Crime and Punishment

If there's one thing Lewis Hamilton can take comfort in this week, it's the fact that he's not the first World Championship contender to have a feeling that dark forces are out to derail his progress to the title.

Michael Schumacher experienced a whole host of problems in his Benetton days, Jacques Villeneuve found himself with a qualifying penalty in the penultimate race at Suzuka in 1997, and more recently Fernando Alonso was so upset with his infamous Monza blocking penalty that he threw a tantrum in Race Control.

Strange things do indeed tend to happen late in the season. Remember the two title contenders and interloper Heinz-Harald Frentzen sharing the exact same pole time at the Jerez finale in '97? Or the Malaysian Ferrari bargeboard saga of 1999, which miraculously ensured that the fight went to the last round in Suzuka?

Reviewing how often things have gone down the years, a cynic might take into account the fact that it's in the interest of the sport as a whole, and in particular those with a stake in TV viewing figures, that the World Championship battle carries on for as long as possible - ideally into the final race. So were any of the above examples in any way influenced by such considerations? Some people might come to that conclusion.

There is a simpler explanation behind some of the headline-grabbing moments outlined here. Relatively routine incidents become major scandals because they involve a championship contender, and because every point won or lost is so crucial as the end of the season draws near. In addition, because the title contenders are invariably on camera, there's more chance that any indiscretion will be seen.

However, this year there's an added dimension as far as Hamilton is concerned. McLaren chief Ron Dennis might have shaken hands with FIA president Max Mosley a year ago at Spa, but there is clearly still a strained relationship between the two. There have been some suggestions that this animosity has continued to manifest itself in a series of penalties that have been applied to Hamilton (and his teammate Heikki Kovalainen) this year.

Is that really true? List the penalties together, and it's easy to come to such a conclusion. Examine them individually, and there is a logical explanation in each case. But equally, in some instances the stewards could have been more lenient. So what was the real story in Spa last weekend?

The precedent

As in the real world, much of motor racing law is based in precedent, and in this case the example that the stewards considered occurred at Suzuka in 2005. That was the race when rain in qualifying created a mixed-up grid, and newly-crowned world champion Fernando Alonso started from 16th.

The Renault driver was on a charge through the field when he cut across the chicane and passed Christian Klien's Red Bull. He backed off momentarily and tucked back in behind, only to pull out and pass him on the run to the next corner, Turn One. In effect, it was an identical scenario to that of last weekend.

"Spa was very similar to one we had in Suzuka 2005 with Fernando and Klien," says Renault team manager Steve Nielsen. "Fernando cut the chicane, and in so doing passed Klien. He gave the place back, but when he did it he dropped completely behind the rear wing, got a tow, and got past him again at Turn One.

"A couple of laps went past and [race director] Charlie [Whiting] got on the radio and said 'you've got to give it back', by which time Fernando was eight or ten seconds up the road. That was bad enough for us, but at least it happened during the race and we could carry on. It cost us a win. Raikkonen won the race, but Fernando was easily the quickest car on the circuit.

"We felt aggrieved at the time. It's a very ambiguous thing, as the regulations say you've got to give the place back. You can give the place back, but if you get a tow apparently you get an advantage that you otherwise wouldn't have had. I think it's very debatable, to be honest."

Indeed at the time there was some suggestion that even as Fernando had dropped back, Race Control had changed its mind and said not to bother after all.

Nevertheless, a precedent (of sorts) had been established: If you use your momentum to re-pass on the next corner, the FIA might take a dim view.

This example also begs the question why were McLaren not told by Race Control in France this year that Hamilton should drop a place before he was given a penalty? Apparently, the difference was in that case he made the initial move and hadn't attempted to correct it - it never occurred to him that he had committed an indiscretion.

The offence

Of course that wasn't the case last weekend. As he steered across the chicane, Hamilton knew full well that he couldn't make a pass in that way, which is why he immediately backed off - even before the team urged him to do so. It was an instinctive reaction. Job done, he felt that he was able to resume the fight immediately, i.e. on the run to La Source.

"I was getting closer and closer, but I was praying for some rain," he said when he met the TV crews immediately after the race. "Please, I need a little bit of rain just to make it more exciting, and it did!

"I was chasing him the whole time, just chasing, chasing, so I had time to plan when I do get close to him where I'm going. I had to make sure when I did close enough there was no 'ifs and buts and maybes'. I had to do the manoeuvre there and then. I pulled one off and then he pushed me wide, then I pulled another one off, and then we went off again. It was great."

