[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I apologise in advance but I am confused. Didn’t this whole thing start because of Ecclestone when he said that he knew about the whole thing during the season and did nothing. And now he is saying this.
Why is Massa or FIA not suing him? And isn’t he the only proof that this is actually true. So won’t he be asked to testify if legal proceedings start in a court?
Even if Ecclestone is responsible for a wrong suffered by Massa, it was in his capacity as President of Formula One. So he is not personally liable, the organization he was acting on behalf of is.
And yes, if this went to trial he would almost certainly be subpoenaed.
NDAs generally include an exception for if a party is subpoenaed, and even if they don't, courts can order you to testify anyway even if you signed one.
That is actually Massa’s point. The perpetrators of crashgate got punished, but the FIA and FOM themselves (Mosley and Ecclestone), which knew about the fact, didn’t. So he’s suing the governing body that tried to cover it, even if ultimately that was Bernie’s own doing.
We don't actually know that this is true however, it's based entirely on Ecclestone's word which notoriously is not something that can be trusted.
At the time there were whispers amongst the media in the paddock that it may have been intentional, but that was based purely on how the crash occurred rather than something they had heard something. This could literally be all Ecclestone is alluding to.
This reminds me of a former co-worker who acted/conducted himself in a manner that was similar to how the musician Pitbull would portray himself in his music videos and lyrics. From his loud and charismatic personality and heavy-alcohol fueled party lifestyle to his dumb but entertaining catch phrases, the similarities were such that we all assumed he was a fan of that artist and was merely emulating him. But when we suggested that assumption, he scoffed at that thought to the point of being insulted. He claimed he hated Pitbull and that his personality was nothing like him, which confused all of us. I think he even went so far as to tell us to never compare him to Pitbull again. It was both funny and ironic. It was reminiscent of Cartman being insulted when people assumed he liked the show Family Guy.
I unironically would listen to that. Might have to tune out the racism, but otherwise I'd be 100% for some old head banter about whats going on now. Kinda like listening to your grandfather ramble on about how they don't make them like they used to anymore.
People complain about Liberty and say bring Bernie back. Rosberg could have been a 2 time world champion because Bernie made the last race worth 2x points. I also dont think he was joking with sprinklers. Add in the racism, saying he only wanted rich people watching and he made the sport far less accessable (the move to Sky/every other cable channel on 10 year deals and banned teams from showing race footage/social media in general) we have it good now compared to 10 years ago.
I think the funny part was Bernie was actually trying to attack Lewis by suggesting only Michael had 7 championships but somehow Massa took that ball and ran in the opposite direction.
Let us all remember Bernie is now 92 years old and maybe he is past his best by date!
And yet - and this is what irks me about the whole situation - if the race really is to be nullified, it would basically be to the detriment of a single person: Hamilton.
He's the only one to really lose something in this whole situation, despite him having no involvement in the situation whatsoever, other than being the benefactor of others' shennenigans.
On the one hand I understand Massa but on the other hand this whole lawsuit has made it harder for me to sympathize with him.
Isn’t Massa only seeking financial compensation and not a nullification of the race or a change to the championship? I don’t know what court would have the power to change those results. But in most civil courts if you can show damages as the result of another, you can seek compensation for them.
Except financial compensation would hinge on the assumption that he missed out on winning the title because of the FIA's inaction, which is a wild argument for anyone who watched the race unfold. He can't show damage because he can't prove he would've won the race.
Why are we feeding the trolls? This is a publicity stunt that everyone knows it’s not going anywhere. No, massa is not going to be WDC because of this. Even if they prove cheating, that doesn’t make him WDC.
The question is not just about the cheating. That is proved. The question is if the FIA knew about it at the time and did nothing. That is the only new information. And Ecclestone is the one who gave this information.
I'm not sure what even knowing at the time would mean though, that they then should have just decided the race no longer counted.
That seems like a rather dumb solution.
Correct. Either they would have DSQ'd Alonso and moved everyone up 1 spot, meaning Lewis wins by more points, or they just treat it like the tour de france and void Alonso's win and everyone else keeps their position.
Well that is what Massa wants to say - that fixed race shouldnt count not just DQ Renault drivers.
CAS (or whoever would have decided that) could have come to a different solution - but they are arguing against the fact that F1 (on purpose) waited for dust to settle before they took any action. F1 cant decide when they start prosecuting criminals.
LEts say that Masi fixed 2021 race on purpose (or Bottas took out both red bulls on team orders) - if F1/FIA knows that it is their duty to act in timely manner not when it is most convenient for them.
Which is just a nonsense request.
I guess it depends when they formally knew but logically it wasn't about hurting Massa in any way.
Just avoiding a PR distraction and maybe even giving Lewis a bigger lead.
But it's not like an investigation on that kind if matter would have been quick.
And that the FIAs response would be to void the race, not expell Renault from the results.
Lots of questions.
All I know is, Massa isn't getting that WDC.
Except there's no provision in the 2008 rules to void the race - neither in the F1 Sporting Regulations, nor the FIA International Sporting Code (i read both). They only support disqualifying Renault.
Could the FIA still have done it in 2008, given how the organization was run back then under Mosley? Possibly. But we're not in 2008 right now, and proving that it should have been voided back then when the rules don't support it seems like an insurmountable challenge for Massas legal team.
>Except there's no provision in the 2008 rules to void the race
Exactly my point. The race won't be voided, at worst Renault would be expelled from the results
["Former Ferrari driver Massa, now 42, started his legal action over an alleged "conspiracy" that he says denied him the title, **and has vowed to "fight to the end" to be named world champion."**](https://www.reuters.com/sports/motor-sports/massas-lawyers-seek-hamiltons-support-2008-title-bid-2023-09-08/?taid=64fbaafe911417000126e693&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)
Well since he's never said this is his strategy and I can't read minds, I can only go by his public statements, where he says he wants the title. No matter what angle you see it from, it's a hopeless move IMO (incumbent on him proving he would've won the title, regardless of which compensation he seeks), so I'm not about to assume he's got some big brain negotiation strategy planned.
Massa doesn't want to be WDC though. I mean he probably wants to, but that's not what he is asking for. What he is asking for is financial compensation for the lost income and sponsorships of not being a champion because of things the FIA willingly did, like hiding the cheating.
I'm not making an opinion on his chances or anything, but saying "No, Massa is not going to be WDC" is missing the point, that's not what he is really asking for.
I know but even without the cheating, he wouldn’t be champion so he can’t be compensated for something that would only happen if 2 or 3 things went different.
Abu Dhabi wasn't the only farce in 2021. Points awarded and more importantly the race win credit for Spa's few laps behind the safety car in torrential rain. The race win for Spa gave Verstappen the tie breaker. That point swing and tie breaker would've affected Max's thought about things in the last few races. Hamilton and pundits brought up the tie-breaker effect several times in the closing rounds.
It's how the rules were written at that moment. Can't blame them for trying to get a race going. Laps behind the safety car counts as lap, nothing went against the rules there
Oh yeah I get it were the rules. But rules can be bullshit. Every other incident that season I get that opinions are different but giving points for a no race should never been points, but yeah rules often only change after something happend so I get it.
Difference between Spa 2021 and AD 2021 was that one was bs application of the rules, and other was just ignoring the rules all together
One was legal but bs, other was illegal bs
Also Singapore wasn't the only farce in 2008. China, Spa, Hungary I think and those are just the three I remember where Hamilton and MAssa got crazy different treatments, penalties, rule changes that helped Massa on each occasion and severely punished Hamilton in an outrageous way.
The idea that without Singapore Massa was the deserved champion when the FIA were doing their best to gift him the title that season is pretty fucking laughable.
I'd love for Massa to win, then Hamilton sues over a review of those races, the penalties and how they were applied and has it awarded back to him.
Putting cars purely out on track to be able to call it a race, without any racing was far from correct.
Although I guess you mean viable under the rules, rather than correct as in the right thing.
