[Rules] The Red Bull British GP appeal Thread

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Also in the FIA response, from the Autosport report:

Mercedes hopes the dismissal of Red Bull’s push to further penalise Lewis Hamilton will end a “concerted attempt” by its senior management to “tarnish” the Formula 1 world champion’s name.

'The Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team welcomes the decision of the stewards to reject Red Bull Racing’s right of review,” the statement reads. In addition to bringing this incident to a close, we hope that this decision will mark the end of a concerted attempt by the senior management of Red Bull Racing to tarnish the good name and sporting integrity of Lewis Hamilton, including in the documents submitted for their unsuccessful right of review.'

So rather than appeal the stewards' decision, Red Bull used the process to attack the integrity of another driver?

[Aysedasi]

Well, thank goodness for that.

Can someone bloody Horner and Marko's noses for me for being complete and utter twonks? Literally I mean, not metaphorically, they've just had that......

And it makes you wonder what good all of that served for Max himself?

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Mercedes hopes the dismissal of Red Bull’s push to further penalise Lewis Hamilton will end a “concerted attempt” by its senior management to “tarnish” the Formula 1 world champion’s name.

'The Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team welcomes the decision of the stewards to reject Red Bull Racing’s right of review,” the statement reads. In addition to bringing this incident to a close, we hope that this decision will mark the end of a concerted attempt by the senior management of Red Bull Racing to tarnish the good name and sporting integrity of Lewis Hamilton, including in the documents submitted for their unsuccessful right of review.'

So rather than appeal the stewards' decision, Red Bull used the process to attack the integrity of another driver?

More likely to be a bit of both. Red Bull likely knew that they weren't going to get a change of outcome but no harm in trying.

In the mean time in keeps in focus the idea that Hamilton made another mistake and is an attempt to put further pressure on him and his driving. Ever since Max was declared fit it has all been a bit of psychological game.

It also shows that Red Bull, Horner and co, don't give a damn about their own reputation in this Championship fight.

[Aysedasi]

Not sure about the 'no harm in trying' bit. Many will feel that Horner and Marko specifically have suffered considerable reputational damage. Maybe they don't care that much. Maybe Marko in particular didn't have that much reputation left to damage. I just hope that when I watch whatever highlights C4 give me this weekend, I'm not treated to endless interviews with Horner about how hard done by his poor team has been because one thing is for sure, that review was not for Max's benefit.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Not sure about the 'no harm in trying' bit. Many will feel that Horner and Marko specifically have suffered considerable reputational damage. Maybe they don't care that much. Maybe Marko in particular didn't have that much reputation left to damage. I just hope that when I watch whatever highlights C4 give me this weekend, I'm not treated to endless interviews with Horner about how hard done by his poor team has been because one thing is for sure, that review was not for Max's benefit.

I sincerely doubt people will remember this review in a couple of weeks time as it will be overshadowed by something else. Just like how aspects of this title fight such as rear-wing gate have been overshadowed by this incident and subsequent review.

Was it a waste of time? Probably. But I doubt anyone will care about reputational damage if it helps Red Bull and Max win the title.

Will it achieve its true purpose of disrupting Hamilton whilst keeping Max focussed? That remains to be seen.

[bella]

this can’t be far off that good old basic concept of “bringing the sport into disrepute”, surely?

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by bella

this can’t be far off that good old basic concept of “bringing the sport into disrepute”, surely?

I don't think so. They had a right to lodge an appeal and the appeal failed even if we do think the right to appeal might have been used for outlandish reasons with questionable evidence.

Many drivers in the past have questioned if penalties should have been stronger after a penalised party has performed better than expected.

[bella]

we all know it’s not about the procedure, it’s about the rhetoric and behaviour surrounding it.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by bella

this can’t be far off that good old basic concept of “bringing the sport into disrepute”, surely?

I believe so personally. Others are free to disagree.

[schanche]

Interesting read
RedBull simulated the lap one incident or proposed line on a test/media day and submitted as evidence.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f...eview/6638742/

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by bella

we all know it’s not about the procedure, it’s about the rhetoric and behaviour surrounding it.

I agree but that rhetoric and behaviour from Red Bull is just an opinion.

Even if that opinion is actually trying to gain advantage/take away someone else's advantage how do you prove that opinion is wrong and guilty of bringing the sport into disrepute?

Apart from being a pain in the arse (like every team can be) I can't really see what Red Bull have done 'wrong' other than express an opinion.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Beau2

Apart from being a pain in the arse (like every team can be) I can't really see what Red Bull have done 'wrong' other than express an opinion.

There are two matters in the outcome of this report that could be seen as indication of Red Bull doing something 'wrong' in the eyes of the FIA.

'The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created' - and possibly more damning - 'The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter.'

If the stewards are concerned about allegations strongly enough that they mention them in the published document, and Mercedes refer to these as an attempt to tarnish the good name and sporting integrity - it could easily be seen as a disrepute matter.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

There are two matters in the outcome of this report that could be seen as indication of Red Bull doing something 'wrong' in the eyes of the FIA.

'The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created' - and possibly more damning - 'The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter.'

If the stewards are concerned about allegations strongly enough that they mention them in the published document, and Mercedes refer to these as an attempt to tarnish the good name and sporting integrity - it could easily be seen as a disrepute matter.

