No, and no. I dont think anyone protested Kimi's driving and if there is a recording of Whiting saying the move was ok, then it hasnt been (and most likely wont be) made public.^ Is there video or audio somewhere of Charlie saying it was OK? ie. proof?
I guess there's nothing that can be done about giving Kimi a penalty for blocking...?
That article doesn't actually say that - nowhere has it been confirmed that Charlie told the stewards to look into it.http://www.planetf1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4130171,00.html
Charlie told McLaren it was ok, then told the stewards to look at it.
Read the article, there's no proof that Charlie had the stewards look into it - just one journo's claims.I do not think it's right for him to give an Okay, and then have stewards look into it. He should have told the team he'll have the stewards look into it at the very least.
Surely however the stewards got involved, if the Race Director said the incident would not be investigated at the time and then it is anyway, then McLaren have a case. I would say that it could be even worse if it were a 'top down' decision with the stewards putting pressure on Race Control to investigate the 'incident', as that is against the rules. If the Race Director was assuring McLaren that there was no incident during the race, then either he changed his mind or was overruled.That article doesn't actually say that - nowhere has it been confirmed that Charlie told the stewards to look into it.
I'll wait until some hard evidence is provided about the why the stewards investigated it before coming down hard on Charlie.
ITV pit-lane reporter Ted Kravitz says that the stewards can put an incident under investigation all by themselves, with no intervention from Race Control. So if Whiting said it was OK, then most likely the stewards started the investigation by themselves, overruling the opinion from Race Control, which was forced to report the investigation.Read the article, there's no proof that Charlie had the stewards look into it - just one journo's claims.
I'm not denying that - just making the point that people were jumping down Charlie's neck when there was no evidence that he was responsible for the steward's investigation.Surely however the stewards got involved, if the Race Director said the incident would not be investigated at the time and then it is anyway, then McLaren have a case.
But my understanding is the teams have no contact with the stewards, which meant all McLaren could do was talk to Race Control. So it seems a little unfair that the stewards decided to investigate the incident off their own backs (presumably) without giving McLaren a chance to rectify the issue.ITV pit-lane reporter Ted Kravitz says that the stewards can put an incident under investigation all by themselves, with no intervention from Race Control. So if Whiting said it was OK, then most likely the stewards started the investigation by themselves, overruling the opinion from Race Control, which was forced to report the investigation.
As far as I understand it, the stewards do not have that power within the rules.But my understanding is the teams have no contact with the stewards, which meant all McLaren could do was talk to Race Control. So it seems a little unfair that the stewards decided to investigate the incident off their own backs (presumably) without giving McLaren a chance to rectify the issue.
F1.comDate set for McLaren?s Belgian Grand Prix appeal
The FIA International Court of Appeal will meet in Paris on September 22 to consider McLaren?s appeal against the 25-second time penalty handed out to Lewis Hamilton in last weekend?s Belgian Grand Prix. A decision is expected the following day.
Hamilton dropped from first to third place in the Spa results after stewards decided he had gained an advantage by cutting the final chicane during his late-race battle with Ferrari?s Kimi Raikkonen, whose team mate, Felipe Massa, inherited the win.
McLaren insist Hamilton was not at fault as he immediately relinquished the lead to Raikkonen following the incident. The team also claim that they were twice told by race control that their driver?s conduct appeared to be within the rules.
The Court must first decide whether McLaren?s appeal is admissible. Hamilton?s 25-second penalty substituted a drive-through, due to the incident taking place so late in the race. Drive-through penalties are not normally open to appeal.
FIA DENIES DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS
Following the 25 second penalty given to Lewis Hamilton for allegedly gaining track advantage over Kimi Raikkonen in the Belgian Grand Prix, the fat, super-rich old men who control Formula 1 have denied any sinister bias against the British McLaren driver.
?There really is no agenda here,? said one FIA steward yesterday. ?It was plain to see that the darkie unfairly passed the blond haired, blue eyed chap. In doing so the genetically pure driver clearly had a place stolen from him by that other one, which should come as no surprise knowing their sort?.
?I must reiterate that this does not mean the FIA has some sort of problem with fuzzy-wuzzies,? he added. ?We welcome our more rhythmic brethren in Formula 1, although obviously we?d prefer it if they didn?t come into the club lounge unless it?s to serve drinks. And even then you?d probably best keep an eye on your wallet if you know what I mean?.
?I hope this completely clears up any confusion about the incident involving the, you know, one of them, and the mighty gentleman of the master race,? our source concluded. ?The ruling after Spa was nothing to do with ethnicity. It was simply good old fashioned transparent corruption and bias in favour of Ferrari as usual? oh damn??
THOSE NEW F1 RULES IN FULL
Following unfortunate misunderstandings in the Grands Prix at Valencia and Spa, the FIA has revised the Red Car Rule for Formula 1. These amendments will be applied with immediate effect:
1) Overtaking a Ferrari is not permitted under any circumstances.
2) In the pit lane, a Ferrari always has precedence over other cars.
3) Any driver finishing less than 25 seconds ahead of a Ferrari will be penalized 25 seconds.*
4) If neither Ferrari finishes in first place, the stewards reserve the right to declare the result null and void (or to adjust it as necessary).
5) Only Ferrari drivers are permitted to use anything other than ?designated? parts of a circuit.
6) If forced off the ?designated? part of the track by a Ferrari, the guilty driver should immediately crash his car and return to the pits
6) Any driver or team appealing against any FIA decision in favour of Ferrari may be subject to a fine and/or the deduction of points.
*Subject to post-race adjustment by the stewards.
CRAZY D AT SPA 2008
Och aye tha noo muthafukas! Crazy Dave comin? atcha wit? tha great smell o? Red Bull. Splash it on all over. An? then get attacked by wasps. No way. So we slide on over Belgique side an? Crazy D, he take it smooth an? low. Yea. He stick it nice in qualifyay, tuck up on tha fo?teen slot cuz tha?s the way he roll. Medium pace. Then on tha Sundayay Crazy D he chilled like Crystal fo? tha race. Yea. But when tha work be done, everyone they ain?t be chattin? ?bout how Crazy D keep it jus? outside tha top ten again, they jus? be sayin? how ma man Da Ham be dissed by tha F-to-tha-I-to-tha-A ?cuz they give he a penaltyay fo? cuttin? wit? Tha Kimster. That be bad shit man. No one know why this crap be goin? down. Perhaps it is because the governing body of F1 is a complete shower of useless wankers.
A STATEMENT FROM THE FIA
The FIA today issued the following statement in response to allegations in the UK media.
?It has come to our attention that the private activities of the FIA and Ferrari at Spa have been filmed and distributed to the general public over the last weekend, together with false statements that the events depicted had a ?sporting? theme?.
?The activities depicted were a private matter between the participants, all of whom were consenting adults. Suggestions that one of the ?victims?, a Mr L. Hamilton, was a child are completely untrue. He is a consenting adult who just looks underage and he was financially rewarded for his subservient part in the role-playing of the dominant participants?.
?Parades of Ferrari automobiles are perfectly legal when conducted in private by consenting adults, even when they include role-play. We regard the media tactics to be most intrusive. Some even used helicopters to film the private activities of the participants. The FIA utterly refutes any suggestion by the media that what took place at Spa was meant to be a ?sporting event? and will pursue a case for libel against those who have made such scurrilous allegations.?