Discussion:
Ferrari's "new" evidence in Vettel's Canadian GP penalty
(too old to reply)
Darryl Johnson
2019-06-21 15:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask myself:
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?

The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an extra
camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional information
that wasn't already available from other sources.

The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.

Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
Alan Baker
2019-06-21 16:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask myself: WTF
were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty overwhelming"
new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an extra
camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional information
that wasn't already available from other sources.
an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
geoff
2019-06-21 23:44:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an extra
camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional information
that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-22 00:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
geoff
2019-06-22 01:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there
to give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported.
I'm sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the
penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed toy-boy-racer
with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de self aggrandisement.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-22 02:59:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there
to give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported.
I'm sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the
penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed toy-boy-racer
with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de self aggrandisement.
When a huge majority of very experience F1 pilots made their opinions
known, you insisted they didn't have all the information.

Now, when it suits you, you decide a particular press outlet has all the
answers.

:-)
larkim
2019-06-22 14:53:59 UTC
Permalink
There comes a point where it is appropriate to make a dignified exit from the argument, and I would suggest this is it.

You disagree with the verdict.

Some (though not all) F1 drivers, some with recent experience, agree with you.

The stewards disagree.

Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change the stewards views.

The argument is done.

Time to move on.
Alan Baker
2019-06-22 18:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by larkim
There comes a point where it is appropriate to make a dignified exit
from the argument, and I would suggest this is it.
You disagree with the verdict.
Yup.
Post by larkim
Some (though not all) F1 drivers, some with recent experience, agree with you.
Say it honestly: the vast majority who have offered an opinion disagree;
including at least 5 former world champions and one of the most
respected champions still alive.
Post by larkim
The stewards disagree.
Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change the stewards views.
So the decision says, but then, they lied:

Vettel's witness statement cannot have been "available before the end of
the competition"
Post by larkim
The argument is done.
Time to move on.
I'll be asking Mike about all of this.
build
2019-06-23 02:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
There comes a point where it is appropriate to make a dignified exit
from the argument, and I would suggest this is it.
You disagree with the verdict.
Yup.
Post by larkim
Some (though not all) F1 drivers, some with recent experience, agree with you.
Say it honestly: the vast majority who have offered an opinion disagree;
including at least 5 former world champions and one of the most
respected champions still alive.
Post by larkim
The stewards disagree.
Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change the stewards views.
Vettel's witness statement cannot have been "available before the end of
the competition"
Post by larkim
The argument is done.
Time to move on.
I'll be asking Mike about all of this.
ENOUGH
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 02:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
ENOUGH
great post
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 03:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
ENOUGH
meth?
Alan Baker
2019-06-23 03:35:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
There comes a point where it is appropriate to make a dignified exit
from the argument, and I would suggest this is it.
You disagree with the verdict.
Yup.
Post by larkim
Some (though not all) F1 drivers, some with recent experience, agree with you.
Say it honestly: the vast majority who have offered an opinion disagree;
including at least 5 former world champions and one of the most
respected champions still alive.
Post by larkim
The stewards disagree.
Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change the stewards views.
Vettel's witness statement cannot have been "available before the end of
the competition"
Post by larkim
The argument is done.
Time to move on.
I'll be asking Mike about all of this.
ENOUGH
I realize this might be a strange concept for you...

...but you don't run this newsgroup.
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 04:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
I realize this might be a strange concept for you...
...but you don't run this newsgroup.
speaking of meth. wow
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 04:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
...but you don't run this newsgroup.
Are you in grade 5?
Brian Lawrence
2019-06-23 06:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change the stewards views.
Vettel's witness statement cannot have been "available before the end of
the competition"
Just to clarify that observation - the stewards defined 'new evidence'
as evidence not available *to Ferrari by the end of scrutineering after
the race*. The so-called witness statement was made by VET to Ferrari,
not to the stewards. When it was made seems to me to have little
relevance.

PS: agree with build's comment 100%
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 07:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
PS: agree with build's comment 100%
dont click on it
too complicated?
Alan Baker
2019-06-23 07:24:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by Alan Baker
Post by larkim
Ferrari have not provided any new significant information to change
the stewards views.
Vettel's witness statement cannot have been "available before the end of
the competition"
Just to clarify that observation - the stewards defined 'new evidence'
as evidence not available *to Ferrari by the end of scrutineering after
the race*. The so-called witness statement was made by VET to Ferrari,
not to the stewards. When it was made seems to me to have little
relevance.
PS: agree with build's comment 100%
Sorry, but your cite source states:

'(vii) Witness statement of VET (the "VET WS").

Elements (i), (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii) were available before the end of
the competition.'

