Tbh, nothing can really be done now anyway. Max winning the way he did was unsatisfactory but Lewis winning in the courtroom would be totally unsatisfactory and probably quite damaging to the sport.

It seems like the only positive outcome now possible is Masi gets fired.

Former Formula 1 team owner Eddie Jordan reacted to Sunday's dramatic finale by suggesting Hamilton had become "too nice", allowing Verstappen to "steal" the world title.

"You can't deny Verstappen the right to the championship," he said.

"However, on the other side, I think Hamilton has opened the door. He's allowed someone as aggressive and arrogant as Verstappen to upset him and steal his title from him.

"I think Lewis has been too nice for too long and I think he needs to harden himself up again.

"For me, it's his body language. Listen to the way he spoke afterwards; he was so sporting. All of Britain can be so proud of what he's doing but nice guys don't win titles and he's become a nice guy.

"He's the best driver I've ever seen and I've seen some really top drivers in my time, so for me to say that I'm really putting him on a pedestal."


Very interesting from Eddie…

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Mrs Ramsdale (U21751)
posted 22 minutes ago
Former Formula 1 team owner Eddie Jordan reacted to Sunday's dramatic finale by suggesting Hamilton had become "too nice", allowing Verstappen to "steal" the world title.

"You can't deny Verstappen the right to the championship," he said.

"However, on the other side, I think Hamilton has opened the door. He's allowed someone as aggressive and arrogant as Verstappen to upset him and steal his title from him.

"I think Lewis has been too nice for too long and I think he needs to harden himself up again.

"For me, it's his body language. Listen to the way he spoke afterwards; he was so sporting. All of Britain can be so proud of what he's doing but nice guys don't win titles and he's become a nice guy.

"He's the best driver I've ever seen and I've seen some really top drivers in my time, so for me to say that I'm really putting him on a pedestal."


Very interesting from Eddie…


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Won't fit in with all the haters saying he's a .

Eddie Jordan is British so I doubt whatever he is saying can really be objective. You don't win 7 championship in a sport like F1 without being aggressive or at least, willing to push it to the limits.

I still want Masi sacked though. In fact, he should have been sacked since yesterday.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 27 minutes ago

What rule did the FIA break?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
48.12 and no Masi did not have the power to recast the word 'any' to mean he could pick and choose who let by and thereby make a mockery of the whole race.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 27 minutes ago

What rule did the FIA break?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
48.12 and no Masi did not have the power to recast the word 'any' to mean he could pick and choose who let by and thereby make a mockery of the whole race.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In explaining why the protest was dismissed, the stewards included this evidence from Masi: “The purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would ‘interfere’ in the racing between the leaders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aha. Has to do with ALL the backmarkers because he DOES NOT have the discretion to pick and choose.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Mitchell-Wallis Force Answered this pretty well:

With all due respect to Robert that was a long doc. Let's cut it down to the crucial bits, shall we?

In summary had the lapped cars stayed in place to allow racing on lap 58 Lewis would’ve won. Or had the lapped cars been allowed to pass the leaders and the safety car the race would've finished on lap 58 under yellow flags again Lewis would’ve won. The failure to implement this procedure correctly directly decided the championship.

And as if that wasn't clear enough....

3. A race finish under green flag is indeed a desired finish however it is not a required finish. It certainly should not take precedent over correct procedure being followed.

Then, below that, in the plainest language imaginable....

Summary a confirmation that 48.12 was indeed breached. No valid explanation for why 48.12 was breached.

And then....

In this instance shortening the race to before the breach took place is absolutely the correct action.

They have investigated themselves and found PLENTY of wrongdoing, and even admitted that rolling back the race to lap 56 and declaring Car #44 the winner was the correct course of action!!!

And yet, that hasn't happened yet. I'm not well versed in these matters, so I need reminding - who is the last person needed to certify the race results?

Robert's long winded analysis if you like it:

I’m going to break down this official decision the way I see it.

Abstract below directly quoted from: UAE DOC 58. As released on the night of 12/12/2021 at 23.03. For attending parties etc please refer to the above document.

Start Quote

The claims of Mercedes:

Mercedes claimed that there were two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12) namely that which states “..any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and “...once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.”

Mercedes argued that had this been complied with, Car 44 would have won the race.

They therefore requested the Stewards to amend the Classification under Article 11.9.3.h of the FIA International Sporting Code.

Red Bull’s arguments in defence:

Red Bull argued that
1. “Any” does not mean “all”.
2. The Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message “Safety Car in this
lap” is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap.
3. That therefore Article 48.13 “overrides”Article 48.12.
4. That Article 15.3 gives the Race Director“ overriding authority”over“the use of the safety
car”.
5. That even if all cars that had been lapped (8 in total, of which 5 were allowed to overtake
the safety car) it would not have changed the outcome of the race.

