Post by geoff Post by Alan Baker
...only one of them, Vettel's statement, they COULD NOT HAVE HAD.
They were presumably referring to relevant verifiable factual
information, not biased personal opinion from the affected party.
The only way you can make that look even slightly plausible is by
snipping away what YOU all want to claim the stewards said:
'The Stewards heard the team representative, Laurent Mekies, who made a
presentation to the Stewards. Having examined the evidence presented by
the team, the Stewards determine the following:
Decision: There are no significant and relevant new elements which were
unavailable to the parties at the time of the competition concerned.
Reasons : According to Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code
and Article 2.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, only those
elements may be regarded as "new", which have not been available to
Scuderia Ferrari before the end of the Event (18:44 on June 9, 2019 –
end of scrutineering).
Scuderia Ferrari presented the following elements in the hearing :
(i) analysis of the telemetry data of VET's car, including car attitude
(ii) a video analysis of the camera views (front view, top view, onboard
cameras of VET and HAM) prepared after the race;
(iii) a video analysis performed by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after
(iv) a video of VET's face camera, which was released by F1 Limited
after the race;
(v) post-race and video images;
(vi) analysis of the GPS racing line data of both HAM and VET in the
Situation lap and in the previous race laps; and
(vii) Witness statement of VET (the "VET WS").
Elements (i), (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii) were available before the end of
Element (iii) was new but not significant and relevant as this is a
personal opinion by a third party.
Element (iv) was new but not significant and relevant as the evidence
contained in this video footage can be seen within other available video.'
Did you get that:
They dismissed the elements on two criteria: whether each element was
new and whether each element was relevant.
They dismissed Vettel's witness statement for not having been NEW:
'Elements (i), (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii [Vettel's witness statement]) were
available before the end of the competition.'
What I'd like to know is why you think the officials in F1 are playing
it straight. It's been obvious for a very long time to those who follow
the sport that they don't.