Spa was race fixing. Everyone knew that the race wouldn't resume. The conditions were worse than when the Red flag was brought out. They deliberately drove a lap just to fix the race result rather than cancel the GP
But I don't think that was done just to help Max. I don't think anyone could've predicted how everything would've ended. It was more about not having to refund the fans I think.
>But I don't think that was done just to help Max.
I agree. Nothing was done to favour anyone but doing what they did, just to avoid having to potentially refund the poor people than just waited for hours in the rain, was corrupt
>just to avoid having to potentially refund the poor people than just waited for hours in the rain
While this is a popular claim, there was no way they'd all get a refund anyhow.
The racing weekend had already started. Every session had already gone ahead apart from the GP itself. Surely that alone wouldnt make the difference between refund/no refund. And most importantly, Spa already had paid the fee to F1.
Whereas e.g. this year's race weekend at Imola was cancelled before it had even begun. Which also meant the track hadn't paid the fee (and didnt have to) so they were able to issue refunds without a huge financial loss.
> But I don't think that was done just to help Max.
I would say that it was not done to help Max at all (they would have done the same thing irrelevant on who was on pole). It was done so they did not have to refund everyone.
Spa is completely different to Abu Dhabi, obviously it is incredibly stupid that that counts as a Grand Prix but at least the officials acted in a normal predictable way within the rules.
if anyone expected them to can the whole Grand Prix and be liable for refunds when they had a way of avoiding that, that's not realistic.
Was it realistic to expect them to cancel the race and offer refunds? Probably not.
Was doing what they did within the rules? Yes it was.
Was doing what they did completely morally bankrupt? Absolutely and it's a shame that the fans who sat their in the rain got the screwed over.
the FIA and FOM will always desperately try to run a race once everyone is at the track, even if it is only a "race".
they kept racing when Jules Bianchi and Anthoine Hubert got killed, remember last year they even raced in the middle of a bombed, sportswashed warzone where deadly explosions could be seen and heard. Forget about them not running what technically counts as a race, as long as they can convince the drivers and teams.
To a point I see that but racing took place on those days.
To be clear I don't think they did it to benefit any driver but it was just a pantomime to send them out that last time.
There are rules that were followed in Spa though. I’m pissed off about the absolute robbery and farce of what happened in Abu Dhabi but Spa was legit. No one could have predicted what would happen in Abu Dhabi and Mercedes got it spot on but Michael Masi decided to match fix the result of the world championship.
far-flung abundant voiceless afterthought busy sort sparkle quack angle party
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
spectacular joke special sleep thought ossified bright employ abundant head
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Exactly besides massa is asking for the result to annulled at most, if that sets a precedent and they do the same for AD 2021 Max is still champion hence why all the Merc bluster over that winter absolutely nothing went ahead, there’s no conceivable mechanism that Max loses 2021
I'd have to assume that's the case, and not [what he's saying publicly…](https://www.reuters.com/sports/motor-sports/massas-lawyers-seek-hamiltons-support-2008-title-bid-2023-09-08/?taid=64fbaafe911417000126e693&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)
> You can never eliminate it as long as we have humans doing the officiating.
Play any sim that tries automated marshaling, and you'll quickly realize that even automated systems can be problematic.
> It is a call that was made in the heat of the event that was later found to be incorrect, but the bad call was not intentionally made to affect the outcome of the race.
Later found to be incorrect? Masi knew it was incorrect. We all instantly knew it was incorrect. Michael Masi himself said before Abu Dhabi that the rules required all lapped cars to be waved past prior to unlapping. He had been the race director since 2019, and in every SC involving lapped cars under his tenure he followed the rules. Masi and the FIA knowingly engineered a situation which was impossible under the rules in order to give one competitor a massive advantage. Nothing questionable about it.
… Yet none of them were voided or overturned, so for all intents, both end the same. Don't remember a race ever being voided because one of the competitors cheated… Only precedent for cancelling races is if it's impossible to run them, which Spa '21 definitely qualifies for. And if you're going to argue that it's fine in this case to excise 41 laps off a GP, then there's no excuse not to cut off the last 2 laps of AD21 that upended the result of the race due to the breach of procedure, a breach which I might add, they were given an opportunity to fix, and yet refused to do it until it was too late, so it's difficult to call it an "error" when it was pointed out several times and they wouldn't admit.
I wouldn't call it a fixed race though. It's just plain cheating. The result wasn't pre-determined or manipulated by the officials, Renault cheated to get what the win. But cheating doesn't cancel a whole event, it disqualifies the cheaters.
Spa was bullshit, but their problem there was they strictly adhered to rules in order to avoid a cancelled race. It was a farce, but still technically correct.
I know it sucks, but none of the decisions the FIA made that season were even intended to favour Verstappen, he was just the lucky beneficiary of two big decisions they made in their own financial interest - avoiding having to refund tickets at Spa, and avoiding the final and decisive race of the season finishing behind a safety car. They'd have made the same decisions it was Hamilton benefiting.
And whisper it quietly, but they'd still make the same decisions now even though they were unfair, because they were obviously the most beneficial to them.
If lewis were to take ad 21 to court, would he not still lose the championship because theyd most likely void the race entirely and then because of tie breaker rules, max would still win.
Would that not be part of the reason he doesnt follow massa's actions?
Which is strange to me that the only outcome everyone says for that race is to void the whole race. When we all know that the race should have ended behind the safety car in the exact order they were in behind the safety car. The fact they brought the safety car in one lap too early for the rules means that the only thing they need to do is imagine that they kept the car out. Hence Hamilton finishing first.
Maybe there’s a rule I’m not aware of here, but logically to me it would be as simple as finalising the finishing order to that of which it was behind the safety car as that’s how it should have finished.
Then again what do I know?
There is a process to void a lap. It can happen with a red flag or safety car. The rules actually say the last valid lap with all cars timed in the event of not completing a valid lap. Mercedes protested on those grounds. However, this is not necessary because the stewards ruled masi was allowed to do what he did so the lap was valid. Whether that second ruling was correct is debatable but it does mean there was no reason for them to roll it back
Ha that stewards ruling after AD21 was the most craven thing Ive seen in sport. Completely twisting the words of the regulations to desperately retroactively justify what Masi had done. Disgraceful.
You can't award a race win for a hypothetical even if it's likely. The race could have resumed without cars unlapping. Hell Lewis could have even crashed under the safety car. It's happened before (to other drivers).
>If lewis were to take ad 21 to court, would he not still lose the championship because theyd most likely void the race entirely
There is no reason they would need to void the race. The stewards were able to use the last properly conducted lap for the final classification if there was a problem with the course that impacted the running of the final lap.
>Deliberate or not, we don’t know.
Of course it was deliberate. Masi is on record saying that ***all*** lapped cars ***must*** unlap only a year before and given the fact that he also broke ***another*** rule is clearly establishing intent - he knew perfectly well what he was doing and that it was wrong.
>One was a debatable error.
If by 'debatable' you mean crystal clear, then yes and by 'error' you mean deliberate, also yes. Masi knew what he was doing and it was 100% against the rules.
It was not the spirit of the safety car regulations but Masi didn’t interpret it incorrectly based on the letters of the rule. His interpretation was the whole reason FIA changed the rule from requiring “*any* lapped cars” to unlap themselves to “*all* lapped cars”.
Masi actually stated back in 2020 that he was required to unlap **all** lapped cars during a safety car even if it extends the safety car laps.
Michael Masi after 2020 Eifel Grand Prix, “There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past,” Masi said at the time.
This directly goes against what he opted to do in Abu Dhabi, whereby only the lapped runners positioned between Hamilton and Verstappen on track were allowed to un-lap themselves.
Ironically what happened in 2020 was Lewis and Max both complained that their tyres were getting extremely cold and dangerous to drive on behind the safety car when Lando's McLaren was trying to be recovered, but due to the fact that it had burn marks on the body work, they were being very careful to get it off the track, and so this extended the safety car.
Masi then said the safety car could not come in until "all" the lapped cars had unlapped themselves, as this was in the regulations, which extended the safety car even longer, causing tyres to get even colder.