Race Director’s Evidence

The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case.

The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

Conclusions of the Stewards :

The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.

Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the following:

That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.

That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message “Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap.

That not with standing Mercedes’ request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.

End Quote

Mercedes Claims:

1. Absolutely correct if you look at the restart order and say are there any lapped cars. The answer is yes there are 3.
2. Absolutely correct when lapped cars pass the safety there is in the procedure a requirement for the safety car to come in at the end of the following lap this did not happen.

In summary had the lapped cars stayed in place to allow racing on lap 58 Lewis would’ve won. Or had the lapped cars been allowed to pass the leaders and the safety car the race would e finished on lap 58 under yellow flags again Lewis would’ve won. The failure to implement this procedure correctly directly decided the championship.

Red Bulls Arguments:

1. As above look at the restart order and ask are there any lapped cars the answer is yes.
2. Article 48.13 may well override 48.12 however 48.12 has still been breached. The breach is Mercedes claim which is not affected by 48.13.
3. See above
4. This rule refers to the use of the safety car. This could be contrived into meaning the procedures that follow are nothing more than possible guidelines for Michael to follow. However it is not the intention of this rule. The intention is that Michael is in control of when a safety car should be used for safety of everyone involved.
5. Categorically incorrect had all lapped cars been allowed to pass the requirement for the safety car to come in and the end of the following lap would absolutely change the result.

Summary 4 false arguments and 4 (a very contrived interpretation of a rule placed into the regulations for safety purposes not to allow a race director to change procedures on the fly).

Race Directors Evidence

1. The intention is indeed to remove lapped cars from interfering. However this in no way explains why he saw fit to only remove the lapped cars between positions 1-2 and not 2-3-4 etc.
2. As with Red Bull the procedure for 48.13 was followed correctly. However the start of that procedure directly breached the procedure which Mercedes claims was breached. So confirmation from Michael that he initiated 48.13 at a time which breached 48.12 directly confirming Mercedes claim.
3. A race finish under green flag is indeed a desired finish however it is not a required finish. It certainly should not take precedent over correct procedure being followed.

Summary a confirmation that 48.12 was indeed breached. No valid explanation for why 48.12 was breached.

Stewards conclusion:

1. Correct it is admissible both claims of 48.12 being breached are correct.
2. A reference to a contrived and inncorrect interpretation made by Red Bull alone above to a rule. A rule that as above is intended to be used so Michael can override the deployment of a safety car for safety purposes. Not to change how restart procedures are implemented. This rule is in place to allow Michael directly to protect the safety of marshals, drivers and anyone else involved. Example of intended use of this rule if 48.13 has been initiated and there is still a marshal stood in the middle of the track cleaning up debris. To interpret this rule in this way shows little understanding and respect for why it is there. Also note the race director chose not to highlight this as it is not a reason for him to be changing restart procedure.
3. True however as above this does not change the fact that 48.13 was initiated at a time that directly breached 48.12. Mercedes claim 48.12 is breached and stewards again here confirm it was. 48.13 procedure was indeed followed but that is irrelevant to this case as 48.12 is the one in discussion and was not.
4. It is a move that shortens the race to before restart procedure was directly and incorrectly breached. Resulting in changing the race result. In this instance shortening the race to before the breach took place is absolutely the correct action.

Sorry I know it was long winded but reading through this document it became clear to me that both Michael Masi and the stewards accepted that 48.12 was in fact breached. And offered no valid reason as to why. The correct action is lap 56 to stand as the final result as it was the last lap completed before the official race procedure was breached changing the victor.

Michael Masi will read through this document and know that this is the wrong decision there is no way he cannot. Instead of taking action on that he is allowing a rule put in place to protect lives to be interpreted as he can change whatever rule he wants whenever he wants. Whilst also further adding to what is going to become in courts a very embarrassing situation for F1, the FIA and himself.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Go ahead.

The fair thing to do is to throw away last race in Abu shabi and give title to both as joint winners if makes sense.

This will eliminate the controversial decisions created by the clueless race director who should tender his resignation immediately.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yep. Or really Max will be remembered for all the wrong reasons and will never be given credit to how well he drove in the other races.

comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 10 seconds ago
Under the stewards conclusion, this can't be what the stewards concluded as it contravenes the action taken i.e. none.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because they don't have the authority to after admitting there was breach of 48.12. Its analysed pretty comprehensively above which is why I said FIA will be in trouble in front of the first neutral judge.

I hope this is true

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

There will be deals done in the quiet. Its the way F1 has always handled it.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 3 seconds ago
There will be deals done in the quiet. Its the way F1 has always handled it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. If Merc did go to court, the FIA would make sure they never won anything again. 😂
----------------------------------------------------------------------
F1 cannot survive without Merc. Promise you that.