They Could be Wrong, They Could be Right
Published
By Mr. C.
Christine and I have been picking through the bones of today's International Court of Appeal rejection, and the main point we keep coming back to is the involvement of Tony Scott-Andrews.
Them's the Rules
Just to reiterate, prior to the hearing it became apparent to the FIA that McLaren were going to rely on the admission of a previous appeal hearing from October 2007 as part of the basis for their defence. To counter this, the FIA informed McLaren that there was a mistake made by the stewards during that particular hearing and in fact the defendant, one Vitantonio Liuzzi, was assigned a 25 second time penalty in Fuji, but he actually should have been given a post-race drive-through penalty (which equates to 25 seconds and which cannot be appealed).
This in and of itself, seems perfectly legitimate. Article 16.3 of the sporting regulations states that in the case of Tonio's infraction, one of three penalties can be meted out. A drive through penalty, a ten second penalty or a 10 place grid drop next time around. Additionally article 152 states that pit lane drive-throughs are not susceptible to appeal.
A Moment of Madness
So all is well and good. The stewards messed up in Fuji and then the ICA didn't question it during appeal, but as it was, the case was lost and the results stood as they were. Questions should be asked how all this managed to occur of course, but that's not the argument today. The rules clearly state a mistake was made and the FIA fessed up, presumably with the intention of saving themselves much embarrassment in Paris.
McLaren were duly informed, although for some odd reason Charlie Whiting felt the need to back up the facts by adding that chief race steward of the time, Tony Scott-Andrews had also told him there had been an error. Quite why this was necessary I can't fathom, but that's nothing compared to what McLaren's lawyers did next, which was to personally seek out and question Scott-Andrews themselves.
Allegedly, the response said lawyers received was exactly what they wanted to hear, namely that Scott-Andrews thought the FIA's clarification to McLaren was bunkum. This evidence was raised during on Monday afternoon, presumably to the chagrin of the FIA.
Pick a Question, Any Question
All this leaves many unanswered questions.
Why were the FIA not content to simply quote their own rules and be done with it? Why didn't McLaren check the rules themselves? Why were they so suspicious of Charlie's references that they had to seek out the source themselves (Whiting is usually considered a trustworthy person, isn't he)?
The final, yet most important question, is what might the repercussions of such a move be? Because I'm reasonably confident the FIA won't take to kindly too having such damning evidence thrown in their faces while the world's media watched on.
Anyone else think that there could be yet more trouble ahead?
312 Responses
Forgive me, but the part where embarrassment was avoided here passed me by. The only reason the FIA might not be embarrassed is because they clearly have no shame to start with. They've gone back on two past precedents (Alonso/Klien and Liuzzi/Sutil) and invented a new rule to deprive a driver of a win.
easy. they told macca on friday there was a balls up there end, at which point macca could've presumably dropped that part of their case.
no embarrassment in paris, in front of the world's media.
macca didn't take the hint though, and now i think they might be sitting on a rather large timebomb, but we'll see.
I think you're looking at that exchange in the most favourable light you possibly could with respect to the FIA.
Consider the timing, for example. If the FIA were really so concerned about 'avoiding embarrassment' they'd have mentioned at some point on the near-year-long gap between Fuji and Spa that such appeals were no longer admissible. Given that Max Mosley obviously takes great umbrage at the 'time wasted' (to use his words) on such matters, why didn't he sort it out ages ago? Like, straight after the Liuzzi appeal?
But instead they waited until they had a chance to use it to throw out an appeal. As a result they can hardly expect not to be blamed for the embarrassment they've caused.
I'm 99% fed up with the FIA and F1 and I will be 100% fed up if Lewis loses the championship by 6 points or less. There should be 6 more points between him and Felipe.
you misunderstand sir. the wrong penalty was assigned in the liuzzi case. nothing to do with appeals being admissible or not.
no question, that would be very unfortunate.
we can only hope for a lot rain in the remaining races.
btw. in case of confusion. i just changed the title of the post from:
"I Could be Wrong, I Could be Right"
to
"They Could be Wrong, They Could be Right"
originally i had the lyrics to public image ltd's "rise" in my head. but after thinking about it for a minute, i realised it gave something of a skewed impression to the post, way too ego-centric. apologies.
Article 152 of the International Sporting Code does not support the interpretation the FIA have used. It doesn't preclude time penalties from being appealed, only drive-throughs, pit-stoppages and incidents which the Technical or Sporting Regulations specifically prevent an appeal for. The penalty given was clearly a time penalty, converted as per Article 16. At no point after the conversion is it a drive-through, pit-stoppage or specifically-appeal-forbidden-penalty, therefore appeals are admissible for time penalties.
Or at least that's the theory.
you misunderstand sir. the wrong penalty was assigned in the liuzzi case. nothing to do with appeals being admissible or not. {me - 4 comments ago}
The penalty for ignoring waved yellow flags is a drive-through or 25-second penalty, depending on when the penalty is issued. It was the same type as the Hamilton case, given with respect to the same Article for an incident that, like the Hamilton/Raikkonen case, didn't have an alternate penalty provision. If the wrong penalty was given for Liuzzi/Sutil, it was also wrong in the Hamilton/Raikkonen case.
The case was heard and judged on its merits rather than a technicality. This meant that it set a precedent, which means it has everything to do with the admissibility of Hamilton/Raikkonen.
please show me where in the regs where a 25 second time penalty is deemed appropriate, other than for a post race stop / go or drive through? i couldn't find it for looking.
for lewis or liuzzi? because in lewis' case it clearly was a drive-through wasn't it?
i don't understand why that's the case?
What I would love to see are four Kubica / Heidfled one-twos and I do not care were Hamilton places.
please show me where in the regs where a 25 second time penalty is deemed appropriate, other than for a post race stop / go? {me - 2 comments ago}
It isn't given for a post-race stop/go. It's given for any incident which the stewards decide to penalise after the 5-laps-before-the-end-of-the-race point. That's Article 16, final paragraph.
From reading a few articles, I can kind of see the technicality the FIA are using to deem this appeal inadmissible. I understand the points they are getting at when saying the precedent set before is inappropriate as someone at the time messed up.
However, to the casual supporter who doesn't go knee deep in law looking to find out the whether this is unjust or not, this outcome just looks a tad dodgy and fuels further conspiracy theories. Who knows if the FIA are biased towards Ferrari, but recent events make it hard not to think that. The fact that Luizza drove for a certain 'Scuderia' Toro Rosso doesn't help much either.
Not matter what the result of the appeal, I think we would all be a lot happier had it actually been admitted so we could have the correct result. As it stand, we will never know what the judges thought of the penalty and whether or not it should have stood.
for lewis or liuzzi? because in lewis’ case it clearly was a drive-through wasn’t it? {me - 4 comments ago}
It was a 25-second penalty in Liuzzi's case, again due to the timing with which it was issued. Same as for Hamilton.
here's the quote:
"16.3: However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after
the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time
of the driver concerned."
a) = drive thorugh
b) = a ten second penalty
so lewis got a 25 seconds penalty for falling foul of a) five laps from the end... no?
I hear you.
I seem lost, what does Liuzzi/Sutil have to do with Hamilton/Raikkonen. Two different things right? You can't compare overtaking double yellows with cutting chicanes? Can you?
totally agree trigster. but if the rules are going to be followed, what else can they do, not follow the rules when it upsets someone?
again, agreed.
If the wrong penalty was given for Liuzzi/Sutil, it was also wrong in the Hamilton/Raikkonen case.
i don’t understand why that’s the case? {Alianora La Canta followed by me - 5 comments ago}
Because the same sleight-of-hand as applied to Hamilton would have made Liuzzi's appeal inadmissible. If time penalties are not appealable, then they are not appealable whether it is the Hamilton case or the Liuzzi one. If the Liuzzi case was OK to go to the appeals court, so was Hamilton's.
nope, but mclaren's lawyers were looking for an angle, and they almost found one, before the fia shut the door on them.
Right gotcha.
The FIA are a joke in reality, at times I wish that breakaway series threat came true.
but fia already said they screwed up the liuzzi thing, so only STR can complain about that right?