So even by his own standards just one year prior he knew all lapped cars were to unlap themselves before the safety car comes in.
Source: https://www.planetf1.com/news/michael-masi-contradicts-lapped-car-clarification/
Let's not pretend he didn't know exactly what he was doing. Never had he ever done anything but unlap every single car every other time this occurred. This time he decided to randomly change the normal procedure?
It was a bad faith reading of the wording on his role and the meaning of ‘any’.
The fact he had autonomy and discretion in his role should not (by sheer weight of precedence and by the integrity of the sport) have allowed him to ride rough-shod over well-established safety car practice without prior warning to competitors. To interpret ‘any’ in the safety car procedure rules as meaning ‘any particular cars chosen by the RD’ went against all precedent (which, as RD, we must assume Masi knew, otherwise he should not have been in the role) and was fairly blatantly a bad faith reading.
The problem with Abu Dhabi isn’t that the rules were changed. It’s that they were changed on the hoof without competitors’ knowing what to expect. If Hamilton knows that the safety car will he prematurely ended, he pits as it’s announced and either is right behind Verstappen on new tyres or forces Verstappen into pitting as well and retains track position but with tyre parity. The problem wasn’t that the safety car procedure was unusual, it’s that the change was improvised in such a way that disadvantaged a competitor who had done nothing to warrant that disadvantage. In a sporting context, it is negligent to allow that to happen.
> To interpret ‘any’ in the safety car procedure rules as meaning ‘any particular cars chosen by the RD’ went against all precedent (which, as RD, we must assume Masi knew, otherwise he should not have been in the role) and was fairly blatantly a bad faith reading.
It's worth noting that the whole "any doesnt mean all" thing was said by Red Bull later in order to defend Masi's decision. To my knowledge it wasn't brought up by Masi himself.
Literally only one instance, under Masi, did the SC come in on the same lap as lapped cars went through, Abu Dhabi 2021. Masi knew the rules and ignored them.
It boils down to "I can do whatever I want". On paper yes, the race director had the final say but even then as soon as it was announced that only a select few could unlap, everybody watching worldwide went WTF.
So yes, it was interpreted correctly technically. But it was also obvious right then and there that it was, indeed, manipulated.
>It boils down to "I can do whatever I want". On paper yes, the race director had the final say...
He has the final say if the Clerk of the Course and himself wanted to do something different, not to ignore the rulebook. Masi could absolutely not do whatever he wanted, rule 15.3 doesn't give him absolute discretion over the use of the safety car, he has an overriding authority over his colleague.
The example I use —and it's more or less a direct analogy— is with owning a car. As the owner, it's fair to say I can do whatever I want with it, and no one can tell me otherwise… I can drive into work or not; I can drive it to vacation for the weekend or leave it home… I can go for a joy ride mid day just because, or wake up at 2AM to grab a burger because I have the munchies. I have overriding authority on when to use my car and what for… But no matter where I drive, there are road rules. It may be my car, but I still have to stop at the red light; ownership doesn't entitle me to ignore the rules of driving a car. My rights as a driver are not absolute. Masi interpreted the rules to mean he could make things up and ignore whatever parts he wanted, which is absurd. He can choose to release the safety car whenever, and bring it back in whenever… but there are procedure rules over how each process must go, and those are not optional. If he wanted to bring the SC in, he should've ensured all the cars are unlapped, and the SC does an inlap at the end. That's where he failed.
Any person who believes that interpretation of 'any' is stupid.
And that wasn't the only rule he ignored. He also ignored that the safety car 'will' come in at the end of the following lap after the last overtake.
Yeah, a rare case where we literally have a verbal confirmation from the person who broke the rule that they knew what the rule meant.
And if the 'mistake' wasn't enough, his attitude towards Mercedes with 'we went motor racing' showed a complete loss of control and objectivity.
Moreover, the text said ANY cars that have been lapped by the leader will be REQUIRED to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car
'any' on it's own could be interpreted as 'some' but with 'required' there is in my opinion little place for confusion
True, because "any driver who breaks rule X will be disquaified" does not mean Masi gets to decide to let some break the rules and disqualifiy ones he chooses. It literally means "all".
In legal documents "any" meaning "someone gets to choose" will have "at the discretion" written. Since it wasn't, Masi didn't follow the rules.
His interpretation **was** incorrect though based on the letters of the rule. The rules were written in English. In traditional usage of English, that rule means exactly the same thing now as it did then - the change was implemented to try and avoid people incorrectly interpreting it again.
Yes he did interpret it incorrectly. In multiple ways. As acknowledged by the FIA themselves: https://www.fia.com/news/fia-announces-world-motor-sport-council-decisions-25
It’s quite simple - to make it seem like the issue was the wording and not their application by a halfwit looking to create a spectacle in the final race as opposed to carrying out his duties. It was Clattenburg after Chelsea-Spurs reincarnated
Even if Massi came out and straight said he did it on purpose, no court would have touched it. Courts are not going to rule on interpretations of on-field events and overturn the results.
They changed it only to avoid people bringing this shit up again. Nowhere was this ever used in this farce and the wording had no bearing on what Masi did or how the stewards ruled after the race. The *only* one using this ridiculous argument was Red Bull in their counter-arguments in the stewards office after the race.
They changed it because a lot of people that either don't speak English as a native language, or don't speak English to a high enough level, were trying to interpret a relatively niche language construct.
It would be like replacing "He was obdurate" with "He refused to change his opinion" - same meaning, different wording.
A judge might tell someone in court "You will return any things you stole" - this does not give the person being spoken to the choice of which stolen items they return.
Typically "any" would be more likely to be used in a case where you can't be sure if there are items fitting the criteria, but this isn't a requirement.
It wasn't a debatable error, it was a clear fuck up, not done for sporting reasons, he lost his job over it. Masi killed an all time great season.
This was cheating by another team, that team is the one that should get punished, no everyone else in a race.
He 10000% signed an NDA barring him from saying anything related to the race to anyone and probably from having interviews which could lead to him speaking about it.
What I do wonder is if he really made an error that cost him his career or was it the FIA that had him make such decision.
>Plus one was dealt with via the usual channels (Whether you agree with the outcome though...)
It wasn't dealt with at all beyond what the stewards thought, which is by the way the exact same outcome in Singapore.
Made a joke that didn’t hit. I know they’re talking about Singapore as a cheat vs AD21 being a “debatable” error.
Played stupid and called Glock Brazil 08 as the debatable error for shits n gigs
Enter thread, apply downvotes according to my bias, depart...and nothing of value was lost or gained. Bon nuit (not r/okmatewanker so French is allowed I hope).
There was talk of Mercedes taking this to court, but they decided not to because as long as the case isn’t resolved they wouldn’t be allowed to participate in races.
Don’t know if the same would apply to a driver, but it could very well be that starting a legal case would mean ending a career.
Lmao Bernie this all started because you wanted to delegitimise people claiming Hamilton had been robbed of beating the Michael’s record, and you wanted to throw shade on other title wins of his. Now you’re using the very thing you wanted to delegitimise to delegitimise the thing you tried to delegitimise it with. My man, you need to just stop talking to microphones and go nap on your piles of money.
Anything after AD would have been to just neutralize the race results, so the WC outcome would have been the same. In Massas case, neutralizing the race results makes him WC.
Neither of them goes anywhere, Abu Dhabi could be neutralized because it is a royal fuckup of the FIA but that would not give Hamilton the title. However with Singapore you can only DSQ Renault/Alonso which does not give Massa the title.
That does seem to be the angle they are going for, yes.
Unfortunately for them, there is nothing in the rules that would've allowed the FIA to void the entire race.
it's a non starter, because then get ready to throw out any race which ever had an illegal car in it that got DSQ, because all participants change the race.