Asked whether he thought he might still get a penalty, Lewis was adamant.

"They'll knock it on the head. There's nothing to take from it. If anything, Kimi was the most unfair by leaving me no room and pushing me wide. But I took it as a racing incident. I let him past by lifting, and then had the chance at the next corner. This is motor racing."

But he did concede that he was concerned: "It wouldn't be a surprise, but the fact is it would be unfair. I truly believe that in this situation, I did the right thing.

"I was ahead in the corner, and he pushed me wide, which I thought was a little unfair. He literally pushed me beyond the white line.

"I was forced on the exit road. I had to lift to allow him to come back past. He was clearly past me. And from then on I had to try and get back at him. The rules say you have to let him past, and I did."

In the McLaren pit, there was clearly some concern that things should be done properly, so immediately after the incident sporting director Dave Ryan contacted Whiting in Race Control, and twice asked if Hamilton had complied with the rules. And Whiting gave a positive response. He'd seen only the live pictures that we all saw, and his instant reaction was in Hamilton's favour.

Such mid-race conversations are not unusual, and as we saw with the Alonso example, Whiting can just as easily contact a team to ask a driver to react - something that happens a lot during safety-car periods.

Where things get complicated is that Whiting's rulings, which teams have to regard as sacrosanct in the heat of a race battle, can later be questioned by the stewards. McLaren were well aware of that, as Ron Dennis made clear immediately after the race.

"Lewis was ahead at the chicane and he got pushed wide," he said. "He definitely was in the lead coming out of the chicane. We immediately radioed him to let Kimi past. He let Kimi past, and then overtook him again before the line.

"Inevitably we wanted to know whether that was deemed to be a correction, and we checked with Charlie. Of course Charlie can only give an opinion, he's not the stewards, but he gave an opinion that we had complied properly to the regulations. I would even dispute that there was any fault, because we had the corner in the chicane. But even if we did have the corner, we let Kimi back in the lead.

"Charlie is of course a very important opinion to have. We wanted to make sure that we had complied to the regulations, and let Kimi back into the lead and taken the lead again, and the answer was yes. But as I said, it's for the stewards to decide. Hopefully, looking at the facts, they'll come to the same conclusion."

He then re-iterated that Whiting's opinion was not definitive: "Charlie is not the stewards, but we asked had we properly complied to the regulation, and he said he felt in his opinion we had. I stress, I don't want to put Charlie in a difficult position, he's not the stewards.

"But we felt A) we had the corner anyway; and B) that even if we didn't have the corner, that we had complied to the regulations. I hope what was a great motor race won't be affected by politics, but of course everybody has got to do their job. So we wait hopefully in anticipation."

The verdict

Clearly, Dennis feared that the stewards might take action, and those fears were to be justified when the 25-second penalty was eventually announced.

In effect the stewards had looked back to Suzuka '05, and come to the conclusion that even though he had ceded the place, Hamilton had maintained his advantage into the next corner. He had used his extra momentum to make the passing move at La Source. On reviewing the tapes, Whiting changed his mind and agreed with this reading of events.

Looking at it dispassionately, and as an isolated incident, there is a case to be answered. The argument is that had Hamilton followed Raikkonen round the corner in the normal way, he would not have been close enough to attempt that move. The stewards also considered the fact that at the point he made the decision to steer across the run-off area, his front wheels were aligned with the rears of the Ferrari.

My understanding is that the stewards concluded that he had an alternative course of action - that is to back off momentarily, slip back behind the Ferrari, and follow Raikkonen around the corner. Had he done that, thanks to being on a less favourable line, he would have probably had less momentum coming out of the chicane and even less chance of pulling a move on Kimi on the run to La Source.

That's the argument that the FIA will pursue if McLaren's appeal does get as far as a court, and clearly there is some substance to it.

But there is of course more to the story. Hamilton did not go off the road as a result of an optimistic out-braking move. At some stage during the incident, he was clearly alongside or even ahead, but as the cars snaked round the corner, Raikkonen held his line and eased Lewis towards the kerb.

That is racing, as the cliche goes, and no doubt Hamilton would have done the same, just as he leaned on Felipe Massa in Hockenheim. But it did leave Lewis with very few options. Had he stayed put and the two cars touched, he would have left himself open to accusations of causing an avoidable collision (as would Raikkonen). He could argue that he took to the run-off to avoid just such a collision, although as we've seen, the FIA view appears to be that he could have backed off and dropped in behind.

