More Reaction to the Hamiton Decision from Spa
Monday, September 8th, 2008As 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.