship? What if say, some ex-engineer turned round and said 'we had traction control on the Brawn and I can prove it', what do they do... do they make Vettel the champion nine years after the fact?

(Although that would be funny, just to see the forum's collective head explode!)

I have a feeling as well, that say something like the bargeboard saga from Malaysia 99 happened at the last race, I don't think the FIA would be very keen to have a court case after the season which reversed the outcome of the championship somehow. If it was a race result yes, but I can definitely see the FIA doing EVERYTHING in their power to prevent a post finale court case that affected the WDC.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Covalent, mikeyg123, TheGiantHogweed and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group