The key question is the pass at La Source. Was it really all down to the extra momentum that Lewis gained by jumping the chicane? A look at the amazing on-board coverage that appeared on the internet this week shows just how much Raikkonen was struggling. Indeed he braked so early for the chicane that Hamilton appeared to be caught unawares, and his jink to the left and attempt at a pass looks like an unplanned, instinctive reaction.

It seems obvious then that Raikkonen would also brake early for La Source, making it that much easier for Lewis to make his move down the inside. In fact the behaviour of both cars on the run to the hairpin was a little unusual, as they jostled around. It could be argued that Raikkonen was distracted by having the McLaren much closer in his mirrors than it would normally have been, but that seems to be taking the 'gaining an advantage' theme to an extreme.

McLaren has made much of the fact that Lewis was 6.7km/h slower than the Ferrari across the start/finish line, figures that come from the official timing. That certainly strengthens the team's case, although a snapshot reading like that doesn't necessarily tell the full story.

There are other elements that don't appear to have played a role in the decision. Having leaned on Hamilton at the chicane - a move that on a different day might have got Raikkonen into trouble - he then hit Lewis in the rear as the pass was completed at the hairpin. That nudge in itself could be called into question, even if it didn't send Hamilton into a spin.

Later that lap there was another incident that probably did not come up for discussion by the stewards. Hamilton and Raikkonen both ran wide at Pouhon, but while Lewis turned almost instantly back on to the track, Kimi took a wide arc across the asphalt run-off for several hundred more metres before he returned to the racing surface. This wasn't properly seen at the time, but is all too clear from the on-board coverage.

Gaining an advantage by not using the track is surely not just about cutting corners, but also making them bigger. By staying out there on the run-off, well away from the track, Raikkonen not only ensured he didn't spin, he also gave himself a lot more momentum than Hamilton had. And guess what happened at the next corner? He overtook Lewis...

Now, matters are of course complicated by the fact that Nico Rosberg was driving on to the track after an off, and that forced Hamilton to go wide and on to the grass. But the fact is Raikkonen arrived there much closer to the McLaren than he might have otherwise been. And then there's the whole question of yellow flags, and the extra speed that Kimi carried into that corner.

Of course it worked against him when he spun on the exit, but you can see where I am going with this. There was a lot going on at the time, and all of it could have been taken into account when arriving at a sensible, balanced decision.

Then you have to go to the very heart of what gaining an advantage means. OK, so the pass at La Source was open to interpretation - but just seven or eight corners later Raikkonen was back in the lead after the above-mentioned move. Then a couple more corners after that he was in the barrier and out of the race. All things considered, did that tow across the start/finish line really give Hamilton an advantage? One that was worth docking him six priceless points in his battle with Massa?

I am sure some people might have felt a little differently if Raikkonen had tucked in behind Hamilton out of the hairpin, spent the next couple of laps trying to find a way past, and then crossed the line in second. Had the penalty effectively reversed the one-two finish, and handed the win to the guy who had lost out in the move under question, more people might have seen it as a satisfactory outcome.

Instead the win was gifted to Massa, who had at no stage been part of the lead battle, and finished his race with a lap of 2:45 - possibly the slowest non-pitstop, non-Safety Car race winner's lap since F1 last raced at the old Nurburgring.

Even worse for Hamilton, he lost two more points by dropping to third behind Nick Heidfeld. It was pure chance that left the BMW driver 23.8 seconds behind at the end, and thus within the 25-second margin of Hamilton's penalty. I don't know whether, mindful of a possible penalty, McLaren encouraged Lewis to set a reasonable pace so as to minimise any loss of positions. But it would have been impossible to judge how fast Heidfeld was going on wets.

Equally, it may just be pure luck that Hamilton didn't go slower than he did. He finished the race with a 2:36 lap. Had he done a Massa and really cruised around the chicane and crossed the line at 2:44, he would have tumbled to eighth in the final standings, behind Sebastien Bourdais...

The conclusion

It remains to be seen whether or not the matter will actually get to the FIA Court of Appeal and allow both sides to present a full argument, but this story will run for a while. If Hamilton loses the title to Massa by six or fewer points, then some might regard it as a tainted victory for the Brazilian, even if he personally had nothing to do with what happened on Sunday.

In retrospect, Hamilton's decision to go for the overtaking move straight away may prove to be as expensive as Damon Hill's lunge inside Michael Schumacher at Adelaide in 1994. Both men saw an opportunity, and they took it. Had they waited one more corner, the outcome might have been very different.