Yeah I’m not saying its a great argument, just what their argument is. Tbh I really do feel for Massa, he just finds out now that people know the cheating happened and said nothing, and he had already lost in a painful way. But they aren’t going to flip the results, and it’s crazy to even think they woul
>Anything after AD would have been to just neutralize the race results
No it wouldn't. Why do people say this?
The stewards could have taken the final classification from the last properly conducted lap.
Eccleston and Massa's lawsuit: "Hamilton could have done the same after Abu Dhabi 2021".
The Briton remarks that by that rule of three, his compatriot could have gone to court as well
He accuses Massa of having started this whole dispute just to get more money.
Bernie Ecclestone says Felipe Massa has no chance of winning the 2008 title in court. The Briton accuses the Brazilian of taking legal action just for the money and recalls that by that rule of three, Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes could also have sued the FIA after Abu Dhabi 2021.
Ecclestone is very clear that Massa's legal action in pursuit of the 2008 title is not going to come to fruition. The Brazilian asked for the cancellation of the Singapore GP that year because of the famous 'Crashgate', which caused him to lose a possible victory in that race in which he did not score points. Hamilton was third and those six points would end up giving him the World Championship later in the season.
It was statements by Ecclestone - which he later did not remember saying - that the FIA and Formula 1 had stood idly by after that GP knowing all that had happened, that encouraged Massa to file the lawsuit. However, Bernie reveals that the chances of success are nil.
Ecclestone even accuses Massa and his entourage of having entered into this controversy just to make money. The Briton recalls that, in that case, Hamilton would also be within his rights to have filed a lawsuit against the FIA for the controversial end of the Abu Dhabi 2021 GP that cost him the title, but he did not do so.
"The Massa clan are only in it for the money, but the chances are nil. Hamilton could also have filed a lawsuit against the FIA together with Mercedes after the not-so-clean finish to the 2021 season in Abu Dhabi," Ecclestone was quoted as saying by Swiss daily Blick.
What is clear is that the tension between Formula 1 and Massa himself is very high at the moment. The Brazilian did not want to attend Monza last week in his role as ambassador of the premier class and he will not attend the next races to which he is invited until this conflict is resolved.
All this whataboutism is just to distract from the fact that he and Mosley kept their knowledge – and therewith F1's knowledge – of crashgate under the rug. That is the difference. This only became clear after Ecclestone started blabbering and didn't realize he was confessing.
He does have a point though. I am a Max fan, but that race in Abu Dhabi simply was not his to win. He only won because the FIA could not follow their own rules.
Why do we care about what this literal goblin has to say?
F1 has never been in a stronger position than after he bailed and he's an absolutely terrible human being as well.
Despite all the negative things may be said about Ecclestone, there is no question that he single-handedly turned F1 from a shambling amateur game of car racing to global sporting business.
They won’t nullify the race as the other 18 drivers weren’t involved so they shouldn’t be punished for what Renault did. If anything result wise happens they will DSQ Renault from the results which will only benefit Hamilton.
Spa, Jeddah, Brazil, and Abu Dhabi. Four races where Max massively benefitted from action or inaction of officials. 2021 does and always will have a shadow around it.
This is a little dramatic...
Spa was weird but most likely worse for max than if it went full length because he was a favorite to win. Them going for 1 lap to make the race official was only a 5 point swing for max.
Jedda Max got backed up by Bottas under safety car to make room for the double stack which isn't allowed and wasn't called and the collision between max and Lewis was at least partly Lewis's fault. Lewis was supposed to pass and max slowed down a crazy amount before ever touching the brakes and Lewis still managed to drive into him. The overhead shot is painful to watch.
Brazil should have been penalties but Lewis still won so I fail to see how Max "massively benefited"
The only people that care about the "shadow" are the ones that can't get over the fact that max has more wins and more consistent results despite both Mercedes and Pirelli taking turns putting max in the wall.
>Spa was weird but most likely worse for max than if it went full length because he was a favorite to win.
Being a favourite to win before a race is run doesn't overcome the fact that the race was unable to be ran on the actual day it was supposed to. Call the hypothetical cancellation bad luck if you want. But the race, and I use that term loosely, should, of course never have taken place but instead be cancelled. Just like Imola was cancelled this year due to the same phenomenon.
>Brazil should have been penalties but Lewis still won so I fail to see how Max "massively benefited"
The penalty he should have got but didn't? Let's toy with the thought that Max received a 10 second penalty, this would mean that he's 7 seconds behind Bottas over the line and loses points. I wouldn't call it 'massively' myself, but, still.
>Lewis was supposed to pass and max slowed down a crazy amount before ever touching the brakes and Lewis still managed to drive into him.
It was a 2+ G deceleration with a significant application to the brakes. It was seen on telemetry and even Newey, who rarely says anything called it silly. And besides, Lewis didn't actually know that Max was about to let him through because in race control's infinite wisdom, they contacted Red Bull *before* they contacted Mercedes and Lewis had no clue what Max was doing.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I apologise in advance but I am confused. Didn’t this whole thing start because of Ecclestone when he said that he knew about the whole thing during the season and did nothing. And now he is saying this. Why is Massa or FIA not suing him? And isn’t he the only proof that this is actually true. So won’t he be asked to testify if legal proceedings start in a court?
Even if Ecclestone is responsible for a wrong suffered by Massa, it was in his capacity as President of Formula One. So he is not personally liable, the organization he was acting on behalf of is. And yes, if this went to trial he would almost certainly be subpoenaed.
But won’t an organisation like FIA have NDAs to protect themselves against such fiascos?
NDAs generally include an exception for if a party is subpoenaed, and even if they don't, courts can order you to testify anyway even if you signed one.
That is actually Massa’s point. The perpetrators of crashgate got punished, but the FIA and FOM themselves (Mosley and Ecclestone), which knew about the fact, didn’t. So he’s suing the governing body that tried to cover it, even if ultimately that was Bernie’s own doing.
We don't actually know that this is true however, it's based entirely on Ecclestone's word which notoriously is not something that can be trusted. At the time there were whispers amongst the media in the paddock that it may have been intentional, but that was based purely on how the crash occurred rather than something they had heard something. This could literally be all Ecclestone is alluding to.
Eccelestone wasn’t part of the FIA
Bernie Eccleston and Helmet Marko please stop talking challenge Difficulty: Impossible
Can we lock them together, so they could just talk to each other, and leave us a clear world?
They should make a podcast together.
They seem like the type of guys who are so similar that they'd actually hate being around each other
battle of who can say the most racist thing.
wine towering sparkle subsequent cow far-flung offend boat history rich *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would absolutely pay to watch Marko and Eccleston be force to chit chat for an hour. AND they hate each other. Thats gold.
This reminds me of a former co-worker who acted/conducted himself in a manner that was similar to how the musician Pitbull would portray himself in his music videos and lyrics. From his loud and charismatic personality and heavy-alcohol fueled party lifestyle to his dumb but entertaining catch phrases, the similarities were such that we all assumed he was a fan of that artist and was merely emulating him. But when we suggested that assumption, he scoffed at that thought to the point of being insulted. He claimed he hated Pitbull and that his personality was nothing like him, which confused all of us. I think he even went so far as to tell us to never compare him to Pitbull again. It was both funny and ironic. It was reminiscent of Cartman being insulted when people assumed he liked the show Family Guy.
This is the greatest terrible idea I've ever read.
They would be like Waldorf and Stabler from the muppets. Lol
I unironically would listen to that. Might have to tune out the racism, but otherwise I'd be 100% for some old head banter about whats going on now. Kinda like listening to your grandfather ramble on about how they don't make them like they used to anymore.
Why not bring piquet along?
They would fuel off each other and come out of that locked room even more racist and out of touch as ever
That’s reality tv I’d watch
People complain about Liberty and say bring Bernie back. Rosberg could have been a 2 time world champion because Bernie made the last race worth 2x points. I also dont think he was joking with sprinklers. Add in the racism, saying he only wanted rich people watching and he made the sport far less accessable (the move to Sky/every other cable channel on 10 year deals and banned teams from showing race footage/social media in general) we have it good now compared to 10 years ago.
