Filed under: Motorsports, Government/Legal
McLaren appeal over Hamilton penalty thrown out of FIA court
Lewis Hamilton does not have good luck in France. Of all the races he's won in these past two seasons, he's yet to take the checkered flag at the French Grand Prix, has had his license revoked by the French gendarmes, and has now had his appeal thrown out of court in Paris.
Following the Belgian Grand Prix earlier this month, Hamilton was penalized by the race stewards with a 25-second penalty (in lieu of a pit-lane drive-through penalty) that bumped him down from first place to third, and allowed Ferrari's Felipe Massa to close the lead down to one single point. The penalty was given to Hamilton for having cut through a chicane on the Spa-Francorchamps track called the "bus stop", which race officials ruled gave him an illegal advantage. Hamilton's team McLaren decided to appeal the penalty in the FIA's court in Paris, however the court threw out the case as inadmissible, quoting sporting regulations that stipulate that drive-through penalties cannot be appealed. McLaren presented precedent from a repealed penalty handed to Toro Rosso in Japan last year, however the court of appeal was adamant in their refusal to hear the case.
A brief statement from the FIA can be found after the jump, and those interested can read the full 8-page ruling by clicking here.
[Source: Autosport | Photo: Oliver Laban-Mattei/Getty]
Statement from the FIA:
At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No.22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.
As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver's elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are "not susceptible to appeal."
The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward's decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.
Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Wombert 12:35PM (9/23/2008)
Man, Lewis. Never button up the second button. At lot to learn you still have, young race driver.
Reply
MUSASHI66 12:48PM (9/23/2008)
First thing that came to my mind as well ;)
why not the LS2LS7? 12:36PM (9/23/2008)
Well, the rules do state drive-throughs are non-reviewable.
Also, a couple other sources I read said Hamilton was being an ass in the review, telling the board (including current and ex-racers) that they couldn't possibly understand what went on because they aren't in F1. I can't find those articles right now though.
Reply
Franz 12:56PM (9/23/2008)
He only argued with a Ferrari lawyer, who was badgering him. He basically told him that he wasn't an F1 driver, so he knew nothing about what they go through on track. You can hardly blame him for doing it either... matter of fact, I'm glad he didn't go in there with his tail tucked between his legs trying to kiss ass. I admire anyone with the balls to speak their mind, in spite of the consequences.
why not the LS2LS7? 5:07PM (9/23/2008)
Please, you're kidding me. Protip: If you're gonna argue with someone who is already blaming Hamilton for acting like an ass, don't write a sentence saying "you can't blame Hamilton for...", cause I already have.
Any time anyone, including Hamilton, wants to quote their cirriculum vitae instead of discussing something, they are simply trying to win an argument by dominance and/or fiat and this carries no weight at all with me.
Franz 5:28PM (9/23/2008)
LOL. So now you're giving me tips on arguing? No thanks... I'll stick to my original point.
I can say you can hardly blame him for taking a swipe at a lawyer who took a swipe at him first, because even if you do blame him that doesn't mean the blame is justified. Two not so little words: SUBJECTIVE OPINION. Look 'em up. I didn't even really disagree with you either. I merely stated who he had the exchange of words with and why I wouldn't give him hell for it. "You can hardly blame him" is a general comment, not necessarily singling you out. I swear, you must have the longest toes on Autoblog because I can't seem to say anything without stepping on them.
It's human nature, and in the nature of all arguments to retort when pushed. If you can't understand that, well shame on you.
vkchu 1:05AM (9/24/2008)
ah you two, get a room already. lol.
hamilton's been driving like a little $#!t lately; very unsportsmanlike behavior. in italy, where he ran glock off the road mid-way through, and then pushed webber out towards the end of the race. also notice how there was no support for him by the other f1 drivers on his pass on kimi by cutting the corner @ spa. definitely not making any friends.
parkergc8 12:38PM (9/23/2008)
The FIA needs to learn something about looking transparent.
and many other things imo. The list of interesting/questionable rulings grows by leaps and bounds every year.
I sure hope we get a driver as the next president when/if Max sticks to his word.
Reply
Richard 2:09PM (9/23/2008)
What's not transparent?
Per the rule Hamilton should have had a drive-through - except that it was too late in the race for him to serve one. When that is the case, 25 seconds are to be added to the offender's total time.