You could argue that Hamilton should have thought it all through first: 'OK, I've let him through, but I don't want to give the bastards even a half a chance to hang me, so I'll get him out of the hairpin.' Of course it was all happening very quickly, and in the heat of battle would even a Senna or a Schumacher or a Prost have had the mental agility to realise that patience might have paid dividends? Who knows...

The other key issue that emerges from the whole saga is the old question of the stewards, and their ability to make the right calls.

For a few seasons the FIA tried a different system, with Briton Tony Scott-Andrews as a permanent chief steward at all the races. He presided over some really big decisions, cutting through the bullshit to penalise Schumacher for his parking trick at Monaco in 2006, and Alonso for his qualifying antics in Hungary 2007. In both cases, Scott-Andrews had the balls to, in effect, expose a world champion as a liar. He would also issue lengthy explanations of how conclusions were reached, at least giving the media - and the teams - a better understanding of how the penalty was decided.

Teams might not always have agreed with individual decisions, but there was the consistency that had long been demanded, and he was respected within the paddock.

However, for 2008 Mosley decided to revert to the original system, with three stewards alternating at each race. The difference is that they are now presided over - in a specially created role - by Alan Donnelly, the former British politician who has for many years worked closely with Mosley. Donnelly is a very capable individual and is well regarded, but until this year he had no direct experience of administering the law at motor races.

His other role on race weekends is to officially act as Mosley's representative. The two are thus inevitably in regular contact, and it follows that Max potentially has a direct line to the stewards' room when decisions are being made. In other words, if Max sees something on TV that catches his attention he could easily contact Donnelly and express his views.

In January, I asked Mosley to explain how it would work. He denied that he could ever influence decisions made by the three stewards, either directly or via his new proxy.

"The people who take the decisions are the stewards," he insisted. "Alan's job will be to keep an eye on overall the governance questions. Unless we've got someone from the IOC, he's about as good as it comes. And at the same time he will keep the pressure on the people to get things done quickly.

"But there's no way that he's going to tell someone who's the president of the sport in this country or the head of the club in that country how they should decide, any more than I could. They probably wouldn't listen to me, never mind Alan..."

As I tried to absorb the concept of senior officials not listening to the president of the FIA, I further challenged Max on whether his connections with Donnelly would leave himself open to accusations of interfering. He said that he has always known what's going on in race control.

"I always have done," he said. "Charlie's in there, other people are in there, we always know what's going on. But I'm the one who's always believed in the separation of powers, and we apply it in the FIA."

But surely, I suggested, he would have a more direct line than previously? "I may well do, but I know anyway. If I wanted to know, I could always call up any of the stewards. They're not going to say, 'I'm not going to tell you.' It's much more free and easy. And then there's always the right of appeal from the stewards to the Court of Appeal."

In a climate where many observers of the sport feel that there is still something 'personal' between Mosley and McLaren, it seems to me that the Donnelly arrangement does leave the FIA more open than in past years to accusations that its president can influence decisions that are made on F1 race weekends, even if the official procedures suggest that such a scenario can't happen.

Mosley was somewhere outside Europe last weekend, but wherever he was I can't imagine he would want to miss the live broadcast of what is always one of the most dramatic races of the year.

The question of the capabilities of the individual stewards is another matter, and it would be wrong to get into a debate about the three gentlemen involved last weekend. All three by definition have a background in various forms of motorsport, which is why they've landed their roles within their respective ASNs.

But it has to be pointed out that Kenya's Surinder Thatti is very inexperienced at F1 level - I understand this was his second Grand Prix. He demonstrated as much by commenting on the verdict to Reuters this week, something that the FIA will frown upon.

In contrast, Whiting and his loyal lieutenant Herbie Blash have between them experience of well over one thousand Grands Prix, working either for teams or in their current FIA roles. They have seen (and heard) everything, and they know what really matters. And they understand, and enjoy, real motor racing. Their gut reaction on Sunday was that, all things considered, Hamilton had not committed an offence. And that's what McLaren were told at the time.

In North America, most major racing series have a 'referee' who makes the important, 'real time' calls on matters like driving standards. They might sometimes be controversial, but they are consistent, and they are accepted. And they can't be messed around with retrospectively.

But as we've seen, under the present system, Whiting's opinions in cases like this are not definitive. Perhaps it's time that they should be.

Instead, he's now been put in a difficult position. Next time McLaren or anyone else ask a question in similar circumstances he may find it more prudent to take a conservative approach and tell a driver to drop back, when in fact the stewards themselves might have had no problem with the move. If someone loses a race win or even a championship that way, the sport will look a little silly. But perhaps no sillier than it did last weekend...

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments