Are some people still dragging the old "Button drove Hamilton into the wall" argument when the steward's report tells it all?
After reviewing the data from the accident the stewards gave a three-point explanation of why the collision was neither drivers' fault.
"1) Exiting Turn 13 there was a legitimate overtaking opportunity for Lewis Hamilton as his speed was greater than Jensen Button's.
"2) Both drivers took lines substantially similar to many of the other drivers, and did not move as far to the left as the preceding driver, Michael Schumacher. At the moment after Hamilton moved to the left to pass, Button looked into his mirror. It appears from the position of Hamilton at that moment [and is confirmed by the drivers] that Button was unlikely to have seen Hamilton.
"3) At the point of contact Button had not yet moved as far to the left of the track as he had on the previous lap, or that Schumacher had on that lap. The Stewards have concluded that it was reasonable for Hamilton to believe that Button would have seen him and that he could have made the passing manoeuvre. Further, the Stewards have concluded that it is reasonable to believe that Button was not aware of Hamilton's position to his left. Therefore, the Stewards decide that this was a "racing incident" and have taken no further action."
The stewards not only examined who drove where, but also what they were doing the previous laps. In fact, Button drove further to the left on the preceding lap, which really raises serious questions. Hamilton was following, must have observed his teammate's lines, yet drove into a space he should have known had closed the lap before, on the hope his teammate would see him through the haze of rain and spray and avoid him.
So let's see, a comprehensive and much more complete examination of the facts led the stewards to decide it was a racing accident, Hamilton has himself personally admitted guilt, and yet some still maintain that Hamilton was entirely guilt-free when the facts indicate otherwise.
Maybe that's why "fan" is the beginning of the word "fanaticism"
Fanaticism is a belief or behavior involving uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause or in some cases sports, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby. Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim"; according to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject". By either description the fanatic displays very strict standards and little tolerance for contrary ideas or opinions.
In his book Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk, Neil Postman states that "the key to all fanatical beliefs is that they are self-confirming....(some beliefs are) fanatical not because they are 'false', but because they are expressed in such a way that they can never be shown to be false."
The behavior of a fan with overwhelming enthusiasm for a given subject is differentiated from the behavior of a fanatic by the fanatic's violation of prevailing social norms. Though the fan's behavior may be judged as odd or eccentric, it does not violate such norms. A fanatic differs from a crank, in that a crank is defined as a person who holds a position or opinion which is so far from the norm as to appear ludicrous and/or probably wrong, such as a belief in a Flat Earth. In contrast, the subject of the fanatic's obsession may be "normal", such as an interest in religion or politics, except that the scale of the person's involvement, devotion, or obsession with the activity or cause is abnormal or disproportionate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FanaticismRacing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