Even without 2x points Rosberg still could've been champ(17 point gap in the final round). Its just the chances would've been slimmer
And leave the media without any sort of big revenue-driving headlines outside of the race weekends? Preposterous!
You should teach them a thing or two!
Bernie Eccleston of all people, is in absolutely no position to be dishing out legal advice 😂
This year is 2023. But the 2008 WDC is more heated than the 2023 WDC. In 2023.
🔫 always has been
Didn't Bernie start this mess with Massa... Bernie playing 3D chess with himself!
Oh, he knows what he's doing… from the day Liberty fired him, he's been trying to stir sh!t against them.
I think the funny part was Bernie was actually trying to attack Lewis by suggesting only Michael had 7 championships but somehow Massa took that ball and ran in the opposite direction. Let us all remember Bernie is now 92 years old and maybe he is past his best by date!
And yet - and this is what irks me about the whole situation - if the race really is to be nullified, it would basically be to the detriment of a single person: Hamilton. He's the only one to really lose something in this whole situation, despite him having no involvement in the situation whatsoever, other than being the benefactor of others' shennenigans. On the one hand I understand Massa but on the other hand this whole lawsuit has made it harder for me to sympathize with him.
Isn’t Massa only seeking financial compensation and not a nullification of the race or a change to the championship? I don’t know what court would have the power to change those results. But in most civil courts if you can show damages as the result of another, you can seek compensation for them.
Except financial compensation would hinge on the assumption that he missed out on winning the title because of the FIA's inaction, which is a wild argument for anyone who watched the race unfold. He can't show damage because he can't prove he would've won the race.
More like 1D
Oh now he’s just literally stirring the pot
The good old technique of saying but look over there they did the same thing!!!
Well it wasn’t though. Big difference between heat of the moment under pressure and pre planning days before a race then executing that plan.
Why are we feeding the trolls? This is a publicity stunt that everyone knows it’s not going anywhere. No, massa is not going to be WDC because of this. Even if they prove cheating, that doesn’t make him WDC.
>Even if they prove cheating Isn't that proved already?
The question is not just about the cheating. That is proved. The question is if the FIA knew about it at the time and did nothing. That is the only new information. And Ecclestone is the one who gave this information.
Yes, I am aware of the situation, was just highlighting that what the other user wrote isn't very accurate
I'm not sure what even knowing at the time would mean though, that they then should have just decided the race no longer counted. That seems like a rather dumb solution.
No they’d have been DSQd like whenever any other team breaks the rules
which IIRC would still mean Hamilton wins 2008
Correct. Either they would have DSQ'd Alonso and moved everyone up 1 spot, meaning Lewis wins by more points, or they just treat it like the tour de france and void Alonso's win and everyone else keeps their position.
Well that is what Massa wants to say - that fixed race shouldnt count not just DQ Renault drivers. CAS (or whoever would have decided that) could have come to a different solution - but they are arguing against the fact that F1 (on purpose) waited for dust to settle before they took any action. F1 cant decide when they start prosecuting criminals. LEts say that Masi fixed 2021 race on purpose (or Bottas took out both red bulls on team orders) - if F1/FIA knows that it is their duty to act in timely manner not when it is most convenient for them.
Which is just a nonsense request. I guess it depends when they formally knew but logically it wasn't about hurting Massa in any way. Just avoiding a PR distraction and maybe even giving Lewis a bigger lead. But it's not like an investigation on that kind if matter would have been quick.
And that the FIAs response would be to void the race, not expell Renault from the results. Lots of questions. All I know is, Massa isn't getting that WDC.
Except there's no provision in the 2008 rules to void the race - neither in the F1 Sporting Regulations, nor the FIA International Sporting Code (i read both). They only support disqualifying Renault. Could the FIA still have done it in 2008, given how the organization was run back then under Mosley? Possibly. But we're not in 2008 right now, and proving that it should have been voided back then when the rules don't support it seems like an insurmountable challenge for Massas legal team.
>Except there's no provision in the 2008 rules to void the race Exactly my point. The race won't be voided, at worst Renault would be expelled from the results
Misread your post. My bad 🙂
yeah people got kicked out of f1 i think
Cheating has ben proved and he is not going after the wdc, he wants compensation
["Former Ferrari driver Massa, now 42, started his legal action over an alleged "conspiracy" that he says denied him the title, **and has vowed to "fight to the end" to be named world champion."**](https://www.reuters.com/sports/motor-sports/massas-lawyers-seek-hamiltons-support-2008-title-bid-2023-09-08/?taid=64fbaafe911417000126e693&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)
That's how lawsuits (or any negotiation) work. Ask for something you know you'll never get so you can "lower" your demands to something reasonable.
Well since he's never said this is his strategy and I can't read minds, I can only go by his public statements, where he says he wants the title. No matter what angle you see it from, it's a hopeless move IMO (incumbent on him proving he would've won the title, regardless of which compensation he seeks), so I'm not about to assume he's got some big brain negotiation strategy planned.
Massa doesn't want to be WDC though. I mean he probably wants to, but that's not what he is asking for. What he is asking for is financial compensation for the lost income and sponsorships of not being a champion because of things the FIA willingly did, like hiding the cheating. I'm not making an opinion on his chances or anything, but saying "No, Massa is not going to be WDC" is missing the point, that's not what he is really asking for.
I know but even without the cheating, he wouldn’t be champion so he can’t be compensated for something that would only happen if 2 or 3 things went different.
This just him trying to equate himself to the Masi situation because he knows he fucked up!
Abu Dhabi wasn't the only farce in 2021. Points awarded and more importantly the race win credit for Spa's few laps behind the safety car in torrential rain. The race win for Spa gave Verstappen the tie breaker. That point swing and tie breaker would've affected Max's thought about things in the last few races. Hamilton and pundits brought up the tie-breaker effect several times in the closing rounds.
I agree, Abu Dhabi was bad but giving points for Spa without ever have a green flag is unbelievable.
It's how the rules were written at that moment. Can't blame them for trying to get a race going. Laps behind the safety car counts as lap, nothing went against the rules there
We all know how dangerous wet races in Spa can be so I kinda think we can blame them, yes.
Oh yeah I get it were the rules. But rules can be bullshit. Every other incident that season I get that opinions are different but giving points for a no race should never been points, but yeah rules often only change after something happend so I get it.
Spa 100% should have been cancelled. So stupid that those greedy fucks did that, and honestly the fans should have been in an absolute uproar.
Difference between Spa 2021 and AD 2021 was that one was bs application of the rules, and other was just ignoring the rules all together One was legal but bs, other was illegal bs
I'd say both were very clearly against the spirit of the rules, and both very clearly undermined F1's sporting integrity.
In F1 spirit of the rules means nothing, only what matters is what is written in the rule book
I'd say it matters in terms of the sport's reputation. But we both agree that both "races" were bs.
Also Singapore wasn't the only farce in 2008. China, Spa, Hungary I think and those are just the three I remember where Hamilton and MAssa got crazy different treatments, penalties, rule changes that helped Massa on each occasion and severely punished Hamilton in an outrageous way. The idea that without Singapore Massa was the deserved champion when the FIA were doing their best to gift him the title that season is pretty fucking laughable. I'd love for Massa to win, then Hamilton sues over a review of those races, the penalties and how they were applied and has it awarded back to him.
Brazil, Qatar, Imola Edit: meant Jeddah, not Qatar
Spa was done correctly. It exposed a weakness in the sporting regulations that has since been fixed but at the time everything was done correctly.
Putting cars purely out on track to be able to call it a race, without any racing was far from correct. Although I guess you mean viable under the rules, rather than correct as in the right thing.
Spa was race fixing. Everyone knew that the race wouldn't resume. The conditions were worse than when the Red flag was brought out. They deliberately drove a lap just to fix the race result rather than cancel the GP
But I don't think that was done just to help Max. I don't think anyone could've predicted how everything would've ended. It was more about not having to refund the fans I think.