So your saying now, that STR can complain about a result in 2007? Really confuggled now.
here’s the quote:
“16.3: However, should either of the penalties under a) and b) above be imposed during the last five laps, or after
the end of a race, Article 16.4b) below will not apply and 25 seconds will be added to the elapsed race time
of the driver concerned.”
a) = drive thorugh
b) = a ten second penalty
so lewis got a 25 seconds penalty for falling foul of a) five laps from the end… no? {me - 4 comments ago}
The time penalty is still not a drive-through or pit-stoppage. The removal of the 16.4 b) requirement means that the pit lane is no longer involved in the penalty in any capacity. The nature of the penalty is thus different. It isn't explicitly barred from appeal (either by Article 152 or by an additional statement within the F1 regulations). This is why the final paragraph of Article 16 makes the FIA position on the Hamilton case illogical.
I seem lost, what does Liuzzi/Sutil have to do with Hamilton/Raikkonen. {R.G - 8 comments ago}
Both are cases where a 25-second penalty was given to a driver due to the lateness of the penalty. Both are cases where that penalty was appealed. In the Liuzzi case, it was accepted and the case debated as normal. In the Hamilton case, it was rejected. That's the significance.
It just seems that at every opportunity McLaren are penalised. If you were to follow the letter of the law, maybe they are correct to be penalised. But im certain numerous other incidents go unpenalised when they could be, and rightly so, as a bit of common sense should be used. But it seems the common sense goes out the window when its mclaren. I guess all im asking for is consistency, and im not sure we're getting that at the moment.
D'OH!
Just typed one looong post and then hit the wrong button and deleted the lot. :oops:
But surely, thats because one was for 1 point, the other for a race win.
I'm unsure of any logic in that, but perhaps that what the FIA saw
but if the rules are going to be followed, what else can they do, not follow the rules when it upsets someone? {me - 8 comments ago}
I'm still not convinced that they followed the rules, or even came close to doing so. It is precisely because I expect governing bodies to follow the rules that they themselves have set out that I am against what the FIA have done in this instance.
Its not when it involves Mclaren, its when it involves Ferrari's title challengers.
Indeed. What I meant. Obviously at the moment its McLaren.
but fia already said they screwed up the liuzzi thing, so only STR can complain about that right? {me - 8 comments ago}
The results of all FIA championships are locked in stone at the FIA General Assembly in late November or December of the year concerned. So nobody could protest it now. But if it was still 2007, then the "cool fuel" precedent says that only Toro Rosso may protest a dodgy appeal. In fact, they'd only have been able to do so through the Swiss Court of Arbitration or the French legal system.
Still, the fact that the error hasn't been corrected in the intervening time (if it was an error - Tony Scott-Andrews claims he was grossly misrepresented on that point by the FIA) and that it is not written in the regulations means that it cannot be used as a defence by the FIA.
Just typed one looong post and then hit the wrong button and deleted the lot {Flibster - 6 comments ago}
Don't worry - it happens to everyone sometimes.
But surely, thats because one was for 1 point, the other for a race win. {R.G. - 6 comments ago}
That would be inconsistency, if the FIA was thinking along those lines. Regulations are supposed to apply equally to everyone without fear or favour, without regard to positions in the race or the championship. Such thinking would not be in compliance with good sporting governance.
yup, that's certainly true.
part of me thinks it's just going to get worse :(
Warning - this is a bit of a long post and is written down as it came to me, so may not be coherant.
To me, the whole thing about the 'clarification' by the FIA about what Scott-Andrews meant and not what he wrote, stinks.
Especially as they have now dragged the now once respected, Charlie Whiting into this as well by having him effectively translate what Scott-Andrews wrote into what the FIA wanted it to say to immediately ditch the appeal.
Unfortunately for the FIA, this was discovered by McLaren to be complete arse and in any normal court would have thrown the FIA's case out on it's arse, but this is the ICA and not a normal court.
They could have just quoted the rulebook, say that it was in lieu of a drive through penalty, but no. They had to make themselves look more foolish.
As for Hamilton and the Ferrari Lawyer. Good on him. :D I have no great love for vampires, so bringing one down a notch or two is always good. ;)
I can understand why Ferrari were there, to put forwards their side. But as it was a McLaren appeal, why did it sound like it was Mclaren that were on trial with the cross-examining of Hamilton?
The FIA need consistancy. Whether that comes form permentant stewards or having 1 FIA steward, 1 national representiative and 1 retired racer or some other system, I don't care. They just need consistancy.
If the appeal went ahead, I have no doubt that the ICA would have upheld the initial punishment given, but it may have forced a total review of the stewards procedures which would have been a damn good result.
Something else that I have pointed out in a couple of places is based on what Max came out with a couple of weeks ago.
Really Max? I though he was also a liason between the teams and the stewards if something happens during the race? Also,"not in a position to give even the beginnings of a considered opinion"? COME ON! The guy has been to more races than a majority of the people in the teams Max. If there is one person who can give a considered opinion it's Charlie.
So, effectively the teams cannot not ask Charlie his opinion. Fair enough. But in Monza Charlie called though to Ferrari and told them toget Massa to move over as his overtake was dubious.
That must have been his opinion as it happned very quickly and he wouldn't have had time to talk to the stewards about it. So do the teams ignore him now as he can't give a "considered opinion" and face the stewards afterwards, or do they follow the mans suggestion and go against what Max has been saying?
As I said in the first line of this huge post... It stinks!
It does seem like there is some anti-McLaren feeling within the sport at the moment. We know that one of Max's deputys went on record as saying he believed that it was McLaren behind the sting operation. Thats takes some balls. Someone seems determined to continue to punish McLaren no matter what.
If they had followed the regulations during the fuel probe at the end of the year, Hamilton would have been champion. But they came up with the lousiest of excuses - they can't trust the ambient temperature readings. So why have those regs at all then?
Adding to that, they also said that if drivers are excluded there is not necessarilly a re-classification of the result. I can't find one instance where that hasn't happened. Someone gets kicked out - race is reclassified. They really didn't McLaren to win anything did they.
I hope that if Massa wins it's by more than the points that have been dubiously removed from Hamilton. However, I really would like to see McLaren take the drivers and constructors championships this year *kiss of death there....* just to spite people. ;)
Come back Balestre - all is forgiven!
:)
that did seem to be the case didn't it? and not for the first time either.
or some stupidity.
or kubica for champion.
Did my post make sence? I read it twice, but in my painkiller addled mind I could have written in a combination of dutch and swahili and it would have made sence to me. :D
yup, twas very good. are you gonna be on those for a while?
On and off *mostly on* for the remainder of my life probably.
As I'm currently planning that on only being another 15 years or so, not too bad.Cheery subject for a Tuesday night this. :D
I'm very disappointed but not surprised by the decision not to allow the appeal.
I'm all for a break-away series. The FIA have shown their true colours once again with the Tony Scott-Andrews debacle.
I'm at a loss as to how to show my disgust. I will not stop following Formula One closely - I love it too much.
we were having such a fine season, weren't we? every race a corker so far (bar one), and nothing but quality competition throughout the field.
damn and double damn.
I can't think of anything really. :(
Lets just hope that Max retires when he said he would at the end of next year. Just like a couple of years ago when he retired...Oh bugger. :(
Inconsistant is the word of the week. Just that Max quote one more time:
I don't understand how anyone could say that under these circumstances and actually believe it.
It's just a joke. Formula one builds itself up to a huge championship battle, with great racing, produces a first-time winner that just about everyone was delighted to see, and then has the reputation of the sport, yet again, reduced to a level of suspected corruption. How on earth can the FIA, or any organisation, be so stupid as to blantantly make a decsion depending on who is involved, and then carry on as if nobody will notice or care.
I can only feel sorry for Max if he still believes I'm the idiot after today.
Apologies if I have repeated anything that has already been said...
some things are worth repeating, dom.
Alianora seems very confused :(
Hamilton was given a drive-through, and given that the race had already finished, this is automagically converted into a 25 second time penalty. Drive-throughs are not appealable, even if they're converted to a time penalty.
Liuzzi *should* (apparently) have been given a drive-through that automagically converts to a 25 second time penalty, but was instead given a straight 25 second time penalty. Straight time penalties are appealable.
The FIA have carved themselves a nice loophole there... If *I* was Mr Steward handing out penalties, giving me the choice of whether I want it to be appealable or not seems rather a bad idea, I'd pick "not" every time. -- I guess this is the mistake that was made in Liuzzi's case.
correct. at least that's how i understood it.
hmmm, you're onto something there. seems like the "least hassle" option doesn't it?
