Knowing what we know now and seeing how it unfolded, many people have said that Lewis should have pitted again to get fresher tyres meaning both him and Verstappen would have been on fresh tyres and thus a slug feist to see who would win but here's the thing, crash happens, safety car comes out, Lewis had already pitted earlier but his tyres were still ok to get him to the finish line. Verstappen pits and get's fresher tyres. Mercedes knows Verstappen is on fresher tyres but he has to deal with back markers which would naturally slow him down as he tries to navigate past them. With the number of back markers between him and Lewis I have no doubt the Mercedes team had calculated that with the amount of laps remaining, Verstappen would not have enough time to get past Lewis. If the existing rules were followed, there would be no reason for Mercedes to react differently under those conditions. But what do we see instead, we see something that has never happened before, the race director lets all the cars between Hamilton and Verstappen to pass the safety car. This leaves a clear open space between Hamilton and Verstappen and what with Verstappen on fresh tyres. As soon as there is clear air between Hamilton and Verstappen, the safety car is told to pit and the green light is given and the very predictable happens, the driver with the new tyres catches and overtakes the driver with the not so new tyres.
if you believe in all of that then why don't you go and tell Lewis Hamilton to his face that his is a bare faced liar then because it is him who has been saying that racisim exists in the sport and that he has peronally been on the recieving end of racisim within the sport. There are two reasons why people in his sport do not like him, 1) his attitude and 2) the colour of his skin. Now, if you think racisim does not exist then go tell that to Lewis and see the response you get.
What many do not understand is that if Mercedes turned up to the event it would have percieved as acceptance to what happened to them. The sporting media would have been all over it writing their own opinions about why the team showed up, with those opinions having the potential to influence readers and altering their own views and opinions about the whole issue. This would then force Mercedes to release press statements to counter the statements writen by the sporting media. Then the sporting media would repsond and then we get into this cat and mouse game of one having to defend/contrdict the other.
People of colour and other ethnic minorites have faced and still face racisim and it has resulted in them losing their jobs, being prevented from getting jobs, ignored for pay rises and/or promotions, have been ignored for awards (music and movies). Are you saying it's not possible to happen in F1?
Of course it's possible and I have no doubt the Lewis has faced it himself in F1 despite being its biggest celebrity.
Oh please, for goodness sake stop with this complaining of Hamilton not being penalised for the incident at turn 7. They both charged for the corner, Verstappen pushed in which forced Hamilton to go wide which gave him a bit of an advantage coming out of the turn. Should Hamilton have given up the advantage, Yes, should Verstappen have forced Hamilton off the road at that corner, No. The stewards could not penalise Hamilton unless they penalised Verstappen for causing the incident. Both were at fault, both faults cancelled each other out, stewards gave no penalty but of course, everyone only see's what Hamilton did and not what Verstappen did which caused the incident.
In your outrage knee-jerk reaction, you managed to miss both points I made. 1) That the Sky commentators who are incredibly pro-Hamilton both thought it was a legitimate pass and 2) that it was never demonstrated that he actually gave back the advantage he gained in leaving the track (different than giving back the place).
'outrage knee-jerk reaction' is your words. Nothing of the sort took place in my post. As for the rest, all you are trying to doing use that incident as justification for Lewis losing the race by saying 'well, he never got penalised for that incident so it's only right that the rules go against him towards the end'. How pathetic. As for the commentators, they are not pro Lewis, yes they consider him to be one of the worlds best F1 drivers but being pro Lewis commentating during a race, nope.
yeah, blimey, imagine expecting the rules to be applied consistently. What wild new thinking is this?
I think if the FIA did not back Masi’s decision, there is only one outcome and that is to sack him. They’ve stood by him and have pledged to investigate the circumstances surrounding the decision. It may still be admitted that the rules were not correctly followed, but amendments will be made to the sporting code to prevent future confusion. The FIA have not clarified that Masi was correct, they simply quashed the appeals because as it stands there is some room for interpretation. Nobody expects results to be overturned, but there is already enough to suggest that the FIA are themselves admitting some responsibility.
I would hardly call Croft and Brundle experts on F1 though. They’ve got as valid an opinion as any of us that follow the sport. I dislike both of them personally and don’t watch the Sky coverage thankfully to hear their points of view.
The FIA couldn't sack him for the simple reason it would have lead to Hamilton winning the race and thus the drivers championship. Sacking someone means or implies that the person has done something so egregious it warranted them getting the sack. This therefore means that the decisions the person made which resulted in their sacking could be challenged. Now, if the FIA had sacked Masi, it implies his decision making was wrong which means the validity of his decsions could be challenged. Mercedes lost their appeals because the FIA said Masi was right in what he did. Sacking him would mean he was wrong in what he did and thus Mercedes appeals would have stood resulting in a overturned result leaving Hamilton the winner of the race. ergo, FIA could not sack Masi, even if they wanted to.
Your post is very very interesting. You specifically bring up points that allegedly had a negative impact on Verstappen but which favoured Hamilton but fail to mention that verstappen was the one who benifited from the decison making at Spa. Why is that? Why are you trying to show Verstappen as the victim and Hamilton as the victor when you know he benifited from the decision making at Spa and Hamilton didn't? biased much are we?
Of course he won’t retire – there is a reason why he’s a 7-time WDC, he’s got a good, mature head on his shoulders (now little Toto on the other hand…Hamilton reportedly talked him out of protest). Hamilton is far wiser and more mature. And the race/championship outcome has absolutely zero to do with him being of colour.
Brundle ”not an expert” and as valid an opinion as yours? Sorry, how many years did you drive in F1, follow the circus around the world, spend time interviewing people and so on? Really?!
They asked him to give ‘some’ of the time back from going across the chicane. Not because he cut it to begin with as he had no choice after being pushed onto the run off area. This explanation was obvious during the race and afterwards.
Really. They commentate and give their opinions on a sport they also follow. You don’t have to agree with me but I can’t stand Brundle and don’t rate his opinion as any more important than anybody else, thanks.
