The FIA was accused in front of its Court of Appeal yesterday of deliberately
misrepresenting the views of one of its former chief stewards in a bid to
undermine Lewis Hamilton's case that he was wrongly demoted from winner to
third place at this year's Belgian Grand Prix.
In a surprise submission to the court, which will only fuel the belief among
Hamilton's supporters that the sport's governing body is biased against him,
McLaren revealed that FIA officials misrepresented the views of Tony Scott
Andrews, the chief steward at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, in
correspondence sent only three days before yesterday's hearing.
In an e-mail sent to McLaren's lawyers on Friday, the FIA claimed that Scott
Andrews had admitted that he had been wrong to impose a time penalty on
Tonio Liuzzi, the Italian driver, in Japan and that Scott Andrews had
confirmed as much in a phone conversation with Charlie Whiting, the Formula
One race director, that day.
The issue is critical to the admissibility of Hamilton's case, on which the
court will publish its findings today, because McLaren were relying heavily
on the decision in Japan as a precedent. As he emerged from the day-long
hearing, Hamilton, who acquitted himself with aplomb under cross-examination
by a lawyer from Ferrari, made clear that he saw this as the most important
element of McLaren's case. “Did you all catch on with the e-mail?” he said.
The court heard that McLaren were not content to take the FIA's word on this
critical matter and sent officials to Brands Hatch race track in Kent on
Sunday, when Scott Andrews was officiating at a touring car meeting, to
check if he had agreed that he had made a mistake. Scott Andrews was adamant
that he had not and offered to put his views in writing to the court.
In a submission that makes embarrassing reading for the FIA, which has come
under fire for its perceived bias against McLaren and Hamilton, Scott
Andrews said that he was “extremely surprised by the content” of the FIA's
e-mail, which he described as “grossly inaccurate and misleading”. He also
said that at no time during his conversation with Whiting had he been asked
if he had made a mistake in imposing a time penalty on Liuzzi. “Had he
[Whiting] done so, the answer would have been ‘no',” Scott Andrews wrote.
In his closing speech to the court, Mark Phillips, QC, representing McLaren,
described the matter as an “unfortunate exchange”. Clearly not wishing to
rub the FIA's nose in it, he added: “I ask you to reflect on that when you
come to consider the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted
themselves. I won't say any more than that.”
The hearing, to which McLaren sent an 11-strong team, featured Hamilton's
debut as a legal street-fighter and the 23-year-old World Championship
leader delivered some classic lines as he battled with Nigel Tozzi, QC,
representing Ferrari. At one point he shot back to Tozzi: “Are you a racing
driver? No. So you would have absolutely no comprehension of what I would
have done.”
Later, when Tozzi suggested to Hamilton that he stop “personalising” the
argument when Tozzi was only representing the views of the Ferrari team,
Hamilton again went on the attack. “I beg to differ,” he said.
Hamilton possibly overstepped the mark when he boasted in response to another
question from Tozzi: “I'm a racing driver. I've been racing since I was
eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book
and that's why I'm the best at my job.”
Ferrari and a lawyer for the FIA argued that Hamilton had gained an advantage
when he cut the Bus Stop chicane in the closing laps of the race at
Spa-Francorchamps as he battled Kimi Raikkonen, of Ferrari, for the lead in
the rain. Paul Harris for the FIA said that this was “utterly unarguable and
self-evident”. He also told the court that Hamilton had then “ceded part of
the advantage, but not the entire advantage” he had gained, before attacking
Raikkonen again.
In comments that will strike a hollow note with some of Hamilton's followers,
Harris said that the stewards in Spa had shown their judgment, experience
and neutrality. “They don't have an axe to grind; they are not championship
contenders, but they do their best in difficult circumstances,” Harris said.
Phillips said that Hamilton had no choice but to cut the chicane. “He did the
right thing,” Phillips said. “When he rejoined the track he did the right
thing again and before the team reminded him [on the radio] he needed to
give the position back.”
If Hamilton and McLaren are successful in their appeal and he is restored as
winner of the race in Belgium, Hamilton's World Championship lead over
Felipe Massa, of Ferrari, will jump from one point to seven with four races
remaining, starting with the Singapore Grand Prix this weekend.
