When there is a problem, so obvious, and still people that choose to just ignore it, then we have a bigger problem than the problem itself.
There was a problem at the Abu Dhabi race, for reasons that we are yet been able to comprehend, and for some it seem that we are unable to let it go, no we can’t, and we will never forget what happened, Lewis Hamilton will never forget what was done to HIM! It was wrong on every angle, and the worst part is how comfortable the perpetrators felt doing it. With no remorse whatsoever. Maybe there was political and financial interest to some as the great Ayrton Senna once said.
The movement keeps going on and on as it should. And it has to no matter what happens. We keep pushing. Justice needs to prevail against evil, it’s the only way forward. There’s got to be a way to make those individuals that are choosing to stay blind, to make them realize and speak the truth that an act of robbery happened that night, that rules were not follow and a group of people in charge of making sure rules are upheld opted to ignore everything that is written in black and white. Unacceptably wrong.
In the meantime, all roads lead to a determined Lewis Hamilton, maybe a Lewis Hamilton that we have never seen before, a Savage but gracefully one that will do just like his father thought him, do your talking on the track. And by God he will.
By definition, unfair advantage Law and Definition Unfair advantage is a subjective term that is measured by a standard of proper conduct for persons in similar positions. Unfair generally mean UNJUST, and typically involves acts deemed UNETHICAL.
If we really want to get more in to detail, there are more terms that we can also use.
Large network effect
In 1980 Rosie Ruiz won the Boston marathon, but was stripped of the tittle after it was discovered through an investigation from an OUTSIDE firm that she left the race, took the subway, then got back in the race miles after. She was 20 minutes faster than her previous personal record. By not following the rules she gained a competitive advantage.
In 2006, five Italian soccer teams rigged favorable referee appoints for several of their games. All teams were severely punished. Juventus, the main perpetrators of the scandal, were punished the most, by having to FORFEIT two of its tittles. (See where I’m going with this)
We all know about Lance Armstrong story, won the Tour de France seven times, but ultimately was stripped of all his titles after it was discovered through a TRANSPARENT investigation in 2012 that he was using performance enhancing drugs but never failed a drug test because he was being protected.
And now it takes me to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. Where clearly, the race was manipulated, where clearly one driver was given a competitive advantage under circumstances that still cannot be comprehended. Rules were not follow, rules were made up on the fly as if it was ok to do that and nobody said anything, like it was all planned. A race director allowed a technical director to dictate how the race was going to be restarted. Unacceptable in every angle something that cannot be just forgotten. LP
This video shows how RBR literally told Michael Masi what was going to happen at the restart. He didn’t even say a word and acknowledged what RBR told him to do. The Race director of a F1 race for crying out loud. This is not acceptable and Masi has to go but we have to understand this is bigger than Masi. twitter.com/leopolanco744/status/1491216511658512385
The series’ CEO Stefano Domenicali said it intends to focus on action rather than gestures to advance diversity and other causes represented by ‘We Race As One’.
The initiative was launched ahead of the first race of 2020, which was delayed due to the outbreak of Covid-19. It was prompted in part by the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to the death of George Floyd in America.
Mercedes have been notified of the planned changes. The team’s driver Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly urged F1 to encourage greater diversity and formed his own commission to investigate the issue.
As Stefano Domenicali quoted, now the series intends to focus on actions instead of gestures. Taking a knee is not a gesture, is an action. Wearing a shirt with a message for the world to see in a country where human rights are violated, is an action. Speaking out on an interview in a country where human rights are not respected is an action. Formula one had the chance to take action plenty of times and didn’t do it. Sir Lewis Hamilton has been taking action and paving the road for them to do it. Can’t forget about Sebastian Vettel he has do a lot as well now that he has follow in to Lewis steps.
Also, why the need to notify Mercedes of the changes like they won’t know about it? Is this a change or a dig directly to Lewis? That’s what it seems to me. Let me tell you something formula 1 I haven’t seen you take action at all. You had you chances and plenty of them and didn’t do a damn thing. So the day that you stop worrying about where your money and entertainment comes from that will be the day I might start thinking that you are up for change! LP
On 12/12/2021 the F1 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix finished under unusual circumstances with the Race Director (Michael Masi) choosing to apply an interpretation of the Safety Car regulations (48) in a way that they had never been applied before. This released selective lapped cars, only those between the 2 leading cars, and brought the safety car in on the same lap. A post race review by the Stewards concluded that ‘article 48.12 may not have been applied fully’ but declared that overturning the result to reflect the order of cars before the overtaking message was ‘not appropriate’.
This report analyses the F1 regulations as applicable to the ending of the Abu Dhabi Grand prix with a view to determining whether any regulations were broken. This analysis is presented in the following sections.
In summary the actions of of the Race Director were in direct breach of several regulations, that apply to Officials and are punishable as per Article 12 of the International Sporting Code, including;
F1 Sporting Regulations 2.1 General Provision. This requires officials to observer all provisions of the regulations. The regulation 48.12 provides two messages that can be used to instruct competitors to unlap. The Race Director did not use either of these messages but created a new message to selectively unlap cars (see Section 2.2)
F1 International Sporting Code 1.1 General Principles. This requires the FIA to enforce regulations based on principles of safety and sporting fairness. The Race Director compromised safety by instructing the safety car to return to the pits before all the track clear confirmation messages had been received (see Section 2.3). The Race Director also compromised sporting fairness by issuing instructions that prevented all drivers from competing equally in the final lap. Whilst the two lead cars had no cars between them, the car in third had cars between them and second place so was not able to challenge for a better finishing position. The Race Director instruction resulted in the race being about only the two leading competitors, to the exclusion of all others.
F1 International Sporting Code 1.2.3. This requires the powers of the FIA to ‘never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a Competition or the participation of a Competitor’. By excluding the third place competitor, and those that had been released from behind the safety car having insufficient time to join the back of the pack, they were impeded from fair participation and denied the opportunity to improve their final position in the race.
Appendix M to the International Sporting Code : Manipulation of Competitions. Article 10 defines ‘Manipulation of Competition’;
The Race Director chose to apply Regulations in a way that had never been applied before. In so doing, an undue advantage was given to the competitor in second place who could directly challenge for the lead without needing to defend against the car in third place. Also once the safety car had been dispatched the lead car had no opportunity to stop for fresh tyres without losing track position; The second place car had the opportunity and did stop for fresh tyres. Having chosen to misapply Reg 48.12, leaving the second place car immediately behind the lead car (with no cars in between) the unpredictable nature of the competition was partly removed as it was apparent to the Teams, Competitors and audience that the lead car, with heavily worn tyres, had very little chance of defending a car with fresh tyres. This enormous difference in tyre performance was known before Reg 48.12 was mis-applied and could therefore realistically have influenced the decision that resulted in the undue advantage, whether intentional or not. In drawing their conclusion to ratify the ending, the stewards also breached the same regulations as the Race Director and were complicit in the manipulation of the competition.
In addition the stewards also breached International Sporting Code Article 11.5 Conflict Of Interest;
As Honda provides engines to Red Bull Racing, the association of Honda with a World Drivers Champion will likely increase sales of their road cars; they are already using the win in their marketing. This means that Derek Warwick ‘appears to have financial interests’ that ‘may detract from his ability to perform his duties with integrity’, which is a clear Conflict Of Interest.
2. Did the Race Director break the rules
2.1 General Undertakings
Section 2 (General Undertaking) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations clearly states that officials are ‘to observe all the provisions’ of ‘the regulations’. The officials are listed in Section 15 and include ‘A Race Director’.
It also states the applicable documents that define the provisions, and that all events in the Championship are to be governed in accordance with the regulations.
The use of the safety car in the closing laps contravenes the General Undertakings
2.2 Safety Car
The use of the Safety Car is governed according to Section 48 of Formula One Sporting Regulations. Article 48.12 covers the ability for unlapped cars to unlap themselves.
The provisions allow for two specific messages to be used ‘LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE’ and ‘OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED’. Either message is sent to all Competitors. The messages apply to all drivers equally
The Race Director did not send a message that was available under the provisions. They chose to make up a new message that instructed specific cars to unlap.
The message sent by the Race Director contravenes the Safety Car regulations. From this point, the race becomes illegitimate.
48.12 also clearly states that ‘once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap’. Calling in the safety car on the same lap as the lapped car passed the leader contravenes article 48.12.
As there are no other articles covering the Safety Car then it is clear that Article 48 was the correct article to use under these circumstances and Article 48.12 is the only article that covers unlapping of cars under the safety car. Therefore the intent of the regulation is clear, irrespective of whether the correct message was issued.
2.3 General Principles
Article 1 of the International Sporting Code (which is included in the ‘regulations’ in accordance with Section 2 (General Undertakings) of the Formula One Sporting Regulations) covers General Principles. Article 1.2 states that the Sporting Code has been drawn up to enable the ‘fair and equitable’ application of the regulations, with 1.2.3 clearly stating that the regulations ‘will never be enforced so as to prevent or impede a Competition or the participation of a Competitor’.