And...
These penalties may not be appealed.
That's what the rules are and that is what was upheld.
What's not transparent?
RJ 3:20PM (9/23/2008)
Did you watch the race?
Yes, he made the drive-through out of desperation, but then immediately let the car he passed (Kimi) re-pass him and therefore Lewis gained absolutely no advantage from that drivethrough.
Temple 6:03PM (9/23/2008)
Transparency and image is the biggest problem with the FIA. With the FIA, when you appeal, you don't appeal to an independent body, you're appealing back to the same folks that denied you the first time (the FIA).
Secondly, if they thought it wasn't ground for appeal, they should have just told them that to begin with instead of having Hamilton and Ron fly all the way to London before the Singapore GP just to go to an appeal to be told they can't appeal.
Also, this appeal was an opportunity for the FIA to prove their decision right with logical arguments or evidence (not just to McLaren but to all the fans that are upset); there are a lot of people that still believe this group to be corrupt and sleazy (Max and his hooker sex party).
Instead of using the appeal to prove themselves right, they refuse to even hear the appeal. Its a disservice to the fans, and as a 'sport' is nothing if it can't prove that they are judging all parties fairly.
Bondtastic 12:48PM (9/23/2008)
How can you call it a "drive through" penalty if you decide the penalty after the cars are parked? It's not like he ignored a drive through request by the stewards and is now arguing, the penalty was a time one created after race end.
Why is NASCAR becoming more credible than the pinnacle of motorsports?
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 12:52PM (9/23/2008)
The only remedy available was a "drive-through" penalty at that time. The other options were no longer available since the race was over. Even though it is assessed as 25 seconds, it is still a drive-through penalty, so it's non-reviewable.
Bondtastic 1:01PM (9/23/2008)
Then it's a timed penalty that should be reviewed. Calling it a drive through when one can't (obviously) drive through is setting up a penalty that can't be reviewed (and if you are waiting that long after the race is completed, there must be some question to the penalty).
I agree that drive through penalties created during the race should not be reviewable, but calling a post race penalty a drive through (even though you are giving it a standard time) seem really wrong and illogical.
In addition there is the precedence that one post race "drive through" has been reviewed and overturned so not even admitting the review of this case when there is precedence adds to the "conspiracy theory"
Franz 1:11PM (9/23/2008)
According to the rules, a grid penalty for the next race could have been given as well. The FIA d*ck heads just decided to give Lewis the most harsh penalty that was applicable.
Ian 1:29PM (9/23/2008)
A drive thru penalty is assessed AFTER a review of the video evidence by the officials. Given that the race ended only some minutes after the incident the car could not be called into the pits for the physical drive thru. Therefore the estimated time loss of that penalty is added to the drivers final time. Ergo the penalty is still a drive thru. The Rules clearly state that as such the penaly cannot be appealed.
If McLaren want they can push for a future change in this. If they don't they will effectively be accepting the rules as proper and fit.
Bondtastic 1:34PM (9/23/2008)
Thank you Ian for the explanation. I still don't get how that many years of experience took so long to come to the conclusion that a drive through penalty should be assessed. Whiting even stated that he thought it was fine (at the time).
I agree with Franz that a grid penalty (instead of changing the outcome of a completed race) would have been more appropriate given the amount of time it took to deliberate post race.
why not the LS2LS7? 5:11PM (9/23/2008)
"drive-through" is the name of the penalty. There is more than one way to serve it. The rule that says what penalties are non-reviewable stats "drive-through" penalties are not. As this is a drive-through penalty, it is thus not reviewable.
Should it be? Well, that's a different question. The rules are written down to ensure they are the same for everyone. If this is unjust, the rules should be changed so that everyone knows the new rules, instead of the rules being different on a case-by-case basis. And F1 is (in general) loathe to change rules mid-season.
Philthy 8:33AM (9/24/2008)
...unless Ferrari stands to benefit from it. See 2003 tyregate, last year's non-penalty for BMW's infraction at the final race, etc, etc.
Franz 12:52PM (9/23/2008)
I figured the FIA bastards would reject the appeal. If they had allowed it to be admissible, then they'd have to consider all the evidence and then admit that they were a bunch of d*ck heads for giving Hamilton the penalty in the first place. I now hope more than ever that Hamilton wins the championship.
Reply