Admissibility still the issue
The FIA Court of Appeal hearing in Paris heard detailed submissions yesterday
about the way Lewis Hamilton drove in the final, thrilling minutes of this
year's Belgian Grand Prix at Spa-Francorchamps, with the use of telemetry
evidence, video replays and testimony from most of the key players,
including Hamilton. But all of that may turn out to be irrelevant.
The most likely outcome of McLaren's attempt to overturn the stewards'
decision to demote Hamilton from winner to third place is that the five
judges - from Spain, Monaco, Austria, the Netherlands and Switzerland - will
rule that McLaren's case is inadmissible. Why? Because the punishment
imposed was an uncontestable retrospective “drive-through” penalty.
Mark Phillips, QC, the McLaren lawyer, tried hard to convince the court that
Hamilton had been given a time penalty, which, in one sense, he had in the
form of a 25-second addition to his race time. But Paul Harris for the FIA
was on stronger ground when he argued that the stewards had imposed a time
penalty only because it was applied within five laps of the end of the race.
As Harris pointed out, in the document giving notice of their decision, the
stewards in Spa noted that they were imposing a “drive-through” penalty.
Thus, after a long day in court, Hamilton and McLaren looked unlikely to
have overcome this obstacle in the way of their case.
If you go against ferrai, THE ANSWERS NO, NOW WHATS THE QUESTION. To say the FIA are biased towrda ferrari is evident in every contested point. I still remember the 'illegal part' which was ignored a number of years ago
Dave Smeed, chatham, UK
The rule wasn't cleared up before Monza - it was created before Monza to justify the Spa ruling.
It was a complete abitrary by the FIA.
iain, whangarei, new zealand
The rule was cleared up in before Monza give back the place and no move can be made until after the next corner - so there you have it rule broken penalty given out. You are such bad sports - if Hamilton had kept his head last year he would of been world champion...
Mike, Bicester, Oxon
the FIA is an absolute disgrace . Hamilton was 100% correct in his race with Kimi and whatever happenned with Kimi had nothing to do with the results of the race. What about massa receiving a $10000 fine for his pit infringement and Senna getting a drive through for the same thing. manipulation
Ian Scheckter, East London, SA
Amazing! Why even bother appealing. We need to make sure that we have a full time Stewards with proper training for next year. FIA can get some smart guys from Wall Street. Even better, President Bush will be out of office soon. Maybe, we can use him as the new Steward. That will get the rating up.
Rodrigo Perez, Manila, Philippines
Its gutting to see so many new fans of F1 coming to the sport to see Lewis, only for them to see the sport highlight its HUGE pitfalls like the politics that the F1 arena has seen with this incident. Love the Ferrari Intervention Authority comment!
Graeme Wadhams, Guildford, UK
Ya'll are homers for Hamilton. Every active driver interviewed last week supported the Stewards decision. LH should have waited a corner before attacking simple as that. And no the FIA are not in Ferrari's pocket. Give it up will you?
Jeff, London, UK
It seems have invented there own get out clause for any punishments (i.e time penalty) they want dish out whether they are right or wrong. This gives the FIA room to impose any rules they want to on any team without any come back.
To have a Ferrari lawyer just shows how biased the FIA are
MARK WALTON, Moreton, Unite Kingdom
Yes, Hamilton probably should have let Raikonen have a bigger lead, but we're talking micro-seconds here! Is the "advantage" he gained really worth 25 seconds? No. No way at all. Fact is, he is a much better driver in the rain than Kimi, and had been putting the pressure on for a while before taking
Matt, Leamington,
Formula one has finally provided a spectacular finish to a Grand Prix at Spa, after watching paint dry at Valencia.
Hamilton is penalised for his superb driving.
FIA what on earth are you doing?
The other drivers think the penalty for Hamiton should stand.No.I Wonder why? They should be ashamed.
David, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England
All pointless. It won't be admissable and the FIA will squeeze out of another tricky situation that they have got themselves into.
McLaren were appealing to the FIA so why was there a Ferrari QC cross examining...? It's not their argument which clearly shows a bias and favouritism toward them.
Ben, Castle Donington, UK
I'm really disgusted at the FIA concocting lies to make the appeal inadmissible, well done to McLaren for not taking them at their word and asking Tony Scott Andrews in person.