Good stuff from everyone here. Personally I'm with Kris and Me in the last two comments. That was my interpretation of events too.
Also I have to say it is sometimes all to easy to see conspiracy where there is none.
My guess is that during the Sutil/Liuzzi case the high powered lawyers were not brought out. Nobody raked that closely through all the rules surrounding the admissibility of the event.
My guess is that this time the lawyers from Ferrari were much more on the ball and noticed that it was not able to be appealed according to the rules. So what happens? McLaren's on the ball lawyers bring a precedent. But all the precedent shows is that a mistake was made last time. That means it wasn't a precedent.
Case dismissed.
My view is that conspiracy is very hard to pull off when there is so much attention. I do believe that Ferrari have a very close relationship with the FIA. And I think that if I were running Ferrari I would work very hard to keep that relationship close. If I were McLaren I'd be cozying up with them too. (Taking them out to dinner maybe).
In most cases conspiracy turns out to be incompetence. No wonder Ferrari wanted their lawyer there. The lawyer for Force India and the FIA didn't correctly notice that the cast was inadmissible.
Obviously the FIA should be more competent, but I can see Ferrari's point of view.
I always come back to something Bernie said at the height of Schumacher's dominance. It was something along the lines of "it's not our job to slow down Ferrari, it's everyone else's job to catch them".
But if it were a court case, a ruling's a ruling. Isn't that enough for a case to be a precedent? If that were a proper court, the justice who gave that ruling last year would've been dismissed by now! Playing devil's advocate here.
I'll quote your comment at F1Fanatic; gives the forumers something to chew on.
Hmmm... Just noticed now. We seem to be taking a more moderate stance on the incident here at Sidepodcast compared to the other British sites (F1Fanatic, BlogF1, and the mainstream sites). Over here, it's not a conspiracy issue, it's a competence issue (or the lack of it).
I wonder why? Does that say anything about the type of people who go here regularly?
interesting aside for you here. the lawyer acting on behalf of force india last year was one mark philips qc.
it's a small world :)
Interestingly I used to comment a lot more over at F1Fanatic but I have found that some of the other commenters are often very partisan and extreme in their views. I love Keith's posts but I have found the commenters can be a bit judgemental / unwilling to listen to any other view.
lastly, in respect to the str / fif1 appeal. both drivers involved gave evidence (liuzzi and sutil).
any guess as to why ferrari didn't bring kimi into the mix? i imagine he's the kind of guy who wouldn't be easily intimidated in such a situation.
I missed the part where the FIA sent McLaren notice that it would not be accepting any more appeals on the basis they were going to use - after office hours on a Friday.
Thats a seriously dubious practice there - changing the rules almost as they go along.
Also, back to the original appeal from STR, why would the stewards be allowed to change their mind and change the nature of the penalty *but not hte punishment of the penalty* after all the documentation had been signed, dated and delivered? Surely these are legal documents at that point?
You wouldn't get a copper giving you a ticket for speeding and then at a later date deciding that it was for driving without due care and attention... after you've paid the penalty!
This could almost be funny....
Ouch... The ICA case could apparently cost McLaren up to $1 million...
i think they'd call it "clarifying", wouldn't they? the business of communication after hours is interesting though.
losing is a pricey business. something of a deterrent for smaller teams too, i guess.
(have cropped your last comment flibster, that kind of defamation might get us into trouble)
But why wait almost a year before telling anyone they made a mistake? Can't see the FIA being too embarrassed!
All it does is show incompetance and fuel conspiracies!
Sadly not – the key issue here, as per paragraph 27 of the judgement, is that the admissibility of the Sutil-Liuzzi appeal was never brought into question, discussed, or ruled upon, therefore no precedent was set (see below)...
However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated.
Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case.
Common problem with F1 forums now, and the reason I don't read them. If you can't make a sensible and factual point without being screeched at, it's time to leave.
So, in other words - if no one says you can't appeal that... they'll let the appeal go ahead?
Sorry..thats frazzled my mind a bit that one.
someone's gonna have to explain to me how mark philips became a member of the queen's counsel :)
i may have to go back and re-read the things he said in last year's transcripts.
Not as frazzled as the (no doubt) highly paid silks who failed to notice it was inadmissible last time around...
Weather for Singapore.
http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/hourbyhour/SNXX0006?from=36hr_topnav_business
Looks pleasent. Thunderstorms, 94% humidy and 32°C temperatures. 8OI think I'll stay in the UK thanks...
Oh. Comment got blocked. :(
Had a link to the weather forecasts for the next few days.
Looks alsolutely lovely....
i fear for the 5live crew :)
And it has been suggested elsewhere that under Swiss Law precidence isn't a factor. I don't know the varacity of that.
My sentiments exactly. When last heard from, F1R's men on the ground had retired for a Singapore Sling...
I think I'd rather watch a brilliant wet race live, thank you very much. :D
I'll be watching it. From my pleasently air conditioned playroom with by bacon, egg and chilli buttie and vat of tea, rather than sweating my bits off. ;)
I note the Japanese GP transcripts don't seem to be available on the FIA website, nor do the pdf's for the McLaren transcripts (the page is there but the pdf isn't)
me - like the way you can now blockquote using the live commenting thingy
http://www.fia...7-ica-ToroRosso-a.pdf
ta. more improvements coming soon :)
Spare a thought for those poor soaked fans that purchased a temporary seat and no overhead covering.... :(
ooh ta, I was looking in the press release bits
the site is useless for searching the archives. google does a better job :)
Hey guys, here's a thought:
Does anyone know how effective is the drainage system at the Singapore track as well, we would want to have teh track flooded to the point where water is flowing into the engine from the air intakes that would be a riot!
Picture all the cars stalling on the track as water has displaced all the air in the combustion chambers.....
From said transcript of the Toro rosso decision, this seems to say they deemed the appeal admissible!
yeah, but stuart already covered this point this morning:
http://www.sid...right/#comment-111484
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Nope. :P ;)
From said transcript of the Toro rosso decision, this seems to say they deemed the appeal admissible!
I think the part that is supposed to be admissible is whether the cockpit GPS system or the trackside marshalls are supposed to have the final say as to when a track is considered "clear" for racing. Currently it lies with the hands of the marshall. But for the marshall's safety should not a few webcams and a master control hookup to each car's GPS system be used?
....And some people on this site think I am mean...... :P
Although I still read posts on several sites - and write a few on my own - I've given up commenting on them other than here and BlogF1 really. No amount of explaining will alter some people's perceptions!
In this case although it was a time penalty, it was converted to this from a drive-through so therefore I can understand why it couldn't be appealed - that was really why I thought McLaren were taking a big gamble in lodging the appeal in the first place.
Will be nice to get back to racing...
maybe i'm wrong (or maybe i'm just biased), but i do think that having christine moderate things makes a difference.
it's very hard to get annoyed with someone like this:
http://12secon...nel/sidepodcast/29503
(sorry)
expanding on the theme though, don't you think f1 would be so much more amenable if there were a couple of female team principles, or maybe some female representatives sitting at the head of the fia?
I agree. The hardest thing to figure out from this whole mess is at which point did Hamilton go far enough back from Kimi to be safe to contine racing....
Becasue at the old tracks, like the Nordschliefe, the next corner could be up to three miles away. I use this as an extreme example, but surely the FIA can work out the distance behind a car from slow speed to top speed that it is possible to slipstream and then add a percentage to ensure that a car that has gained an advanatage has to drop back to to end up the car's dirty air?
Becasue the current penality will not affect something who went afoul of this reg between the two Lemso corners as a person who as afoul of this reg at the middle of the Parabolia.....
Like me then? :P I believe most of the grandstands don't have covers, except for those on the main straight.
I won't be sweating, just soaking. Hahaha!
even so, i'm still dead jealous.
Oops wrong "P" button.
First, like all married men in the honeymoon period, you are still extremely biased towards your wife, so your argumeet of having Christine around to moderate things holds no water. It is merely a self-preservation trick employed by you to get on Christine's good side as I think you have done something that should land you in the doghouse...
