More Reaction to the Hamiton Decision from Spa
September 8, 2008 by JD
As one would expect, the fury rages on in the reaction to the stewards’ decision to impose a 25-second time penalty on Lewis Hamilton for an alleged illegal pass on Kimi Raikkonen at the Belgain GP.
What I find most interesting is that a great deal of opinion suggests that the results of the Grand Prix should not have been changed simply because the race was already run. In other words, what’s done is done, and because the spectators have left the building and the lights have gone out, the results are final, end of story.
I must disagree.
As much as we want our sports to be pure, the reality is, they are not. Two other popular sports in Europe, cycling and athletics, are great examples of how results cannot stand immediately after the event is completed. Sure, after a reasonable amount of time has passed, the results should stand unless something extraordinary comes to light. But the specter of doping has changed the interpretation of what “official results” means to event directors, the press, and fans.
Would anyone argue that Floyd Landis should keep his 2006 Tour de France victory simply because he was the one who celebrated on the Champs-Elysees with the maillot jaune and the champagne? Should Marion Jones be allowed to keep her Olympic gold medals and records simply because history recorded her as the winner in all these sprint races at the time they occurred?
Unfortunately, doping controls are seemingly more at the top of people’s minds these days in determining the final outcome of certain sporting contests than the races themselves. And while the various governing bodies now appear to be gaining the upper hand in the clean sport movement, those who follow these sports now automatically pause before accepting that what they saw with their own eyes is indeed the genuine article.
I am not arguing that what happened with Lewis Hamilton at Spa compares to the transgressions that I mentioned in other sports. But what is important to remember is that in order for sporting contests to exist, there must be rules that are followed and punishments applied if those rules are broken. Referees are human and make mistakes. In the case of Hamilton, a careful analysis of the situation reveals that the stewards have some basis in fact for making their decision. Whether it was enough to justify punishment or if the punishment actually fits the crime will be determined by the appeals courts.
Without rules, there is no sport. And the check-and-balance is the appeals process, where the affected party is provided the opportunity to plead their case and judges can carefully examine the evidence in a proper environment. The matter of Lewis Hamilton at the 2008 Belgian GP is not the end of F1 as a sport. Instead, it is a confirmation that to participate in sports is to be human, and the sanctity of our activities is preserved by the necessary and sometimes painful process of examining whether or not the rules were applied properly, fairly, and evenly.
No. 1 — September 8th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Actually, in the hundreds of comments I’ve read on my site and many others, I haven’t seen very many people arguing that results should not be changed after a race because – as your article points out – it’s ludicrous.
Of course there have to be rules. But I would like them to be clearly set out, and consistently and fairly enforced – none of which has happened with the Hamilton penalty.
There are loads of aspects to this argument but what seems strangest to me is why they didn’t just instruct him to yield the position again. It’s happened in F1 before and it happens in other motor sports – like Indy Car – quite often. The punishment Hamilton got instead was massively out of proportion to what he allegedly did wrong.
No. 2 — September 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The F1 fans that I know felt that they were robbed when the results were changed after the race was over.
No. 3 — September 8th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Keith, because there were only three laps left in the race meant that there was no time for the stewards to make a ruling, assess a penalty, and provide Hamilton the mandatory three laps in which to serve his penalty.
The penalty itself leaves no room for interpretation because the infraction was deemed to be cutting the chicane to gain an advantage. This type of infraction and others, like passing under yellow flags, carry a mandatory penalty: either a drive-through penalty, or if the penalty occurs within the last five laps of the race, a time penalty. Timo Glock was assessed a similar additional 25 seconds after the race for passing under the yellow in the closing stages.
McLaren knew immediately that Hamilton was under investigation while the race was still happening because they were queried by the stewards. Apparently, McLaren asked Charlie Whiting for advice, and he gave his approval. However, McLaren and all other teams know full well that Whiting’s opinion does not represent the stewards’ opinion.
Given how close the race was to completion, McLaren must have known that they were walking on hot coals. It is not the stewards’ responsibility to communicate that the driver has a second chance for redemption. As you mentioned, in hindsight the smart thing would have been for McLaren to instruct Hamilton to intentionally give back the lead to Raikkonen on the next straightaway in full view of everyone. Then, they probably would have gotten away with it. And it was clear that Hamilton was quicker than the struggling Raikkonen anyway. Hamilton had three more laps to get the job done fair-and-square. Certainly he could have regrouped and passed Raikkonen again.
No. 4 — September 9th, 2008 at 5:01 am
[...] As one would expect, the fury rages on in the reaction to the stewards’ decision to impose a 25-second time penalty on Lewis Hamilton for an alleged illegal pass on Kimi Raikkonen at the Belgain GP. What I find most interesting is that a great deal of opinion suggests that the results of the Grand Prix [...] source: Grand Prix DB [...]
No. 5 — September 9th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“As you mentioned, in hindsight the smart thing would have been for McLaren to instruct Hamilton to intentionally give back the lead to Raikkonen on the next straightaway in full view of everyone.”
But that’s exactly what they did do.
“Because there were only three laps left in the race meant that there was no time for the stewards to make a ruling, assess a penalty, and provide Hamilton the mandatory three laps in which to serve his penalty.”
According to McLaren they twice asked race director Charlie Whiting if Hamilton’s ceding of position to Raikkonen was satisfactory and both times he told them it was. It seems to me the FIA can’t even decide on what is or isn’t illegal.
No. 6 — September 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Keith, fortunately McLaren have gone ahead with their appeal and will have their day in court. Right now, they are trying their case in the court of public opinion. I hope that the concept of transparency is respected and all the facts and analysis from both sides will be made public at that time.