At the risk of getting shot down in flames (and I'm a Mclaren fan) Hamilton made a schoolboy error and he knew it, I have now watched the incident several times with some very experienced racing drivers and they agree Hamilton did not give the lead back to KR but only partially gave it back, as I said in other posts you have to let the car you are competing against take the lead back by at least one full car length, before the start and finish line before you commence another overtake. Hamilton clearly did not do this the stewards saw him and imposed the 10 second drive through penalty, which if given in the last 5 laps of a GP translates to a 25 second time deduction from your finishing time. Mclaren should have known better and the comments made by Schumacher (love him or hate him) after the race were bang on the money and 100% correct. Time to stop playing politics, GP's should be won on the race track and not in the court room, as in any sporting event the referees decision is final, time to lick your wounds and move on McClaren
I don't think it's what has happened per ce that is the issue with most people. It's the way things are handled.
The issues I have:
F1 has never had a clear interpretation of what giving back the advantage means - highlighted / confirmed by MrE senior (an F1 race engineer for many years) and the clarity given at Monza.
The decision made by the stewards is after the event, has a material effect on the outcome of the race and is completely outside any form of appeal. If you take a situation where a mistake had clearly been made by the stewards, then the wronged party has no right of recourse.
The somewhat strange ruling of the appeal court that allowed it to hear Liuzzi's appeal from Japan '07. This was inadmissible for the same reasons (drive-thru cannot be appealed) but because this was not challenged by any of the parties involved it allowed the appeal (albeit with an unsuccessful outcome for Liuzzi).
Yes, LH may have been a bit hot on the pedal. One could also argue that Raikonnen was in breach of the sporting regulations that state that a driver cannot crowd out another to the outside or inside of the bend? Or is that defined as a "racing incident"?
What I find distasteful about the whole saga is that there is no consistency or transparency to the process.
Take another example - fuel at Brazil. McLaren appeal the stewards decision but it's ruled inadmissible because they were not "materially affected" by the teams not being excluded - even though LH would have gained points and thus won the championship. However, Ferrari are allowed to be present at this appeal and cross-examine witnesses because they were "materially affected" by the outcome of the appeal. Go figure.
Until the FIA get themselves sorted as a regulatory body that can provide transparency and consistency to a reasonable level then, in my view, they have little credibility as such.