Sadly, In the world of massive international businesses, I think that it takes a certain type of female that the absolutly last word I would use to describe that type of person is "moderating". I mean they would have have had to have squashed god knows how many culturial taboos just to reach the top spot of either a business or F1 team. I mean, we have already have races in the Middle East, which is not exactly on teh forefront of the average women's right campaign. Now you want a woman as head of BMW in Bahrain? Her presence alone in a T-shirt going to drive the hard-liners nutter.
noted :)
that's not a good reason for it not to happen though is it? just 'cause it would upset someone? and it doesn't mean that things wouldn't improve as a result either.
Has he not listened to the F1 Minute's again? ;)
oh yes. several times a day... just in case.
Is Christine quizzing you on it when she gets home?
fantastic, she will be now :(
Glad to be of assistance. :D
In other news, a quote from Mark Webber just made me snigger.
Ummm, no Mark. Thats what got the penalty handed out in the first place!
F1MinuteQuiz doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
Apols for coming back to this one!
The general form in a court case with no jury is that the judge(s) listen to the arguments set forth by the lawyers representing each party. Only after considering the evidence – and the arguments – do they reach a judgement. They’ll only deem a case inadmissible or otherwise if one of the advocates makes a compelling case for it – otherwise they’ll make a judgement based on the evidence presented.
They won’t wait until the end before wearily pronouncing, “You do realise this whole appeal is inadmissible, don’t you, you overpaid nitwits?”
A lot of the brouhaha at the moment on some blogs is predicated upon a misreading of that sentence, “Having acknowledged that the due hearing of all parties was in order, that the appeal was admissible”
This means that something like the following conversation took place:-
Judge(s): Is everyone agreed that this is admissible?
Lawyers: Yes, m’lud.
It doesn’t mean that they debated whether it was admissible or not and came to the conclusion that it was. Quite the opposite – by oversight, no one argued that it was inadmissible so it was judged on the evidence actually presented.
Without wishing to sound like a smug twerp, if more F1 bloggers had done court reporting (or similar), they wouldn’t come out with such guff.
Well then, me. You will be happy to know that you have been declared the reciplant of another on my secret messages. Just unlock it before Christine or someone else does and you might escape the doghouse yet....
I'd love to see that though. :D
This is quite a tricky one... I think I'm on to something, but not quite there yet. This is with your handle statuses again, no? :)
neither of us have done any court reporting, and neither (i assume) have many people commenting here, yet we still managed to come to the same conclusions... just by reading the text properly.
i guess the thing is, i imagine most people who blog about f1 do so because they love the racing. no-one signed up to become experts in law (nor fuel storage temperature, nor s&m for that matter).
the great thing about blogging is it's mostly self correcting, so when someone gets it wrong and pops up a sensationalist headline or two, it's easy to point out the error of their ways :)
sometimes journalists get things wrong too, but corrections won't appear until the next edition (and are usually accompanied by a very small acknowledgement, buried in the section no-one reads).
Yes. The handle statuses are the medium. The lack of a handle status means I am not hitting my telegraph key.
Indeed! The guff that got my goat was elsewhere.
And it only gets my goat because people inevitably write in to the mag saying, angrily, "WHY AREN'T YOU REPORTING THIS?????"
Of course it is trickier than the first message. That code is completly compromised and do you think I am going to use it when it is going be like broadcasting in the open?
Very true... I was always expecting you to use a new code, but this is VERY tricky. :)
but that's okay, because your interns sort the wheat from the chaff, right?
you don't have interns?
seriously though, i know what you mean because i read exactly the same on the autosport forums monday evening. thing is, it was ed gorman who put half a story up online, then buggered off on a 16 hour flight.
i don't think bloggers started this particular fire, they just fanned the flames. not a credible excuse i agree, but the best i can do :)
AHA! I got it. Not as tricky as I thought. :)
Well, then only one way to find out if you got the message? Do you think that me would get out of Christine's bad book if he where to follow this advice?
I thought that with no jury there was normally someone in the court, representing the court and advising the bench on the law (in this case the FIA rules and reg's) to prevent sc... ups like this?
Paul
I like my current name atm.
Well, in Autosport. Right next to Bambers Cartoon.
A1-Ring is coming back! :D
http://www.aut...s/report.php/id/70802
Yep! I tried it myself, actually... looked nice! :D
And its not going to be designed by Herman Tilke!!!
Ah, thats why, F1 not going there
granted. i was thinking more of the broadsheets, but kudos to autosport for that.
Billy Joel did, surely..
According to him, it was always burning.
nah, he tried to fight it, the fool.
We didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning... :P
And I'm 21. Golly.
To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if they renamed it the Red Bull-Ring. :P
Flibster, me, are we showing our age here? Hahaha!
I've always loved that song, though. :)
By the way, me, have you had time to decrypt Jordan's message? If you haven't, you really should. :)
They say you're only as young as the women you feel.
Damn, that makes me 32.... instead of my natural youthful 30. Ummmmm. I really didn't think that through.
that song is genius.
write a catchy chorus, then read aloud your shopping list. bingo, you've the easiest hit you'll ever write.
really, six million things on the go right now. i shall do, this evening probably. honest.
haha, just seen your name, RG. Very good, as I agree completely :D
Of course I am going to use a new code. Who do you think I am? CONTROL?
Zis is KHOAS! There is no CONTROL Here!
a question for football fans then.
what is the bbc program inside sport about, is it any good, and is there any significance in their appointing of david croft to the panel?
more here:
http://www.bbc...mer_of_sport_the.html
does this mean the program with feature f1 content, and does it increase the likelihood that croftie will be named bbc f1 tv commentator?
Inside Sport is a general sports program. They do football, quite a bit of boxing and other sports. They tend to do 3 or 4 main items per show so it is not your normal 90 second skim over. Odds are if Croft is on the panel they plan to give F1 10 minutes a week.
For me Inside Sport is something I always watch.
Inside Sport is like a tv magazine show, if you know what I mean. Usually talk about the latest gossip in sport, not just football, with the panel. Usually features a big interview as well.
As for appointing Croft, doesn't surprise me as he is already 5live commentator, and wouldn't surprise me if he is appointed as commentator as he already has a contract at the beeb.
Inside Sport - they podcasted the show last season, Gabby Logan fronted it. probably have a copy somewhere on an archive dvd.
Having re-read the link 'me' gave it looks like the group of people listed with Croft will not be on every show. The regular panel will and the others will be fitted in as and when. So I guess we get Croft when there is a race. Expect the occasional driver interview feature. Probably Lewis and the guy at Honda assuming he still has a drive next year.
I believe Webber does some stuff for the BBC website, so it wouldn't surprise me if he did some stuff.
is it on all year round?
which would only be possible if the f1 studio is in london right?
would love to see it, if it's possible to get onto dropio?
No, I its in series. Usually on Monday nights at ridiculous o'clock, though I think the show one on Sunday too.
Very very true Me. In fact it's exactly a reason to do things.
Women make up 50% of the population. There is absolutely no reason that 50% of the top jobs in the world, let alone F1, shouldn't be held by women. There have been great strides made in rural Africa by NGOs putting the women in charge of distributing the money. It is causing a great societal change for the better.
I also agree that Christine's presence here makes a big difference. Not just because of the female angle. But my guess is that it stems from the fact that Christine doesn't hold herself out as an expert on the podcast and is openly asking questions about what things mean. And then from time to time the tables are turned.
I think it fosters a feeling that people aren't expected to be right all the time. And people expect to be asked to expand on questions. I see a lot of comments from you (Me) saying "what makes you say that". Rather than "that's completely wrong". I think that helps.
They would probably go to his place in Switzerland or pick another outside broadcast location. I would guess they would do a pre-season interview (or post-season) so maybe a test session or MTC.
So you want the world to be run by uninformed women? :)
Oh dear... Now I'm in trouble!
I'm still not sure that Me has adequately explained why he wants the Studio in London. Couldn't they just broadcast the race in HD and not bother with HD for the people.
I was just trying to search for information about HD F1 and all I could find were posts from here, Keith's site and Ollie's site. Maybe we are the only people in the world who do actually care?
that's because i mostly expect myself to be wrong, and am genuinely pleased when i'm not :)
that's more than likely. in fact when we put a HD version out of one of our videos it didn't do anything special in terms of numbers. it's not like the world was waiting to watch some f1 in hd or anything.
funnily enough we don't even own a hd tv, so i've no idea what i'm worried about!
because you can do so much more in a controlled environment. outside broadcasts are a pain in the backside even when people know what they're doing, it's ten times worse when it's live.
with a local studio, the presentation will be better, the people running the show will probably be better, you have more scope for guests and interviews (because everyone at a race has something better to do).
that would look shoddy. the difference, even if the SD signal was upscaled, would be very noticable.
now am panicing as its not on the dvd I thought it was, which should also have had a backup of a project on, sorry still looking. (thank G for paper)
If the informed women of the world are the ones that think that guys who wear women's shoes on their hands are hot, I see nothing wrong with uniformed women in power.... ;P
But who will you be interviewing? The people at the race know more don't they?