So I'll spell it out:

'Witness statement of VET [was] available before the end of the
competition.'

The stewards were listing the things they rejected in the request for
review because they claimed they already had them when they made their
original decision...

...only one of them, Vettel's statement, they COULD NOT HAVE HAD.
geoff
2019-06-23 07:37:32 UTC
Permalink
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.

geoff
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 07:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
They were presumably referring to relevant verifiable factual
information, not biased personal opinion from the affected party.
cool
Alan Baker
2019-06-23 07:45:26 UTC
Permalink
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
channels;

(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
the race;

(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
the competition.

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.
geoff
2019-06-23 10:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
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
No - snipping away all the superfluous points that I was not
specifically referring to. You wouldn't understand that concept.
Post by Alan Baker
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.
Maybe they are not petty anal-retentive one-eyed cranks.

geoff
Alan Baker
2019-06-23 14:40:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
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
No - snipping away all the superfluous points that I was not
specifically referring to. You wouldn't understand that concept.
But what you just snipped WAS specifically what you'd been referring to.
larkim
2019-06-24 08:55:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
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
'The Stewards heard the team representative, Laurent Mekies, who made a
presentation to the Stewards. Having examined the evidence presented by
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).
(i) analysis of the telemetry data of VET's car, including car attitude
channels;
(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
the race;
(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
the competition.
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.'
They dismissed the elements on two criteria: whether each element was
new and whether each element was relevant.
'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.
By definition, I'd agree with you that the written witness statement of
Vettel was not available during the competition.

But I suspect it's just semantics. My interpretation of the dismissal of
Vettel's statement is that what is contained in it is nothing new that
wasn't available during the competition, and that's what they mean.

Saying it's a "lie" (when self evidently the written statement wasn't there
during the competition) makes it sound as if you are trying to suggest that
in public the FIA stewards are trying to pull the wool over our eyes about
the statement. I think you're seeing a conspiracy where none is there.

All a driver can do is describe their intent and their review. Vettel will
no doubt have said "It wasn't intentional", "I thought I left enough space"
"I was correcting the car and regaining control". Short of some completely
"other" explanation, there's not a great deal he can say in a statement
which he didn't say over the radio - i.e. a denial of wilful intent.

Given the FIA's history of siding with Ferrari, and the public outcry
which felt the penalty was unfair, the easier route would have been to
over-turn the penalty, surely? A conspiracy theory where an unpopular
penalty was reviewed and agreed as in line with the rules (even if we don't
like the rules) doesn't seem very conspiratorial to me!

Hopefully your mate can clear up some of this for you.
Alan Baker
2019-06-24 16:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by larkim
Post by Alan Baker
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
'The Stewards heard the team representative, Laurent Mekies, who made a
presentation to the Stewards. Having examined the evidence presented by
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).
(i) analysis of the telemetry data of VET's car, including car attitude
channels;
(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
the race;
(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
the competition.
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.'
They dismissed the elements on two criteria: whether each element was
new and whether each element was relevant.
'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.
By definition, I'd agree with you that the written witness statement of
Vettel was not available during the competition.
But I suspect it's just semantics. My interpretation of the dismissal of
Vettel's statement is that what is contained in it is nothing new that
wasn't available during the competition, and that's what they mean.
Saying it's a "lie" (when self evidently the written statement wasn't there
during the competition) makes it sound as if you are trying to suggest that
in public the FIA stewards are trying to pull the wool over our eyes about
the statement. I think you're seeing a conspiracy where none is there.
That is precisely what I DO think: that they are not being completely
candid about all of this.
Post by larkim
All a driver can do is describe their intent and their review. Vettel will
no doubt have said "It wasn't intentional", "I thought I left enough space"
"I was correcting the car and regaining control". Short of some completely
"other" explanation, there's not a great deal he can say in a statement
which he didn't say over the radio - i.e. a denial of wilful intent.
He can expand a great deal on what he felt the race car was doing.
Post by larkim
Given the FIA's history of siding with Ferrari, and the public outcry
which felt the penalty was unfair, the easier route would have been to
over-turn the penalty, surely? A conspiracy theory where an unpopular
penalty was reviewed and agreed as in line with the rules (even if we don't
like the rules) doesn't seem very conspiratorial to me!
Hopefully your mate can clear up some of this for you.
Hopefully.

t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 07:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
They were presumably referring to relevant verifiable factual
information, not biased personal opinion from the affected party.
cool
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 07:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
PS: agree with build's comment 100%
PS: oh poor you
t***@gmail.com
2019-06-23 07:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by build
ENOUGH
moderator on training wheels
Brian Lawrence
2019-06-22 03:10:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there
to give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported.
I'm sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the
penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed toy-boy-racer
with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de self aggrandisement.
The stewards decision in full here:


<https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full-verdict-vettel-stewards-ferrari/4478995/>
Bigbird
2019-06-22 09:22:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask
myself: WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to
have "pretty overwhelming" new evidence that would
exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter
and an extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no
additional information that wasn't already available from
other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion
as just that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members
over there to give their opinions instead of that of a
former driver/reported. I'm sure that would have swayed
the stewards into rethinking the penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed
toy-boy-racer with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de
self aggrandisement.
<https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full-verdict-vettel-stewards-ferrari/4478995/>

The FIA's own words, is that all you have? You must know that isn't
good enough for Mr Confirmation bias.

A vague, quote free, suggestion of what the stewards might have been
thinking, he will tote that as if it were words from the stewards own
lips if it supports his position... but factual reporting has no place
in his mind shed.
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-22 18:15:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask
myself: WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to
have "pretty overwhelming" new evidence that would
exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter
and an extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no
additional information that wasn't already available from
other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion
as just that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members
over there to give their opinions instead of that of a
former driver/reported. I'm sure that would have swayed
the stewards into rethinking the penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed
toy-boy-racer with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de
self aggrandisement.
<https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full-verdict-vettel-stewards-ferrari/4478995/>
The FIA's own words, is that all you have? You must know that isn't
good enough for Mr Confirmation bias.
What I know is that their own words include at least one complete falsehood.
Post by Brian Lawrence
A vague, quote free, suggestion of what the stewards might have been
thinking, he will tote that as if it were words from the stewards own
lips if it supports his position... but factual reporting has no place
in his mind shed.
Alan Baker
2019-06-22 18:15:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brian Lawrence
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by geoff
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Darryl Johnson
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask
myself: WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have
"pretty overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there
to give their opinions instead of that of a former
driver/reported. I'm sure that would have swayed the stewards into
rethinking the penalty. <sarcasm>
And may I ask how it is that you know everything that Ferrari presented?
Read the reportage.
So suddenly the reportage is absolutely authoritative?
Fuckn site more authoritative that an obsessive one-eyed toy-boy-racer
with delusions of deep knowledge and beaucoup de self aggrandisement.
<https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/full-verdict-vettel-stewards-ferrari/4478995/>
Simple question: how could the witness statement of Sebastian Vettel
have been available "before the end of the competition".

And notice that they don't actually make available the data upon which
they say their decision depends.

Did anyone really expect anything else from this process?
Bigbird
2019-06-21 16:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
You know what they say, opinions and arseholes...

...hell of a Venn diagram. :)
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Alan Baker
2019-06-21 16:51:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Darryl Johnson
WTF were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty
overwhelming" new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information that wasn't already available from other sources.
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
You know what they say, opinions and arseholes...
...hell of a Venn diagram. :)
Interesting how you defend the stewards for having information we don't
know about...

...but automatically assume that you've heard the entire story about
what Ferrari presented.
Alister
2019-06-21 19:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask myself: WTF
were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have "pretty overwhelming"
new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an extra
camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional information
that wasn't already available from other sources.
an opinion.
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there to
give their opinions instead of that of a former driver/reported. I'm
sure that would have swayed the stewards into rethinking the penalty.
<sarcasm>
You know what they say, opinions and arseholes...
...hell of a Venn diagram. :)
& inaccurate after my cancer treatment I don't have one
(queue TexARSEgate)
Bigbird
2019-06-21 19:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bigbird
Post by Darryl Johnson
Having read the stewards' official response, I can only ask
myself: WTF >> were Ferrari thinking when they claimed to have
"pretty overwhelming" >> new evidence that would exonerate Vettel?
Post by Bigbird
Post by Darryl Johnson
The only "new" evidence was the opinion of a Sky reporter and an
extra >> camera view of Vettel that really provided no additional
information >> that wasn't already available from other sources.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Darryl Johnson
The stewards rightly dismissed the Sky reporter's opinion as just
that: >> an opinion.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Darryl Johnson
Maybe Ferrari should have flown some of the RAS members over there
to >> give their opinions instead of that of a former
driver/reported. I'm >> sure that would have swayed the stewards into
rethinking the penalty. >> <sarcasm>
Post by Bigbird
You know what they say, opinions and arseholes...
...hell of a Venn diagram. :)
& inaccurate after my cancer treatment I don't have one
(queue TexARSEgate)
O O
--
Trump fact check:
The grand total as of Sunday: 4,913 false claims
Last week’s total: 31 false claims
That’s the 75th-worst week of his presidency out of 116 weeks so far.
Loading...