Origineel.
Mededeling
Collapse
No announcement yet.
F1 Grote Prijs van België 2008
Collapse
X
-
Eventjes van onder het stof halen met wat extra info:
McLaren claims the FIA mis-represented Tony Scott-Andrews to undermine its argument in the hearing into Lewis Hamilton's controversial penalty at Spa-Francorchamps.
Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Edwin GormanMcLaren revealed some very strange goings-on involving the legal department at the FIA in the last couple of days.
McLaren had submitted papers in advance of the hearing making clear they were going to rely on the Liuzzi-Sutil case at the Japanese GP last year as a precedent. In this case the stewards handed Liuzzi a time penalty which was then found to be open to appeal. Responding to McLaren's submissions, Charlie Whiting phoned Tony Scott Andrews, the chief steward at Fuji, on Friday, to ask about that decision. Whiting then informed the legal department at the FIA that Scott Andrews had indicated in that phone call that he was mistaken about the time penalty and had confirmed, in as many words, that it should have been a drive-through(which, of course, could not be appealed).
The FIA lawyers then wrote to McLaren's lawyers at 6.30pm on Friday informing them that Scott Andrews had made a mistake. "Having checked with the permanent chief of stewards who signed the Decision in Japan, we wish to inform you that there is an error on the face of the Decision document," the FIA told McLaren. McLaren's lawyers did not take this at face value and sought out Scott Andrews who was officiating at Brands Hatch on Sunday. When informed of what the FIA had alleged, Scott Andrews was outraged. He described the FIA's e-mail to McLaren as "grossly inaccurate and misleading" and said Whiting had never asked if he had made an error in Japan. "Had he done so, the answer would have been 'no'", Scott Andrews wrote in a lengthy submission which was read to the court by Phillips.
What on earth was the FIA up to? Why did they make such a big effort to discredit McLaren's precedent, even misrepresenting Scott Andrews in the process, when their lawyer could have dealt with it in court? It certainly smells fishy but I suspect it will be no more than a sideshow and will not affect the overall findings.
Comment
Comment