I have just seen the Sato picture in drop.io. I thought the Japanese were supposed to be reserved. It looks like it should be a caption competition picture but I think a lot of editing could be required
You can have people like Eddie Jordan or Murray Walker for the races he doesn't go to. Damon Hill or other former drivers. There are a lot of well informed drivers that don't go to the races. Or if they are stuck they could interview James Allen.
And yet I always felt back on those races when Steve and Mark were back in the studio in London, "what are you two doing? Go back to Lou and Ted, they'll know if it's raining or not".
yup, that's true. but you'll get a more rational analysis of video, for example, if people are able to call up specific events at will (which you can do when you have access to a gallery, unlike itv's half cocked bit at the end that blundell tries to ad lib).
imagine how much better it would be if the presenter could say post-race - "remember this event, let's look at it again from three angles in slow motion". or, like they do in snooker, by drawing little lines on the screen showing how an overtaking manouvre 'could' have been done.
they'd have to be pretty much glued, wouldn't they?
:)
Interestingly I'm pretty sure I saw the commentary team at MotoGP on the BBC doing this earlier in the year from a table in the paddock (with people wandering around behind them). I think they were also explaining the new shock absorbers and one of them had one in his hand pointed to the bits to show it working. It went from slick when you needed to show the important shot to rough and ready when you wanted people to understand how it really worked. I was very impressed. I must say I haven't watched very much MotoGP so I don't know how common this kind of thing is.
Also I'm not sure that FOM releases the rushes that quickly do they? I mean can ITV call up another angle? They can't ask for replays during the race. I guessed (perhaps wrongly) that the replays at the end pulled any angles from any replays that FOM had chosen to show during the race. I don't think I remember ever seeing new footage at the end.
the other thing you can have with a local studio of course is audience participation, although, i'm not sure who would want to watch a race in a tv studio. it might work though, a quick dash into the audience for a chat?
itv record the stream as it comes in. they used to comp the 20 second highlight package that ran at the end of the show, as the events unfolded.
they no longer do that, but highlights are called up all the time by itv crew in the uk, because everytime the go to an ad break, they miss something important.
See all of this, for me would be really good for the analysis show. Perhaps a live Sunday evening show around 9pm with lots of audience participation where the events of the day are chewed over.
Oh wait... ;)
I find myself agreeing with ME, Alex and Kris. I was surprised that Macca thought that they had a case. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs which could be debated with never any resolution, I am not sure that strategically this was good for Macca. I cannot help but feel that they should accept the situation and focus on the car driver programme. They have the best car, one of the best drivers and in my humble opinion should take less gambles (like Lewis in the q2 at Monza) and they will have the best chance of winning both titles. Peter Sauber has suggested that they are showing signs of cracking under pressure. I think this contesting everything might me affecting their focus (I did not like last year's attempt to get Williams and BMW Sauber excluded due to the cool fuel so as to get the drive's championship).
In one sense I would like to see Macca take the constructors as I genuinely think they produced the best car in 2008. In the driver's championship, I would like to see it go to the last race. However, part of me thinks it would be great for a Brazilian to take the championship on his home circuit. For most of his career Felipe has had to be the second driver (certainly while at Ferrari) so it would be the underdog winning and that is always cool.
An interesting observation is the Peter Sauber is rooting for the Brazilian and therefor Ferrari. I know Sauber's last engine supplier was Ferrari but for many years they were the racing face for Mercedes. Peter seems not to have conveniently forgotten that.
Now that would be a finish, yea I could also go for that option. The fairest team would win!
hahahaha :)
But they are from the broadcast feed right? What you need for the analysis at the end is to get all the stuff from the different angles. FOM might not have shown all of the angles during the race so the BBC wouldn't have it.
sorry, just re-read your comment, misunderstood it the first time. maybe multi-angle is a stretch then, but there must be more you can do back home with a purpose built building, than with a temporary cabin on the otherside of the world?
Will someone please throw "me" a life-jacket? The guy is grasping at straws trying to save himself from drowning....
Mark Blundell and Martin Brundle might be considered expects on how to be overtaken, but if they had any idea of how to overtake, I am sure that their careers as drivers would have lasted a little longer.
I can imagine, a riveting tic-tac-toe game breaking out between the two of them on the subject of how to overtake....
help :D
Yes – during the race broadcast they're only allowed to cut away from the main live feed (apart from ad breaks) for 15 seconds max, hence the occasional driver interview which begins and ends on audio only...
I think it has to be better to be there. I really do. Knowing if it's raining in the pits is some of the most important info I've gleened from the guys. And the interviews from the drivers. Both of which are harder back home.
now that is something i did not know.
and, explains why we see more of the drivers in the highlights show.
yeah, and i can't really argue me case anymore. hd is as good as pointless, i don't really care if DC wants to spend more time with his kids, and television already involves too many studios as it is.
You could have folk phoning in on skype and live commenting :)
See what I'm thinking about how people talk each other round and explore each others points of view. I like it.
In some kind of debrief of F1 :)
It is hilarious - certainly he has impressive body talk.
The pics of shirtless Lewis and Heikki with the running shoes - now that is NOT a pretty site. They definitely should both keep their shirts on - poor Heikki - it is as embracing as Lewis' Turkish circus flying trick. Now the Heikki shoes pics would be good for providing captions - so why not put a post up with each pic and we provide our funniest captions.
I wonder if ME did the shoe wearing trick sans his shirt!
Brundle was a really quick driver. People go on about how Senna dominated in F3 what they don't say or don't know is that going into the last race of the season Brundle was leading the championship. Had he taken Senna out he would have finished the year ahead on points although no doubt he would have been penalised as ramming people was not acceptable at that stage.
i hear ya. it's like with "bus-stop gate". i had one idea about it on sunday, but by late monday evening that opinion had been pretty much reversed. and i didn't even leave the house :)
could be a ratings winner that. i would advise the beeb to check all their connections first though. half a skype conversaton would be really embarassing.
Looks like I screwed up the quoting on that last post. The second paragraph should not be in quotes.
i have done fixed it.
erm.
Maybe it's best not to be thinking about it :)
I think I know the hosts for the job :)
Inside Sport extract on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20VatP8H0sM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM0IkiQlFWk&feature=related
I thought it might have be "entertaining" for Christine, or at least funny!
It was certainly funny :)
ollie already does a fine job on this front:
http://blogf1.co.uk/tag/caption-contest/
but i'm sure we can twist his arm to feature heikki :)
Thanks
You never leave the house ;)
the stones hurt my bare feet.
Can't you walk on your hands?
It would need to be the stickiest situation since sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.
I know F1 over the last two years has become a bit of a panto but isn't that a little extreme?
Commentator 1: He's behind you!
Commentator 2: Oh no he isn't!
Commentator 1: Oh yes he is!
You need to walk on your hands :)
Sorry Christine got there way before me (silly computer meant I couldn't see)
Love to hear the comments on one of those.
Just seen the GPX cover in drop.io. I'd totally forgotten about that. It was quite an embarrassing flop. I think the idea was to do a sort of Loaded for F1 fans (Loaded was selling 500,000+ at the time). Mind you, back then (1998) I was working on Redline and it wasn't Shakespeare.
apparently dr. vee owns every copy and had the poster on his wall. quite what that says about vee i've no idea? :)
i love the word "megablastic" on the cover. it's my goal to fit that into an actual conversation this weekend... without it sounding out of place or contrived.
ah-ha, thank you paul.
monday at 11pm is a very useful time for an f1 spot. croftie could be back home by then.
So besides Journeyer, who else has broken todays secret message from Jordan F1 HQ?
Guys, where is that Sato pic on drop.io? I can't find it.
not i?
i think this is the one:
http://drop.io...ast/asset/preview7862
The former editor is doing some work on an F1R Specials project on the other side of the partition at the moment. We had an extended session of Tremayning this afternoon.