The actions of the Race Director contravened the General Principles. By sending an illegitimate unlap message that selectively unlapped some competitors, some of the competitors were impeded from participating in the rest of the race. This selective application was therefore not ‘fair and equitable’.
3. The stewards response
As per the document issued after the protest relating to article 48.12, the stewards reached there conclusion based on two interpretations, both of which are incorrect within the context the regulations and the events in the final laps of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
3.1 Article 15.3
The stewards incorrectly asserted that Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car. This is as a result of the Red Bull evidence that ‘Article 15.3 gives the Race Director “overriding authority” over “the use of the safety car”
Whilst article 15.3 does contain these words, they need to be used in the context of both article 15 and the wider regulations, specifically the General Undertakings, which do take precedent and ensures that officials observe the provisions of the regulations.
The override in 15.3 applies to the ability of the Race Director to override the decision of the clerk of the course, not the provisions in the regulations
The subject of article 15.3 is the clerk of the course. It states that the clerk will ‘work in permanent consultation with the Race Director’. It then states that the ‘Race Director shall have overriding authority’. In this context it is clear that the Race Director is authorised to override the decision of the clerk of the course.
Again article 15.3 is only valid in the context of the General Undertaking (2.1) so even with overriding authority, the Race Director has to adhere to 2.1 and observe all the provisions in the regulations, including the safety car provisions in section 48.
3.2 Article 48.13
The stewards assert that 48.13 overrides 48.12 and that once the message ‘SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP’ has been issued then the safety car must come in. The articles within the regulations are written to be a set of stand-alone instructions with a start and an end. 48.12 starts with a decision by the clerk of the course and ends with either lapped cars being unlapped and the safety car coming in, or the message ‘OVERTAKING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED’ being issued. There is no intention in the regulations to break out of an article due to another article being triggered. Notwithstanding the override argument, by the time the ‘SAFETY CAR IN THIS LAP’ was issued, the race was already illegitimate due to the Race Director issuing an unlap message that was in violation of Article 48.12 Hence the argument about article 48.13 cannot be justified.
4. Race Directors Evidence
The stewards recorded two points of evidence that were provided by the Race Director
4.1 Intent of Article 48.12
Nothing in the regulations states that preference can be given to the race leaders and preventing interference to their race. On the contrary, the General Principles of the International Sporting Code state that the regulations ‘will never be enforced so as to prevent or impede the participation of a Competitor’. By selectively applying the regulations for only the leaders, all other Competitors were impeded.
The Race Director invented a new, illegitimate purpose for Article 48.12, in contravention to International Sporting Code Article 1.2.
4.2 Desire to end “green”
Whilst there had been discussion that expressed a preference to finish races in a “green” condition (i.e. not behind a safety car), there is nothing in the regulations to support this desire. The regulations take precedence over any unwritten desire by the teams and officials.
Furthermore there was a legitimate course of actions, within the regulations for the race to end in a “green” condition, which the Race Director chose not to execute. Had the illegitimate unlap message not been sent, then the safety car could have been called in using Article 48.13 with cars between the leaders in time for the final lap to be conducted under race conditions. The blue flags would apply to the unlapped cars, allowing the lead cars to easily overtake them.
There is photographic evidence that marshals were on the track at lap 56, so the earliest the safety car could have been called in is lap 57. Indeed according to the official messages the safety car was called in prior to all the track clear messages being received, so it is arguable that the safety car should have stayed out longer.
The Race Director had an option to satisfy the desire to finish the race “green” but chose a different option that contravened article 48.12 and International Sporting Code Article 1.2.
5. Other Items raised by Red Bull
Red Bull raised five arguments; three of which have been addressed in the previous sections.
5.1 ‘Any’ v ‘all’
The word ‘any’ can only be interpreted as ‘all lapped cars’ within the context of 48.12. The exact same message “LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE” has to be sent to all Competitors. ‘Any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car’. As there is no mechanism to send a message to selectively unlap cars then ‘any lapped car’ means ‘all lapped cars, if there are any’.
Irrespective of the meaning of ‘any’, the message that the Race Director sent was not within the provision and therefore was illegitimate.
5.2 All cars unlapping wouldn’t have changed the outcome
Had Article 48.12 been followed then the safety car would have stayed out for another lap and hence the race would have finished under the safety car with no opportunity for the 2nd place car to challenge for the lead.
Even had the safety car been permitted to come in a lap early, there was insufficient time for all the lapped cars to pass the safety car before the start of the last lap, so the safety car would need to stay out until the end of the race.
Therefore this argument is false.
