Belgium 2008 GP - Court of Appeal Thread

[axle]

Hope no one minds a new thread...

Can anyone explain what on earth Ferrari's barrister is doing cross examining Lewis Hamilton etc...

Why is HE defending the FIA!?

This is a case whereby you are appealing a decision made by the FIA stewards against McLaren/LH is it not? So what's it got to do with Ferrari other than the fact their car was the other one involved, and their other driver was the main beneficiary.

I do not get Ferrari's involvement in the court case, surely it's just a matter between the FIA and McLaren?

I get that Ferrari will be impacted if the punishment is overturned, but that's for the FIA to deal with...

[coreybaxter]

Its simple...the FIA is in the pocket of Ferrari.

[axle]

It can't be as blatent as that

I'm hoping someone can explain the appeal system...

If it was "a n other" team that would be impacted would they be cross examining McLaren and Lewis??!!

[WhiteBlue]

The court has questioned Luca Baldisseri as a witness. I asume that technical data will be scrutinised like tyre temperatures. If Baldisseri is questioned then it makes sense that he can bring his lawyer.

[donskar]

axle, haven't you answered your own question?

So what's it got to do with Ferrari other than the fact their car was the other one involved, and their other driver was the main beneficiary.

I am a Ferrari fan, and I think this whole episode is terrible -- but there is a lot at stake.

Let's also remember, there is a lot of let's say "rule bending," politicking, spying, and intrigue in F1 (and other forms of motorsport). BUT MCLAREN GOT CAUGHT last year. As a result, they will be under the microscope for a while, and during that period can expect no quarter, benefit of the doubt. Fair? NO. Surprising? NO!

[mcdenife]

Axle, I think you have a point, why should Ferrari's lawyer cross examing LH? should this not down to the FIA's prosecutor or brief? Yes Luca was called but as a witness and is therefore entitled to have his lawyer present, for advise. Ferrari benefit, yes but they are neither the plaintiff/defendants or what have you. The appeal is against an FIA ruling or did the FIA consult Ferrari before handing out the punishment? This kinda implies Ferrari instigated this whole mess.
I am no lawyer but I cant see what Mclaren getting caught last year or being under a microscope has to do with a Ferrari cross examination. Or was this a Ferrari ruling, are they now the governing body? At the most and because of the stakes Donskar mentioned, they can make a submission/statement etc as to why the ruling should not be over turned.

[axle]

Axle, I think you have a point, why should Ferrari's lawyer cross examing LH? should this not down to the FIA's prosecutor or brief? Yes Luca was called but as a witness and is therefore entitled to have his lawyer present, for advise. Ferrari benefit, yes but they are neither the plaintiff/defendants or what have you. The appeal is against an FIA ruling or did the FIA consult Ferrari before handing out the punishment? This kinda implies Ferrari instigated this whole mess.
I am no lawyer but I cant see what Mclaren getting caught last year or being under a microscope has to do with a Ferrari cross examination. Or was this a Ferrari ruling, are they now the governing body? At the most and because of the stakes Donskar mentioned, they can make a submission/statement etc as to why the ruling should not be over turned.

These are my thoughts too, this isn't a case *against* Ferrari, they are merely 3rd party witnesses.

[Ciro Pabón]

In the words of Comrade Mao: "let's have a thousand threads on Hamilton".

I quote Hamilton:

"Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver 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. We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."

...

"But by no means I am an idiot."

You know, now that D. F. Wallace took his life, you could think about writing a novel, called "Consider the Ferrari", where is explained that this lowly creature, actually has neurons and, when boiled alive for the benefit of racing gourmets, can feel something.

[WhiteBlue]

As I have earlier said in the Belgium GP thread Charlie Whiting has a lot to explain. The decision during the race was to accept the advantage was given back. He then changed his mind after the race and it is unclear why he did this. The stewards then issued an in race penalty although the decision was made after the race. All this is highly irregular not to speak of the sudden change of a rule that has been applied over many years in an other way.

The man whose reputation is most tarnished by this isn't Whiting though but the stewards advisor. He is responsible for a consistent application of the rules and has willy nilly introduced the new requirement that you have to wait for a second corner before you can pass again. That rule has never been discussed before.

In my view there are very good reasons to let the appeal stand. If they throw it out on a technicality it is a very serious scandal that will do more damage to F1's reputation as a fairly governed sport than the Mosley sex scandal. One has to consider that behind the scene forces are at work that want to engineer another title fight to go to the wire.

[Miguel]

I've just read at the (mostly serious) El País newspaper that the cour of appeal have rejected McLaren's case. However, I haven't been able to confirm it in neither Autosport or Marca (ehem) or As (another marca-like newspaper). Take it with a grain of salt.

[chasefreak]

At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No. 22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.



As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver’s elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.



Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are “not susceptible to appeal”.



The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward’s decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.



The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), elected President, and composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland) and Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria).



http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pr ... 30908.aspx

[slimjim8201]

Close thread. Move on.

Tight race to the finish...

[axle]

As expected - the FIA have run away from the appeal.

Role on Singapore.

[WhiteBlue]

This is a black day for the sport. The behavior of the race director and the stewards was very dubious. The court should have looked into this and made an exception.

shame on:

Mr Alan DONNELLY (Stewards Advisor)
Mr Charlie WHITING (Race Director)
Mr Philippe NARMINO (Presiding Judge Monaco)
Mr Xavier CONESA (Judge Spain)
Mr Harry DUIJM (Judge Netherlands)
Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Judge Switzerland)
Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Judge Austria)

for letting this happen. you are a disgrace for F1!!

"This is the worst judgement in the history of F1. It's absolutely unacceptable when three (stewards) influence the championship like this."

We can now include the names of the 7 men above.

[Sawtooth-spike]

I like this bit

The Court of appeal pointed to paragraph 5 of article 152 of the International Sporting Code which reads as follows:

"Penalties of driving through or stopping in pit lanes together with certain penalties specified in FIA Championship regulations where this is expressly stated, are not susceptible to appeal."

Or in English if we decide on a penalty they is *uck all u can do. If this is the case why did it even get this far?

It all seems a little dodgy to me

But as had been already said its done, move on.

Just hope if massa wins this year that he does not win by 1 or 2 points or there could be a storm.