Bishop is moonlighting from McLaren?
if the f1r special project involves pandas, mr. roy might not be able to take it anymore... :)
ahh, did you manage to tape any of it?
I like pandas. If the pandas were running the FIA things would be much better.
I just realised that if pandas were running the FIA things would be a lot more black and white. :D
absolutely.
i was referring to your concerns about the wilful exchange of ideas between a certain unnamed media powerhouse and the commentators around these 'ere parts.
there must be grounds for moderating that comment!
Oh god, we really need to get that cymbol sound effect.
Including you "me". When I tried to send you a message yesterday, it got intercepted by Alex, who also helped Scott Woodweiss to decode it along with Journeyer, whom the message was also meant for.
Not that I am complaining, it is rather interesting to see who has the deductive skills to figure out a code like this when the key is not present to you and the sender is expecting you to figure this out in the dark.
That is why I am being fair and not sending codes where the numbers present the number of words on a page in a particular column in a particular chapter of a thick book, beside the obvious problems of common source material.
Guys, where is that Sato pic on drop.io? I can’t find it.
If that is the picutre of Sato, I already have a mean caption to go with it.....
I have broken the message btw.
Codes, schmodes.
Sato, you gotta love him, really hope he gets the seat next year. Am I still the only one who thinks that?
http://www.instantrimshot.com/
:)
Thanks Alex, it deserved that.
you are a man with a link for all occasions aren't ya!
I try my best :)
best.site.ever :)
It really does exactly what it says on the tin :)
My actual views about this subject can only be revealed in coded format, least I be labelled once again, as mean.
Of course Barrichello-Bashing seems to be the national sport around here...
:D
flibs (can i call you flibs btw?), pleeeease keep it family friendly, that's the 2nd one today!
carry on.
wow i've missed a load of comments this evening haven't i?...
live commenting is, erm... addictive?
lol :) i wish i could have joined in... i had so much work though... shall catch up now :)
you know what live commenting is missing? some kind of alert to say a conversation is happening on another thread... no idea how that might work though.
so do you use the live commenting system more than you do the normal comments?
Some sort of MSN-style alert noise?
Or maybe you could post a comment telling us of a new thread?
now that the spitter bar works yeah. it's a bit like having twhirl open, but without the pings. do we need pings?
we need pings :)
ahh, well that's another issue. there's no alert to say a new post is up either. hmm.
do you mean for every comment? cause that could get very annoying... but maybe a system similar to the f1minute automatic notification - identi.ca thing you set up would work?
it could couldn't it? thing is i get drawn into one conversation on a thread, and then i realise that people have been commenting on another post and i didn't know.
erm no... cause during a race that could get mighty annoying if you ever click away from the live commenting window. but maybe a 'ping' you can turn on for non live commenting live feed things.....
yeah i see what you mean.... maybe some kinda box at the top of the live commenting window? that tells you... something.....??
You're right. MSN is annoying enough. Best not add a nudge button, then. :D
Slow down Lou, too much detail.
not sure how easy this is but you could always may the window flash... like msn does if your status is set to busy or something... so if you are using another window you can see at the bottom that someone has made a comment.... if that's the kinda thing you were thinking of.... not sure how that would alert you to a convo in another thread though...
good point.
hehe!
haha sorry :) something like the most recent comment was made by (someone) on this post.
i think that's what we need. somewhere unobtrusive and with a disable / enable switch too.
Sorry. Way too subtle for me
but i have no idea about how you go about designing websites etc so i have no clue as to how possible/ good these would be.... i'm just coming up with some random ideas :)
Why????? :)
pure cheese :)
Instant Rim Shot. Huh! Try this
http://www.kenbrashear.com/
I have been moderated again. Just because I found something way better than the instant rim shot. Victimisation I say
Perhaps you could put something similar to recent comments on the sidebar that displays the posts the most recents comments have been made on?
I hope that makes sense.
I will try the same link with spaces. Copy and paste and take out the spaces. It is worth it
www .kenbrshear. com
there's some definite bias within this sites moderation, i say.
it does, will have a think.
man, that kit is fabulous. what does the fan do though?
Click on it and see
omg! i was going by the keyboard shortcuts :)
Well considering that Honda created the entire Super Aguri team so that Sato could still drive, it would make sence that Honda would wish to hire him again.
Now if Honda could replace their driver that currently has fewer points with Sato Honda would have enough money to replace their Accord connected to a GP3 for a real simulator....
:evil:
Sometimes the mini smilies are not enough Lou. Maybe we need one or two big ones
I can't do big smilies in live commenting..... 'me' shrank them all :(
sorry, it said 40 degrees on the label!
Make sure he knows he is to blame
hahaha
Honda have released some basic data about Singapore.
www.f1technical.net/news/10537
Why didn't that one get moderated? I am confused
cause there is nothing wrong with Honda ;)
the previous url contained a string relating to women's undergarments (if you read it as a computer would). honda tends to be quite clean in that dept.
Was the spam filter written by a 13 year old boy by any chance?
:D
Whatever she says I did not give Alianora the idea for the Honda space taxis problems. Honest never even thought about it
http://formula1home.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=492&sid=c6de0fcb9f18c84ed8a8c0b510782056
hehe. you can't hide from the truth.
Not while Jordan keeps dropping me in it
everyone's got to be good at something!
so, anyone going to explain the code i can't fathom, or shalt i forever remain in the dark?
but in my painkiller addled mind I could have written in a combination of dutch and swahili and it would have made sence to me. {Flibster - a lot of comments ago}
Sorry to hear you need painkillers, Flibster :(
oh that explains the occasional lewd comment today. apologies flibster.
Hamilton was given a drive-through, and given that the race had already finished, this is automagically converted into a 25 second time penalty. Drive-throughs are not appealable, even if they’re converted to a time penalty.
Liuzzi *should* (apparently) have been given a drive-through that automagically converts to a 25 second time penalty, but was instead given a straight 25 second time penalty. Straight time penalties are appealable.{Kris - several comments after Flibster's}
I'm not sure that the FIA's account of this is even true - [url=http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/62898]The Autosport reporting[/url] and the [url=http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2007/9/6905.html]F1.com reporting[/url] at the time doesn't indicate that this distinction was used in Liuzzi's case back then.
Even if such a distinction had been slipped into the Liuzzi judgement, it shouldn't have made any difference due to how the International Sporting Code was written. There is no distinction in Article 152 between converted time penalties and straight time penalties. In any contract, converting a term means that future actions are taken on the basis of what the term was converted to, not what it was converted from. It's a common-sense thing, otherwise no contract could ever have clauses that kicked in under specific conditions as opposed to the generally-assumed ones. Article 16.3 implicitly assumes them too. Otherwise there could only be the initial table of penalties; the "if-it's-less-than-five-laps-before-the-race-finishes" clause could never be activated without that assumption.
The regulations form part of a contract between the FIA and competitors - it says so in Article 2 of the FIA Sporting Regulations. So the regulations have to be read like a contract. Given these points, a converted time penalty, by the principles of contractual law that the regulations themselves implicitly assume, must be treated as a time penalty not a drive-through or pit-stoppage penalty. Therefore appeals have to be permitted by the very wording of Article 152.
The FIA's attempt to claim that standard contractual principles do not apply to Article 16.3 was not in the least convincing, at least not to me. Claiming that the fact that standard contractual principles applied was not explicitly confirmed in the Liuzzi case does not nullify them with respect to either that case or any other. If the FIA intended something in Article 16.3 other than what they actually wrote, they would be better served next time by simply re-writing the rule to reflect their intentions rather than act as if the sporting regulations contract was no longer valid.
And yes, when the FIA behaves like this, it's a contractual issue as well as a sporting regulatory one. In theory, this could be used as an excuse for any team to break the contract with the FIA. Whether a court of law would deem the breach sufficient is a question I cannot answer at this time.
Where's the last comment I wrote gone?
any guess as to why ferrari didn’t bring kimi into the mix? i imagine he’s the kind of guy who wouldn’t be easily intimidated in such a situation. {me - a few comments after the last comment I responded to}
My guess is that Kimi is not the sort of person who would want to be at such a meeting unless his presence was truly needed. Given the number of Ferrari lawyers who were there, and their appearent confidence in the case, I would tentatively suggest that Kimi might have decided his time could be better spent elsewhere without endangering the decision.