The stewards assessed evidence presented without taking into consideration the full extent of the regulations. In so doing they made a judgement based on a misinformed view of the authority of the Race Director, who falsely claimed that he had the authority to implement new interpretations of the regulations, based on his incorrect assertions that article 48.13 overrides 48.12 and his view that the desire to finish ‘green’ was more important than complying with all the provisions of the regulations as required by International Sporting Code Article 1.2.
The Race Director demonstrated a lack of knowledge as to their role and responsibility and applied poor judgement in respect to new interpretations of the regulations.
The stewards also demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the regulations, failing to recognise that the General Undertaking (2.1) applied in this context and is included in the regulations to ensure that officials observe the provisions of the regulations. They failed to understand the limits of the Race Directors authority under article 15.3, taking an interpretation of the article without applying the General Undertaking.
Lewis Hamilton is the greatest formula one driver of all time. I believe his greatest attribute is his humbleness and activism, how great of a human being he is. Today Lewis graced us with his presence on social media after almost two months and that is how we can connect with people today. I am going to pretend to be a neutral fan for this one.
After the Abu Dhabi race, the farce that went around the world Lewis went silent and given what conspired that night is completely understandable. Anybody else would have done the same after being robbed in front of the whole world to see. Days went on and TeamLH and Fans started to call out the atrocities and manipulation that went on that night at the desert. The incompetence of Michael Masi who I believe should have never been a race director in the first place.
The world of F1 was and still in a very dark place. They don’t even know how they are going to get out of it or even if they ever will. They gotten themselves in to it for the sake of entertainment. They have lost money in the market, sponsors, but most important fans, and some of those fans were new comers that were attracted to the sport but after what went down at AD they left and never coming back.
As of lately they have been putting publicity stunts with their fake champion in the snow with an old Red Bull car with the number 1 that will forever be tainted and questionable for generations to come. Maybe to get people excited but only fans of that specific team and driver may be happy about that. Then we get a launch of a haas car that look like a Roblox car made by a 8 year old is a computer game. No one didn’t ever care. Formula one is in a dark place right down in the bottom and with an investigation in progress being conducted by themselves, are we going to get transparency like they are claiming they will? I extremely doubt that.
But today, February 5th 2022, the world of F1, TeamLH, the fans got the hope we were waiting for. And what a relief it was. Lewis Hamilton connection with the fans through social media was bigger than the sport itself, and that is why I have always said that he is bigger than F1, they need him not the other way around. F1 news were not breaking news since the end of the season, but one person, Lewis Hamilton posting a picture at the Grand Canyon quoting that he is back was breaking news world wide! Yes FIA/F1 the man you robbed is your savior, the man that has stand alone his entire career is the face of the sport. It is time for y’all to accept it and start thanking Lewis for what he is and what he is about to do! It is Hammer Time!
If Lewis Hamilton retires, I said if he retires since I believe he will come back and just go HAM on everyone, both Formula One and Mercedes will have drastic effects. Both parties will immediately lose significant sponsorships and deals.
Drivers come and go in the world of motorsports, but no one in recent memory has kept the world on the edge of their seat like Lewis Hamilton. Companies may not say it publicly but, they are nervously waiting for Sir Lewis Hamilton to break his silence.
For even the fringe fan, it’s hard not to know how the 2021 F1 season ended in Abu Dhabi. Nicholas Latifi crashed with five laps remaining, bringing out the safety car. Initially, F1 race director Michael Masi said that no lapped cars would be allowed to pass the safety car under yellow, only to double back and bend the rules to allow just the cars in-between Hamilton and the energy drink driver to do so. The actions set up a one-lap race between the two drivers tied for first in the last race of the season. With the energy drink driver on fresher tires, he was able to pass Hamilton for the win and the championship.
Hamilton handled the situation post-race with class and dignity. But, radio communications to team Mercedes that were not released as part of the race broadcast tell the story. “This has been manipulated, man,” Hamilton said.
So think about how much money the FIA will lose on sponsorship, think about the United States 🇺🇸 where they are trying to make a bigger impact, and Lewis has a pretty remarkable fan base here. Would we go to the race? I personally wouldn’t go. How about the F1 TV app? Thousands of people maybe more have canceled their subscriptions myself included, we are talking about millions of dollars all together. Formula 1 needs Lewis Hamilton more than what Lewis needs Formula 1.
Lord Peter Hain, vice-chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on F1 and Labour peer, told the Express: “I think he will be back. F1 will be massively, massively damaged if he doesn’t.
“F1 will have been boosted by his contribution to his sport. There’s no other F1 champion who has had a greater reach into the average citizen right across the world than Lewis.”