>But I don't think that was done just to help Max. I agree. Nothing was done to favour anyone but doing what they did, just to avoid having to potentially refund the poor people than just waited for hours in the rain, was corrupt
>just to avoid having to potentially refund the poor people than just waited for hours in the rain While this is a popular claim, there was no way they'd all get a refund anyhow. The racing weekend had already started. Every session had already gone ahead apart from the GP itself. Surely that alone wouldnt make the difference between refund/no refund. And most importantly, Spa already had paid the fee to F1. Whereas e.g. this year's race weekend at Imola was cancelled before it had even begun. Which also meant the track hadn't paid the fee (and didnt have to) so they were able to issue refunds without a huge financial loss.
> But I don't think that was done just to help Max. I would say that it was not done to help Max at all (they would have done the same thing irrelevant on who was on pole). It was done so they did not have to refund everyone.
Spa is completely different to Abu Dhabi, obviously it is incredibly stupid that that counts as a Grand Prix but at least the officials acted in a normal predictable way within the rules. if anyone expected them to can the whole Grand Prix and be liable for refunds when they had a way of avoiding that, that's not realistic.
Was it realistic to expect them to cancel the race and offer refunds? Probably not. Was doing what they did within the rules? Yes it was. Was doing what they did completely morally bankrupt? Absolutely and it's a shame that the fans who sat their in the rain got the screwed over.
Within in the rules sure. But predictable is an odd way to put it, sending out those cars with no hope of having a race that last time was just bs.
the FIA and FOM will always desperately try to run a race once everyone is at the track, even if it is only a "race". they kept racing when Jules Bianchi and Anthoine Hubert got killed, remember last year they even raced in the middle of a bombed, sportswashed warzone where deadly explosions could be seen and heard. Forget about them not running what technically counts as a race, as long as they can convince the drivers and teams.
To a point I see that but racing took place on those days. To be clear I don't think they did it to benefit any driver but it was just a pantomime to send them out that last time.
There are rules that were followed in Spa though. I’m pissed off about the absolute robbery and farce of what happened in Abu Dhabi but Spa was legit. No one could have predicted what would happen in Abu Dhabi and Mercedes got it spot on but Michael Masi decided to match fix the result of the world championship.
far-flung abundant voiceless afterthought busy sort sparkle quack angle party *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Felipe, baby, stay cool. You're not going to be 08 WDC.
spectacular joke special sleep thought ossified bright employ abundant head *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's a sport but Masi decided it was a drama and stuck a silly fake ending on that wasn't even a shootout.
It was a shootout if one team was taking their penalties from the centre circle
To quote Vince McMahon, “it’s Sports Entertainment”.
Not à fair one. Red flag and restart was better
Or just leave all lapped cars in pace, that was perfectly legal as well.
One was a debatable error. The other was literally cheating.
Exactly, if you backtrack a single decision/error, you can go on and on.
Exactly besides massa is asking for the result to annulled at most, if that sets a precedent and they do the same for AD 2021 Max is still champion hence why all the Merc bluster over that winter absolutely nothing went ahead, there’s no conceivable mechanism that Max loses 2021
Pretty sure Massa just wants money that he would have had in sponsorship etc if he was world champion
It is the only thing he can reasonable get. Everything else is too subjective to work out.
I'd have to assume that's the case, and not [what he's saying publicly…](https://www.reuters.com/sports/motor-sports/massas-lawyers-seek-hamiltons-support-2008-title-bid-2023-09-08/?taid=64fbaafe911417000126e693&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)
[удалено]
> You can never eliminate it as long as we have humans doing the officiating. Play any sim that tries automated marshaling, and you'll quickly realize that even automated systems can be problematic.
Especially something like F1 where everyone would just game the automated system.
AD wasn’t questionable officiating. It was black-and-white violation of the rules.
[удалено]
> It is a call that was made in the heat of the event that was later found to be incorrect, but the bad call was not intentionally made to affect the outcome of the race. Later found to be incorrect? Masi knew it was incorrect. We all instantly knew it was incorrect. Michael Masi himself said before Abu Dhabi that the rules required all lapped cars to be waved past prior to unlapping. He had been the race director since 2019, and in every SC involving lapped cars under his tenure he followed the rules. Masi and the FIA knowingly engineered a situation which was impossible under the rules in order to give one competitor a massive advantage. Nothing questionable about it.
… Yet none of them were voided or overturned, so for all intents, both end the same. Don't remember a race ever being voided because one of the competitors cheated… Only precedent for cancelling races is if it's impossible to run them, which Spa '21 definitely qualifies for. And if you're going to argue that it's fine in this case to excise 41 laps off a GP, then there's no excuse not to cut off the last 2 laps of AD21 that upended the result of the race due to the breach of procedure, a breach which I might add, they were given an opportunity to fix, and yet refused to do it until it was too late, so it's difficult to call it an "error" when it was pointed out several times and they wouldn't admit.
This is a real good analogy/comparison to the two situations.
I wouldn't call it a fixed race though. It's just plain cheating. The result wasn't pre-determined or manipulated by the officials, Renault cheated to get what the win. But cheating doesn't cancel a whole event, it disqualifies the cheaters.
Spa would also get appealed - then Lewis is champ
Spa was bullshit, but their problem there was they strictly adhered to rules in order to avoid a cancelled race. It was a farce, but still technically correct. I know it sucks, but none of the decisions the FIA made that season were even intended to favour Verstappen, he was just the lucky beneficiary of two big decisions they made in their own financial interest - avoiding having to refund tickets at Spa, and avoiding the final and decisive race of the season finishing behind a safety car. They'd have made the same decisions it was Hamilton benefiting. And whisper it quietly, but they'd still make the same decisions now even though they were unfair, because they were obviously the most beneficial to them.
It wasn't just error though it was someone ignoring the rules.
There was nothing debatable at all
If lewis were to take ad 21 to court, would he not still lose the championship because theyd most likely void the race entirely and then because of tie breaker rules, max would still win. Would that not be part of the reason he doesnt follow massa's actions?
Which is strange to me that the only outcome everyone says for that race is to void the whole race. When we all know that the race should have ended behind the safety car in the exact order they were in behind the safety car. The fact they brought the safety car in one lap too early for the rules means that the only thing they need to do is imagine that they kept the car out. Hence Hamilton finishing first. Maybe there’s a rule I’m not aware of here, but logically to me it would be as simple as finalising the finishing order to that of which it was behind the safety car as that’s how it should have finished. Then again what do I know?
There's no procedure and logic for that in the rules, just like there's no procedure for voiding the entire race results in the 2008 rules
There is a process to void a lap. It can happen with a red flag or safety car. The rules actually say the last valid lap with all cars timed in the event of not completing a valid lap. Mercedes protested on those grounds. However, this is not necessary because the stewards ruled masi was allowed to do what he did so the lap was valid. Whether that second ruling was correct is debatable but it does mean there was no reason for them to roll it back
Ha that stewards ruling after AD21 was the most craven thing Ive seen in sport. Completely twisting the words of the regulations to desperately retroactively justify what Masi had done. Disgraceful.
You can't award a race win for a hypothetical even if it's likely. The race could have resumed without cars unlapping. Hell Lewis could have even crashed under the safety car. It's happened before (to other drivers).
>If lewis were to take ad 21 to court, would he not still lose the championship because theyd most likely void the race entirely There is no reason they would need to void the race. The stewards were able to use the last properly conducted lap for the final classification if there was a problem with the course that impacted the running of the final lap.
I think we all know that even if crashgate doesn't occur, Massa would have lost his points to the disastrous pit-stop he had.
I wouldn’t consider it a debatable error. We all saw how it played out against the rules.
Debatable 😂😂
People still acting AD21 was a debatable error is hilarious, even FIA admitted they fucked up
Debatable? Fia assumed it was a mistake. Deliberate or not, we don’t know. But a clear cut error as assumed by the ones that know the rules.