Why the FIA didn't make (or strongly advise) him come anyway to give his view of events and provide extra perspective is a mystery. It may even be that strong advice was given to attend and we simply didn't hear about it.
twas scared of the dark apparently. tis found now ;)
Yah! I got "the Lou's stamp of approval...."
What? Wait a second here. I just thought that comment about the Accord hooked up to the GP3 for the Honda simulator was wickedly cruel that's all. And I approve of its useage....
If you go into the mud pit to get your soon to be bacon, that's your choice. Me, that's why I have learnt to use a lasso and keep my clothes clean. It impresses fathers' daughters more than wearing your shoes on your hands by the way....
I think I can claim coming up with simplie codes to be my speciality and not "dropping people into it" espeically those that more or less are in the same niche.
I see why Steven wants to steer clear of Alinora. Butting heads with her is one sure way of getting a massive headache, and everyone can take that from personal experience....
Me use the second word after the "(" in Jordan Allen for the five messages that I have send earilier today. The first word of the secret message should be your moniker "Me".
[27.] However, none of the parties concerned had raised the inadmissibility of the appeal in that case, the FIA for its part leaving the matter to the sovereign appreciation of the Court. Therefore, the Court was able, in the conclusion of its decision, to declare the appeal admissible, but it did not give reasons for its decision on the issue, as the question was not debated.
Consequently that judgment does not present itself as settled law with respect to this question and does not bind the Court in the present case. {FIA in the Hamilton/Raikkonen incident appeal, quoted by Stuart C}
What point 27 of the summary is suggesting is that the sovereign appreciation of the Court is not relevant to the establishment of precedent. If the sovereign appreciation of the Court admitted an appeal (even implicitly), then it chose to admit it. To admit it once binds it to admit similar cases.
Technically, the refusal of the FIA to permit the ICA to follow this logic sequence, as evidenced in point 27 of the Hamilton/Raikkonen incident appeal summary, invalidates the Court's powers to judge anything unless it is explicitly written in the FIA's own regulations (as distinct from the FIA Court of Appeal's own regulations). This means that the decision itself is invalid, since its own Article 1*, giving it the power to definitively judge FIA cases, is nullified unless the sovereign power of the Court is respected.
This also has implications for the independence of the FIA Court of Appeal. How can the ICA claim to be independent of the FIA when it is not even permitted any regulations separate from the FIA's main regulations? Having had its sovereign powers overruled by the decision of the FIA (ironically during an ICA case!), it no longer has the power to make independent decisions regarding its own procedures.
Something tells me that the FIA hasn't worked out the full implications of this move. I don't think they intended to create those effects. But it has done, and they could have serious implications for the future of F1.
* - This is according to the 2007 Court of Appeal regulations. The FIA site won't load for me at the moment, thus preventing me from checking whether this still applies now.
ahhh, you're a star :)
Great analysis Alianora. Shame we can't get you in front of the kangaroo court.
Christine kangaroos do not make good pets. You don't want one even if you think you do.
Just going back to GPX, I just uploaded a whole issue to Dropio. Hope the guys from Haymarket don't mind too much, but this is over 10 years old and it obviously didn't make them enough money at the time, so...
I didn't buy every issue, I just bought the last two. Looking back, that final issue does seem a bit desperate. Having gone for a distinctly laddish (as Stuart C says, 'Loaded'-style) approach beforehand, the final issue has more stuff for the ladies. It contains "the top 20 sexy drivers of all time", plus a "hunky" poster of Mika Salo! So was it aimed at the lads or the ladies? A bit of an identity crisis in the final issue there. It does have a few good gags in it though.
I will write a post on vee8 about what else I found in the attic soon!
Update: By the way, I decided to look out for any interesting names I could find in GPX that went onto bigger things, but the only name I recognised was the 'Man Friday' Mark Hughes. If memory serves, GPX Editor Paul Fearnley also edited F1 Racing for a bit before moving onto Motor Sport (?).
And it has been suggested elsewhere that under Swiss Law precidence isn’t a factor. I don’t know the varacity of that. {Alex Andronov - }
[url=http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=46996]Switzerland considers case law (which is the law concerning precedents) - they're just not very noisy about it.
Good to see Steven taking my advice....
Which is why I sent Christine a photo of a Wallaby. They are smaller versions of Kangaroos. (Less "hop" in the beer given to Wallabies than to Kangaroos I guess.)
And this is the same girl who wants a Panda......
Personally, I think she would be better off with the Groundhog. As the very least it can tell you each Febraury 2nd whether or not you are going to have six more weeks of winter.....
Not much good in Scotland. We have had 6 more months of winter so far. We did have a sunny day last Saturday so I guess that was summer. Can't wait for global warming to get here.
Having acknowledged that the due hearing of all parties was in order, that the appeal was admissible, that the rights of each of the parties had been duly examined both in the proceedings which preceded the hearing and during the hearing itself {Start of paragraph 3, page 4 of the FIA summary of the Liuzzi/Sutil case appeal}
This part of the paragraph indicates that the admissibility of the case was confirmed. So it wasn't just by implication that the case was admitted...
i have to say, sorry i'm confused by what you're saying here alianora. it's been a long day, i'm going to have to sleep on it, but right now i don't see where the fia overruled the ica?
the fia said a mistake was made (and this tallies with the sporting regulations, and in fact it looks like several mistakes were made), therefore the case is an anomaly. how are you making the leap from invalid to overruled?
I think we’ve got to get on top of the chicanes going forward {Mark Webber}
Was he going underneath them before? Or reversing over them?
apologies doctorvee, my bad.
Why is a virtual drumkit so addictive?
They won’t wait until the end before wearily pronouncing, “You do realise this whole appeal is inadmissible, don’t you, you overpaid nitwits?” {Stuart C - }
Pity the FIA did exactly that with this case :( I wasn't expecting the statement to mean there was a debate. I expected it to mean that the court had accepted that the appeal was admissible in its own judgement. If Article 1 of the ICA Statutes has any meaning at all, that should surely be enough to set the precedent.
i may be missing an 'f' key by the morning!
I seem to use the loudest bits most often. Second childhood?
i hate to keep disagreeing with you alia, so i'm going to stop at this point and bother someone else instead. but we were expecting exactly what happened:
- morning debate about admissibility
- afternoon debate about penalty
the only thing that was unexpected, was the TSA bombshell from mclaren.
anyhow, i've said me piece, i now must find someone else to aggravate :)
i wish they were movable, the ride cymbal isn't in the ideal location.
also, there aren't enough tom-toms to do a convincing rendition of "in the air tonight"... just sayin'
If it looks like I haven't been responding to stuff that's been put in response to earlier comments of mine tonight, I apologise - I'm still trying to catch up with what others have said before I logged in this evening.
Work really can get in the way of commenting sometimes...
there's been a lot of commenting today. my fingers ache, although that might be the drumming?
Somone needs to invent virtual drumsticks and a touch screen interface
How about between the "Post Comment" box and the "Follow incoming comments" box a Box which shows the latest comment in a different thread. When a comment is added in another thread it says... "Alex Andronov in They Could be Right, They Could be wrong" And then for a moment alternates between black on white and white on black or something (like the old volumeless alert on the Mac System 7 menu system). Click on the box to switch to whichever thread the comment was in.
By the way, I'll be expecting some gratuitous T'Pau references when China rolls round – can I leave that in your hands, so to speak?
Well, don't push too far...
No matter what you try to set upon yourself?
Oh.My!
if ever there was need for a comedy sound effect...
I just realised that if pandas were running the FIA things would be a lot more black and white. {Steven Roy - 95 comments ago}
That's great :D The FIA would also have a much cuddlier image ;)
Whatever she says I did not give Alianora the idea for the Honda space taxis problems. {Steven Roy - 37 comments ago}
Not wishing to drop anyone in it, but this was the entry with the comment that prompted me to do the Honda one yesterday...
I'm still thinking about how best to do the Force India one though, so it'll probably be a different taxi today.