I think you've judged the first matter as a bit of a misnomer. They didn't present that 'evidence' as anything but the form of 'evidence' that they showed. They may have made a creation (or recreation may be more accurate) of events for comparison purposes and used it as 'evidence' but it was just a bad example to put forward. Bad evidence doesn't mean it was wrong, even if Red Bull knew it was bad evidence

If for example, they had used telemetry from the recreation of events and claimed it was from the actual event rather than just for comparison then it would be deceitful and wrong.

As for the allegations, we don't really know what they are. Maybe they alleged that Hamilton was dangerous because he has done this three times in 20 months and has received similar penalties each time. It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup until Sunday.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

RB reportedly used a filming day at Silverstone on 22 Jul to have Albon recreate Hamilton's first lap, presumably to "prove" that Hamilton could never have made the corner.

That's just nuts. What a monumental waste of everyone's time.

Surely not. That is just pathetic.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Beau2

Apart from being a pain in the arse (like every team can be) I can't really see what Red Bull have done 'wrong' other than express an opinion.

They’ve not done anything ‘wrong’, but their behavior leaves something to be desired. That wasn’t being a pain in the arse like every team can be. Every team can be a pain in the arse, but rarely like that.

This went from something where I had real sympathy for Verstappen as he was out of the race, to something which just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the whole team. Always great to see someone bounce back after a disappointment in sport, could care less now.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by bella

this can’t be far off that good old basic concept of “bringing the sport into disrepute”, surely?

I think the FIA have left that hanging. Hopefully they take the hint.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by Adam43

They’ve not done anything ‘wrong’, but their behavior leaves something to be desired. That wasn’t being a pain in the arse like every team can be. Every team can be a pain in the arse, but rarely like that.

This went from something where I had real sympathy for Verstappen as he was out of the race, to something which just leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the whole team. Always great to see someone bounce back after a disappointment in sport, could care less now.

Although I am of the opinion that Hamilton should have recieved a harsher penalty I do agree with the general idea that this process should have never have got this far. It should really have been sorted out well before the next race but Red Bull haven't wanted to let it go for whatever reason.

I do still feel sorry for Verstappen mostly because it feels like he's being led on a merry goose chase by Marko and Horner.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Beau2

I think you've judged the first matter as a bit of a misnomer. They didn't present that 'evidence' as anything but the form of 'evidence' that they showed.

The fact that they created the evidence is the reason the petition was dismissed. And the report from the FIA quotes article 14, with part of 14.1.1 in bold to highlight that what Red Bull presented was not in accordance with that article (they even include 'emphasis added' at the end of the quote to reiterate this point.

We may have different opinions on what 'wrong' means - I take it as 'not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method' - and to my mind Red Bull's evidence was not correct in method.

It is not lightly that the FIA places emphasis on part of an article, or notes with concern something in an official document; their published documents are usually direct, to the point and without tone or emphasis. They did both on this occasion.

[Beau2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The fact that they created the evidence is the reason the petition was dismissed. And the report from the FIA quotes article 14, with part of 14.1.1 in bold to highlight that what Red Bull presented was not in accordance with that article (they even include 'emphasis added' at the end of the quote to reiterate this point.

We may have different opinions on what 'wrong' means - I take it as 'not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method' - and to my mind Red Bull's evidence was not correct in method.

It is not lightly that the FIA places emphasis on part of an article, or notes with concern something in an official document; their published documents are usually direct, to the point and without tone or emphasis. They did both on this occasion.

My definition of wrong was based off the idea that they had brought the sport into disrepute.

By bringing poor evidence to a review they have not brought the sport into disrepute but rather spoilt they chances of winning the appeal. Were they wrong to bring that evidence to the review? Maybe so, or perhaps they thought it was valid comparison data. Either way, it was rightly dismissed under those grounds.

I hate to bring politics into this but if they knew the evidence was going to be immediately dismissed then it was a rather Trumpian move to go forward with the appeal. However, if Red Bull believed they had valid evidence then I don't see it as wrong, but merely questionable.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Greem

Appeal denied.

Cue 44 pages of why this is the wrong decision, the right decision, Grosjean's fault etc etc

I thought Ericsson hit Max?

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by bella

max is his father’s son.

nuff sed.

Sorry bella and I'm not a Max fan but that statement is incorrect on many levels.

Biologically of course absolutely correct

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by Anyopenroad

RB reportedly used a filming day at Silverstone on 22 Jul to have Albon recreate Hamilton's first lap, presumably to "prove" that Hamilton could never have made the corner.

That's just nuts. What a monumental waste of everyone's time.

Should have had Hamilton attend too and hit the right rear of Albon's car for bantz

[Skam85]

Aside from the appeal and review, RB's behaviour isn't that much different to Hamilton suggesting the Ferraris were hitting him deliberately a few years back.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...rrari-mercedes


Moral of the story: they are all as bad as each other.

[Beau2]

Hamilton has also previously questioned if an opponents penalty should have been harsher after Vettel did better than expected after being penalised at France 18'.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...bastian-vettel


I agree with the previous post, this whole situation is really no different other than the review going ahead and being dismissed.

[Adam43]

I would say the current example is more extreme. More than just a reaction to the situation, but a sustained attack with increasing insinuations.

Perfectly expected that they react in a way. Not that it goes on and on and then taken to review. That then results in a a comment from the stewards that “ The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter.”