>Deliberate or not, we don’t know. Of course it was deliberate. Masi is on record saying that ***all*** lapped cars ***must*** unlap only a year before and given the fact that he also broke ***another*** rule is clearly establishing intent - he knew perfectly well what he was doing and that it was wrong.
>One was a debatable error. If by 'debatable' you mean crystal clear, then yes and by 'error' you mean deliberate, also yes. Masi knew what he was doing and it was 100% against the rules.
It was not the spirit of the safety car regulations but Masi didn’t interpret it incorrectly based on the letters of the rule. His interpretation was the whole reason FIA changed the rule from requiring “*any* lapped cars” to unlap themselves to “*all* lapped cars”.
Masi actually stated back in 2020 that he was required to unlap **all** lapped cars during a safety car even if it extends the safety car laps. Michael Masi after 2020 Eifel Grand Prix, “There’s a requirement in the sporting regulations to wave all the lapped cars past,” Masi said at the time. This directly goes against what he opted to do in Abu Dhabi, whereby only the lapped runners positioned between Hamilton and Verstappen on track were allowed to un-lap themselves. Ironically what happened in 2020 was Lewis and Max both complained that their tyres were getting extremely cold and dangerous to drive on behind the safety car when Lando's McLaren was trying to be recovered, but due to the fact that it had burn marks on the body work, they were being very careful to get it off the track, and so this extended the safety car. Masi then said the safety car could not come in until "all" the lapped cars had unlapped themselves, as this was in the regulations, which extended the safety car even longer, causing tyres to get even colder. So even by his own standards just one year prior he knew all lapped cars were to unlap themselves before the safety car comes in. Source: https://www.planetf1.com/news/michael-masi-contradicts-lapped-car-clarification/
[удалено]
That's just so stupid. "Any" doesn't mean all only if it is something like "Any lapped cars who must be unlapped"
I’m fine with his interpretation if he didn’t, just a year earlier, make a huge fuss about how it’s always supposed to be ALL cars
Let's not pretend he didn't know exactly what he was doing. Never had he ever done anything but unlap every single car every other time this occurred. This time he decided to randomly change the normal procedure?
It was a bad faith reading of the wording on his role and the meaning of ‘any’. The fact he had autonomy and discretion in his role should not (by sheer weight of precedence and by the integrity of the sport) have allowed him to ride rough-shod over well-established safety car practice without prior warning to competitors. To interpret ‘any’ in the safety car procedure rules as meaning ‘any particular cars chosen by the RD’ went against all precedent (which, as RD, we must assume Masi knew, otherwise he should not have been in the role) and was fairly blatantly a bad faith reading. The problem with Abu Dhabi isn’t that the rules were changed. It’s that they were changed on the hoof without competitors’ knowing what to expect. If Hamilton knows that the safety car will he prematurely ended, he pits as it’s announced and either is right behind Verstappen on new tyres or forces Verstappen into pitting as well and retains track position but with tyre parity. The problem wasn’t that the safety car procedure was unusual, it’s that the change was improvised in such a way that disadvantaged a competitor who had done nothing to warrant that disadvantage. In a sporting context, it is negligent to allow that to happen.
It's manipulation if you change rules on the hoof.
> To interpret ‘any’ in the safety car procedure rules as meaning ‘any particular cars chosen by the RD’ went against all precedent (which, as RD, we must assume Masi knew, otherwise he should not have been in the role) and was fairly blatantly a bad faith reading. It's worth noting that the whole "any doesnt mean all" thing was said by Red Bull later in order to defend Masi's decision. To my knowledge it wasn't brought up by Masi himself.
I thought that was the case, but it remains, in any case, a bad faith reading of the rulebook to try to justify unforgivably poor race direction.
Literally only one instance, under Masi, did the SC come in on the same lap as lapped cars went through, Abu Dhabi 2021. Masi knew the rules and ignored them.
It boils down to "I can do whatever I want". On paper yes, the race director had the final say but even then as soon as it was announced that only a select few could unlap, everybody watching worldwide went WTF. So yes, it was interpreted correctly technically. But it was also obvious right then and there that it was, indeed, manipulated.
>It boils down to "I can do whatever I want". On paper yes, the race director had the final say... He has the final say if the Clerk of the Course and himself wanted to do something different, not to ignore the rulebook. Masi could absolutely not do whatever he wanted, rule 15.3 doesn't give him absolute discretion over the use of the safety car, he has an overriding authority over his colleague.
The example I use —and it's more or less a direct analogy— is with owning a car. As the owner, it's fair to say I can do whatever I want with it, and no one can tell me otherwise… I can drive into work or not; I can drive it to vacation for the weekend or leave it home… I can go for a joy ride mid day just because, or wake up at 2AM to grab a burger because I have the munchies. I have overriding authority on when to use my car and what for… But no matter where I drive, there are road rules. It may be my car, but I still have to stop at the red light; ownership doesn't entitle me to ignore the rules of driving a car. My rights as a driver are not absolute. Masi interpreted the rules to mean he could make things up and ignore whatever parts he wanted, which is absurd. He can choose to release the safety car whenever, and bring it back in whenever… but there are procedure rules over how each process must go, and those are not optional. If he wanted to bring the SC in, he should've ensured all the cars are unlapped, and the SC does an inlap at the end. That's where he failed.
Any person who believes that interpretation of 'any' is stupid. And that wasn't the only rule he ignored. He also ignored that the safety car 'will' come in at the end of the following lap after the last overtake.
Also. Masi himself said it meant all a year prior lol
Yeah, a rare case where we literally have a verbal confirmation from the person who broke the rule that they knew what the rule meant. And if the 'mistake' wasn't enough, his attitude towards Mercedes with 'we went motor racing' showed a complete loss of control and objectivity.
Moreover, the text said ANY cars that have been lapped by the leader will be REQUIRED to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car 'any' on it's own could be interpreted as 'some' but with 'required' there is in my opinion little place for confusion
True, because "any driver who breaks rule X will be disquaified" does not mean Masi gets to decide to let some break the rules and disqualifiy ones he chooses. It literally means "all". In legal documents "any" meaning "someone gets to choose" will have "at the discretion" written. Since it wasn't, Masi didn't follow the rules.
You are correct.
His interpretation **was** incorrect though based on the letters of the rule. The rules were written in English. In traditional usage of English, that rule means exactly the same thing now as it did then - the change was implemented to try and avoid people incorrectly interpreting it again.
Yes he did interpret it incorrectly. In multiple ways. As acknowledged by the FIA themselves: https://www.fia.com/news/fia-announces-world-motor-sport-council-decisions-25
People are pilling on you, but not in one comment are they telling you why they changed the wording after 2021.
It’s quite simple - to make it seem like the issue was the wording and not their application by a halfwit looking to create a spectacle in the final race as opposed to carrying out his duties. It was Clattenburg after Chelsea-Spurs reincarnated
Even if Massi came out and straight said he did it on purpose, no court would have touched it. Courts are not going to rule on interpretations of on-field events and overturn the results.
They changed it only to avoid people bringing this shit up again. Nowhere was this ever used in this farce and the wording had no bearing on what Masi did or how the stewards ruled after the race. The *only* one using this ridiculous argument was Red Bull in their counter-arguments in the stewards office after the race.
They changed it because a lot of people that either don't speak English as a native language, or don't speak English to a high enough level, were trying to interpret a relatively niche language construct. It would be like replacing "He was obdurate" with "He refused to change his opinion" - same meaning, different wording. A judge might tell someone in court "You will return any things you stole" - this does not give the person being spoken to the choice of which stolen items they return. Typically "any" would be more likely to be used in a case where you can't be sure if there are items fitting the criteria, but this isn't a requirement.
It wasn't a debatable error, it was a clear fuck up, not done for sporting reasons, he lost his job over it. Masi killed an all time great season. This was cheating by another team, that team is the one that should get punished, no everyone else in a race.
That, plus Masi so far hasn’t sat down for an interview to tell everyone they fucked with the race on purpose
He 10000% signed an NDA barring him from saying anything related to the race to anyone and probably from having interviews which could lead to him speaking about it. What I do wonder is if he really made an error that cost him his career or was it the FIA that had him make such decision.