And “utterly unarguable and self-evident” is obviously rubbish given Whiting's OK. Lies lies lies the FIA's case is a sham
Jonah, Hampshire,
Come on people ye of short memories - Kimi was given a drive through this year in Monaco by the stewarda there for his engineers being around his car a few seconds too long just before the start of a race so where was the pro Ferrari FIA there? That favoured Hamilton immensely that day...
Mike, Bicester, Oxon
nice suit
Jon, manchester,
Tony Scott Andrews was only prevented from being chief steward last year becuase of health insurance reasons. Surely we could find a means in this multi million dollar business to solve this. The permanent steward situation would ensure consistancy in decision making.
STEVEN PRUSSIA, EDGWARE, ENGLAND
Best way to deal with cheats is to beat them fair & square. Lewis is good, but McLaren don't make it easy - theyv'e made bad decisions on time to come in & tyres etc.
If McLaren get their act together, Ferrari don't stand a chance.
W Smith, Manchester,
yes short and sweet i love f1 but this year it has been spoiled with stupid decisions and biased results get on with racing and stop all this off the track arguing its putting people off ;;;; good luck hamilton i hope you win on track and off track and then stick 2 fingers up at them all
paul, bolton, uk
The only thing lewis has done wrong is drive a mclaren.We all know that the FIAt is supporting the Italian team and always has.
mark everill, stoke on trent, uk
why on earth are they bothering to go through the process of a court hearing only to turn round and say that actually, mclaren cannot appeal? it seems like they're trying to give the appearance of being a just organisation. but they certainly have managed to capture people's attention to the sport!
yaamini, newcastle upon tyne,
can some one tell me who runs this champoinship for the f1 is it fia or is it ferrari mmmm i am so confused is it f1 or is it court room battles mmm confusion again mmm do marshalls not report to clerk of course and then he decides the decision with proof and fairness mmm to much confusion
paul, bolton, uk
It seems to me that the FIA is biased and are favouring the Ferrari Drivers. Why was Massa given a fine in Valencia and Lewis Hamilton now gets a 25 second penalty in Belgium? The Stewards certainly seem to have rules for one driver and different rules for the other, depending on what your name is.
Margaret Allen, URUNGA, AUSTRALIA
Why do Ferrari have their own lawyer there and why are they cross examining Hamilton? The case is between McLaren and the FIA. Ferrari did not make a complaint against Hamilton's win and should only be there as an observer surely.
Richard Williams, London, UK
Blatant politics which has ruined formula 1 for me!
Teressa Harris , Southampton, United Kingdom
Could someone please explain to me why Ferrari has legal representation at this hearing - surely this should be a matter between the FIA and Mclaren?
Colin Foster, Bangkok, Thailand
Please let the FIA make their decision. Finger pointing does little good, except show your own bias.
PR, Boulder, USA
FIA is definitely in the RED CORNER. Has been, is and will be. Only a blind man van't see.
Peter Simon, Anchorage, USA
i dont think Ferrari like the competition they are that used to having it there own way if it was shcuey it would be a different matter.i think the only way Lewis Hamilton will win the world champioship is if he drives that red thing with the prancing pony on its nose.LETS HOPE THAT DAY NEVER COMES.
joe mcdowall, barrow in furness, cumbria
If thye FIA rules against Hamilton it will be a very bad day for F1. The Spa race was the most thrilling for years, a true battle between two fantastic drivers and it should not have ended like this.
Gavin Lidderdale, Bad Homburg, Germany
“I'm a racing driver. I've been racing since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book and that's why I'm the best at my job.”
How the best driver in the world can be punished, where are we in France? Mon dieu!
xeron, cardiff,
We all know that the acronym FIA stands for Ferrari Intervention Authority. They will never allow the appeal to succeed. The best racing driver won, but that's not what F1 (Ferrari Ist ) is all about, is it!
David Morgan, South Croydon, UK
the fact is at the time the stweards TWICE told mcalaren that the move was OK. What else was Hamilton meant to do?
Michael, Chicago, USA
Hamilton was forced off the track into the bus stop
run off by Kimi Raikkonen. Hamilton came back on the track in front of Kimi on his left. Hamilton relinquished his position, allowing Kimi to go back ahead of him, then moved behind and to Kimi's right before passlng him. Correct move.No Penalty
Mr C E Page, Wimborne, UK
Oh please if hamilton were a certain german driver now retired or drove a red car he would be able to do what he wants including exit the pit lane in a dangerous way
Graham Reeve, swavesey, Cambridgeshire