Where’s the last comment I wrote gone?
twas scared of the dark apparently. {Alianora La Canta followed by "me" - 29 comments ago}
That's a great one, "me" :D
I see why Steven wants to steer clear of Alinora. Butting heads with her is one sure way of getting a massive headache, and everyone can take that from personal experience…. {Jordan Allen - 26 comments ago}
A lot of people off-line would agree with you there, Jordan. But I had to learn to be stubborn to deal with people like the Student Loans Company, who have tried some things on my account that do not appear to be permitted by their own terms and conditions. The amount of stubborness someone in my circumstances needs to make their way through life can be surprising to people unfamiliar with those circumstances and it has led to some fairly bizarre confrontations in the past.
I may not be a court reporter yet, but given that the SLC are as stubborn as I am, it claims it has a case against me and I think I have a bigger one against them, I think I may end up learning more about courts than I ever wanted to know in a bit...
If memory serves, GPX Editor Paul Fearnley also edited F1 Racing for a bit before moving onto Motor Sport (?). {doctorvee - 22 comments ago}
Memory serves you correctly, doctorvee. Paul did a short stint at F1 Racing, did something else for a bit (but I can't remember where he went), did some editing for F1 Racing for a time (though he was never chief editor), then went to Motor Sport.
i have to say, sorry i’m confused by what you’re saying here alianora. it’s been a long day, i’m going to have to sleep on it, but right now i don’t see where the fia overruled the ica?
the fia said a mistake was made (and this tallies with the sporting regulations, and in fact it looks like several mistakes were made), therefore the case is an anomaly. how are you making the leap from invalid to overruled? {me - 24 comments ago}
Firstly, could I please ask you what other mistakes you think were made in the Liuzzi/Sutil case? I understand you think it shouldn't have been admitted, but I would be interested to know what else you think they did wrong, particularly given that I'm a Force India supporter and want to know if they got their only point of 2007 honestly.
What I'm saying is that the ICA stated during the Liuzzi/Sutil case that it was admissible. Whatever discussions may or may not have happened concerning this, it was still stated in a court and placed on official record. This means that precedent permits such appeals.
Article 16.3 quite clearly converts drive-through and pit-stoppage penalties issued fewer than 5 laps before the end of the race into time penalties within the last paragraph. That conversion is validated by the necessity of contractual law to consider terms by what they are rather than what they were. Whether the FIA intended it to be so is irrelevant, at least in Swiss law (what the recipient party could reasonably have believed from the writing is used instead, as I discovered last night during my research of the Swiss precedence issue). It is reasonable for McLaren to have believed that the conversion meant that the penalty was to be treated as the time penalty it had become, not as the drive-through or pit-stoppage penalty it had been. At no point does it say that the time penalty would be treated as if it was not a time penalty.
I had previously been arguing on the basis that strict reading of the article supported this conversion, but if it's on reasonable interpretation by recipient, then the argument (and any subsequent conclusions) must change accordingly.
So from that analysis, both precedent and the regulations support the admissibility of the case. Law does not allow the courts to change their mind about whether regulations and precedent are valid without recourse to whichever body (or bodies) creates the laws unless it can provide a valid reason why the new opinion is compatible with the law as written. However much the FIA claims the Liuzzi/Sutil case was an error, it remains the case that the regulations support the actions taken in that case rather than the ones taken in the Hamilton/Raikkonen case. Since it is the former rather than the latter that is in congruence with the regulations, it suggests that the latter was a mistake.
As for "overruled", I say this because the alternative is that the International Court of Appeal breached Article 1 of its own regulations in order to prevent itself from admitting the appeal. Why would an organisation strip itself of power at the very moment it needed that power? For that matter, it was only the FIA and Ferrari that claimed that the appeal was inadmissible. The ICA held no overt opinion on it in the case until the FIA and Ferrari stated their cases (or so the summary of the judgement implies). In fact, even Ferrari did not attempt to reject the concept of penalty conversion - only the FIA did.
That looks suspiciously like an overrule to me. A transcript would help confirm or deny this. I accept that last night I may have been a bit too mono-tracked in my thinking, and that it is possible that the ICA may have made a massive error rather than been overruled. Still, I cannot see how the case can possibly be inadmissible given the state of the regulations cited and the precedent established (which whether accepted or not, conforms to the regulations in a way the latest decision does not).
i hate to keep disagreeing with you alia {me - 18 comments ago}
I'm OK with being disagreed with. It would be a dull world if we always agreed with each other!
Somone needs to invent virtual drumsticks and a touch screen interface {Steven Roy - 15 comments ago}
Quick! Someone do a PDA/iTouch conversion!
an incorrect penalty was applied to liuzzi by the stewards post race.
he was given a non-existent 25 second time penalty, when it should have been a post-race "drive-through" penalty (which incurs a 25 second time penalty).
the mistake force india made was to not realise that the penalty should have been a drive-through thus meaning the STR appeal was inadmissible.
luckily for fif1, the liuzzi penalty still stood (because the stewards were correct to penalise him in the first place), so they kept their deserved point.
Failing magazines often do odd twitches while CPR is administered. I remember while working on the third issue of Redline in ‘98 that the Epos figures (basically a rough estimate of how sales are going, based largely on checking how many are left on the shelves) for the second issue came in, and they weren’t good. Management got the jitters and we had to redesign the mag from scratch in two weeks flat. A few months later sales still weren’t brilliant, the ads dept were struggling, so we totally redesigned it again.
That still didn’t work, so the people upstairs decided to change the whole concept: from being cars/bikes/lifestyle it became a bolt-on bits mag, kind of like Max Power. They poached the editor of Fast Car and, whaddaya know, redesigned it again. It’s still going to this day, and is Future’s second or third biggest-selling magazine.
Ali,
I have no idea how you can be bothered to spend so much time researching all this stuff. It would drive me nuts to spend 10 minutes digging into it. Reading the transcripts of the spy cases was something I felt I had to do and that was way more than enough for me confirm my opinion of Max and his bias. But I could not have made myself read or investigate any further as I find the whold subject incredibly dull. Thanks for doing all that work to make be better informed.
Anyone who hasn't read the transcripts would be amazed at the role Max played in Renault's defence against McLaren.
Not impressed. I'm top dog around here for getting songs stuck in people's heads, and now the tables have been turned.
Harrumph.
Not quite a T'Pau reference but it appears that Stuart C will get you, One Way or Another. ;)
Okay. Call me a Blondie fan.....
He was given a non-existent 25 second time penalty, when it should have been a post-race “drive-through” penalty (which incurs a 25 second time penalty). {me - 6 comments ago}
Thanks for clarifying. If true, that was a fairly strange mistake. Admittedly, the stewards gave a non-existent penalty to Felipe Massa in Valencia, so I'm not sure how well any appeal would have worked. If there had been a practical chance of an appeal working, I suspect Ferrari would have appealed for Massa's penalty to be removed. I still don't see where it is recorded that the stewards made that mistake at the time, but the contemporary records don't clearly refute it either. As such, I'll agree with you about the stewards issuing Liuzzi with the wrong penalty, even if the end result was the same for practical purposes ("me" is probably thinking "At last!" ;) )
Failing magazines often do odd twitches while CPR is administered. {Stuart C - 6 comments ago}
Good insight into what happens after disappointing sales figures come in. You and the other Redline people must have been really pleased when you managed to turn the magazine around. Sounds like it took a lot of work...
I have no idea how you can be bothered to spend so much time researching all this stuff. {Steven Roy - 6 comments ago}
Because not understanding stuff really annoys me, so it ends up less bother to find out than to have the unsatisfactorily resolved questions bouncing round my head...
I am also one of those people who has to know everything but I have over the years decided that it is a waste of time with the FIA because nothing they do makes sense or follows a logical path. Max likes rules to be written in a way that they can be interpreted to meet any situation which means even if I did all the work you do and proved I was right all along there would be a loophole somewhere that said I was wrong.
:D
But if I didn't do the research, it would bug me to bits. I can deal with new loopholes as and when the FIA invents them. I'm still not convinced on this one, as I think it's inadvertently destroyed the ICA's power in the process. That may well come back to bite it later on.
I'd love to take the credit, but I'd gone by then.
But, yes. When I worked for Future they weren’t yet a plc and we got a twice yearly ‘profit share’ bonus. This was eagerly anticipated because the salary wasn’t great. Since Redline was considered by most of the other employees to be an abject waste of money we were generally abhorred. It was nice to see it become a success even though it’s not something I’d actually buy...
Ah, the kudos associated with proving everyone wrong - one of the greatest motivators known to mankind :)
Now Have Your Say
Comment Authors