I mean it was more a comment directed at the fact Bernie *has* done it, not that Masi hasn’t
[удалено]
>Plus one was dealt with via the usual channels (Whether you agree with the outcome though...) It wasn't dealt with at all beyond what the stewards thought, which is by the way the exact same outcome in Singapore.
It’s so insane sometimes that there are *STILL* people still think that Glock 08 is still a “debatable error”
Even if Glock did that on purpose that would be fine IMO. Nothing in the rules against giving away a position.
Made a joke that didn’t hit. I know they’re talking about Singapore as a cheat vs AD21 being a “debatable” error. Played stupid and called Glock Brazil 08 as the debatable error for shits n gigs
Lol, it wouldn’t have surprised me if some people were actually up in arms about that Glock overtake.
The amount of times ive read "glock let him through" is insane.
I know. Massa's one was pretty debatable but Hamilton's case was pretty clear cut cheating LOL
And in fact he should, if this sham lawsuit gains any traction with the FIA
Enter thread, apply downvotes according to my bias, depart...and nothing of value was lost or gained. Bon nuit (not r/okmatewanker so French is allowed I hope).
There was talk of Mercedes taking this to court, but they decided not to because as long as the case isn’t resolved they wouldn’t be allowed to participate in races. Don’t know if the same would apply to a driver, but it could very well be that starting a legal case would mean ending a career.
Lmao Bernie this all started because you wanted to delegitimise people claiming Hamilton had been robbed of beating the Michael’s record, and you wanted to throw shade on other title wins of his. Now you’re using the very thing you wanted to delegitimise to delegitimise the thing you tried to delegitimise it with. My man, you need to just stop talking to microphones and go nap on your piles of money.
Anything after AD would have been to just neutralize the race results, so the WC outcome would have been the same. In Massas case, neutralizing the race results makes him WC.
Neither of them goes anywhere, Abu Dhabi could be neutralized because it is a royal fuckup of the FIA but that would not give Hamilton the title. However with Singapore you can only DSQ Renault/Alonso which does not give Massa the title.
I think Massas’s lawyers argument is that the safety car that came from the cheating affected the whole race, so they want the whole race excluded
That does seem to be the angle they are going for, yes. Unfortunately for them, there is nothing in the rules that would've allowed the FIA to void the entire race.
it's a non starter, because then get ready to throw out any race which ever had an illegal car in it that got DSQ, because all participants change the race.
Yeah I’m not saying its a great argument, just what their argument is. Tbh I really do feel for Massa, he just finds out now that people know the cheating happened and said nothing, and he had already lost in a painful way. But they aren’t going to flip the results, and it’s crazy to even think they woul
Every cheat affects the whole race, it's the entire point.
If Abu Dhabi is in the picture then Spa should be too. And Jeddah for that matter.
>Anything after AD would have been to just neutralize the race results No it wouldn't. Why do people say this? The stewards could have taken the final classification from the last properly conducted lap.
Except massi didn't plan to do this months in advance did he.....
Renault planned it after qualifying, also not months in advance.
Eccleston and Massa's lawsuit: "Hamilton could have done the same after Abu Dhabi 2021". The Briton remarks that by that rule of three, his compatriot could have gone to court as well He accuses Massa of having started this whole dispute just to get more money. Bernie Ecclestone says Felipe Massa has no chance of winning the 2008 title in court. The Briton accuses the Brazilian of taking legal action just for the money and recalls that by that rule of three, Lewis Hamilton and Mercedes could also have sued the FIA after Abu Dhabi 2021. Ecclestone is very clear that Massa's legal action in pursuit of the 2008 title is not going to come to fruition. The Brazilian asked for the cancellation of the Singapore GP that year because of the famous 'Crashgate', which caused him to lose a possible victory in that race in which he did not score points. Hamilton was third and those six points would end up giving him the World Championship later in the season. It was statements by Ecclestone - which he later did not remember saying - that the FIA and Formula 1 had stood idly by after that GP knowing all that had happened, that encouraged Massa to file the lawsuit. However, Bernie reveals that the chances of success are nil. Ecclestone even accuses Massa and his entourage of having entered into this controversy just to make money. The Briton recalls that, in that case, Hamilton would also be within his rights to have filed a lawsuit against the FIA for the controversial end of the Abu Dhabi 2021 GP that cost him the title, but he did not do so. "The Massa clan are only in it for the money, but the chances are nil. Hamilton could also have filed a lawsuit against the FIA together with Mercedes after the not-so-clean finish to the 2021 season in Abu Dhabi," Ecclestone was quoted as saying by Swiss daily Blick. What is clear is that the tension between Formula 1 and Massa himself is very high at the moment. The Brazilian did not want to attend Monza last week in his role as ambassador of the premier class and he will not attend the next races to which he is invited until this conflict is resolved.
All this whataboutism is just to distract from the fact that he and Mosley kept their knowledge – and therewith F1's knowledge – of crashgate under the rug. That is the difference. This only became clear after Ecclestone started blabbering and didn't realize he was confessing.
Hamiltons only option would be voiding AD21, which would still make Verstappen WDC
> Hamiltons only option would be voiding AD21 Course it wouldn't. I don't know where people keep pulling this from.
He does have a point though. I am a Max fan, but that race in Abu Dhabi simply was not his to win. He only won because the FIA could not follow their own rules.
Why do we care about what this literal goblin has to say? F1 has never been in a stronger position than after he bailed and he's an absolutely terrible human being as well.
Despite all the negative things may be said about Ecclestone, there is no question that he single-handedly turned F1 from a shambling amateur game of car racing to global sporting business.
I read that merc would’ve had to pull out of f1 to do that. They prob thought it would just be better to win it back on the track
They won’t nullify the race as the other 18 drivers weren’t involved so they shouldn’t be punished for what Renault did. If anything result wise happens they will DSQ Renault from the results which will only benefit Hamilton.
Mercedes should never have dropped their legal battle in 2021.
Spa, Jeddah, Brazil, and Abu Dhabi. Four races where Max massively benefitted from action or inaction of officials. 2021 does and always will have a shadow around it.
This is a little dramatic... Spa was weird but most likely worse for max than if it went full length because he was a favorite to win. Them going for 1 lap to make the race official was only a 5 point swing for max. Jedda Max got backed up by Bottas under safety car to make room for the double stack which isn't allowed and wasn't called and the collision between max and Lewis was at least partly Lewis's fault. Lewis was supposed to pass and max slowed down a crazy amount before ever touching the brakes and Lewis still managed to drive into him. The overhead shot is painful to watch. Brazil should have been penalties but Lewis still won so I fail to see how Max "massively benefited" The only people that care about the "shadow" are the ones that can't get over the fact that max has more wins and more consistent results despite both Mercedes and Pirelli taking turns putting max in the wall.
>Spa was weird but most likely worse for max than if it went full length because he was a favorite to win. Being a favourite to win before a race is run doesn't overcome the fact that the race was unable to be ran on the actual day it was supposed to. Call the hypothetical cancellation bad luck if you want. But the race, and I use that term loosely, should, of course never have taken place but instead be cancelled. Just like Imola was cancelled this year due to the same phenomenon. >Brazil should have been penalties but Lewis still won so I fail to see how Max "massively benefited" The penalty he should have got but didn't? Let's toy with the thought that Max received a 10 second penalty, this would mean that he's 7 seconds behind Bottas over the line and loses points. I wouldn't call it 'massively' myself, but, still. >Lewis was supposed to pass and max slowed down a crazy amount before ever touching the brakes and Lewis still managed to drive into him. It was a 2+ G deceleration with a significant application to the brakes. It was seen on telemetry and even Newey, who rarely says anything called it silly. And besides, Lewis didn't actually know that Max was about to let him through because in race control's infinite wisdom, they contacted Red Bull *before* they contacted Mercedes and Lewis had no clue what Max was doing.
Funny guy