Lewis Hamilton - Double Standards?

[teabagyokel]

I can't help but think that maybe we (the viewing public and F1 site members, in particular) are partly to blame - leaping to Lewis's defence all the time gives the wrong impression and if we were a little more laid back there would not be so much publicity.

No chance. We're reactive and not proactive in this.

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

But, Ray, they are taking one incident at a time and finding a way to blame Lewis for the damn lot of them.

The Massa (Monza) and Webber (Singapore) incidents and the Button (Montreal) and Kobayashi (Spa) incidents were straight reversals of each other. Hamilton was eliminated on all four occasions (which was unfortuanate) and pilloried for all of them.

You cannot contend that Lewis was to blame in all of these incidents, because you're not being consistent.

Well, I'm NOT blaming him for all these incidents. You're preaching to the converted.

 

[Jen]

You can't have a rule that flexes when it is seen who is involved.

This is going to go a little of topic but I see a correlation between two drivers - Lewis and the other being Alonso.

Certain sectors say that Lewis must be responsible for some/all his misfortunes (because he has had so many) and other sectors say Alonso must be dirty because his name has been linked to so many '...gates'.

Can we/should we defend one driver and not the other?

Complex matters and complex drivers - and we all agree that F1 drivers are not like other men.

Flexible rules are 'de riguer' in F1 and always have been; as is fan/pundit/commentator opinion.

 

[Jen]

No chance. We're reactive and not proactive in this.

We may have been reactive the first couple of times - then a pattern sets in and is picked up by a wider audience and a cycle is created. That's how the media works - I won't be so rude as to put a smiley in though

 

[KekeTheKing]

I can't help but think that maybe we (the viewing public and F1 site members, in particular) are partly to blame - leaping to Lewis's defence all the time gives the wrong impression and if we were a little more laid back there would not be so much publicity.

Very interesting Jen. Kind of a chicken and the egg thing huh?

I'm just not sure which one Lewis is.

 

[Hamberg]

He's the scapegoat Keke.

 

[Jen]

Very interesting Jen. Kind of a chicken and the egg thing huh?

I'm just not sure which one Lewis is.

Both, of course!

It is the reaction - his, theirs and ours - that is causing all the problems.

 

[Jen]

He's the scapegoat Keke.

For the moment, it would seem.

 

[Fenderman]

Both, of course!

It is the reaction - his, theirs and ours - that is causing all the problems.

More ours and theirs rather than his, I suggest. He seems to have no choice since any reaction he makes will be found by someone to be wrong.

The old addage springs to mind: "You can please some of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but none of the people all of the time". (or something like that)

 

[Fenderman]

This is a question not just with regard to Hamilton but something others have noted before about incidents, investigated or otherwise:

How is it that we very rarely get to see the in-car footage of an incident from both cars involved in incidents? ... or is this just a quirk of perception on our part? I mean, where is Maldonado and Kobayashi in-car footage? ... I wonder

 

[RayInTorontoCanada]

Cause they're not winners? Cause they don't drive for big teams? Cause they aren't big names who get paid lots?

 

[Fenderman]

Cause they're not winners? Cause they don't drive for big teams? Cause they aren't big names who get paid lots?

Could be ...

Seriously, though, my question runs deeper. The regulations require all F1 cars to carry onboard cameras. Cameras mounted above the drivers head and on the nose cone are compulsory. Charlie Whiting and the Stewards can see the footage from any car, at any time and FOM, who's feed we ultimately receive, can transmit footage from any camera on any car during the race. It just seems strange that, in this new Todt era of openness and transparency, we still get drip fed with regard to what takes place in the Stewards room and what Bernie's bunch deem permissible for us to see.

Of course, giving the FIA, FOM, etc. the benefit of the doubt, it might just be their way of giving us more entertainment by virtue of mysteries for us to solve.

Nah, that theory is more hairy, round things, often kicked for comedic effect, I suspect.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

I just wish Hamilton himself would publicly say that he was blamed for the Webber collision, Massa collision, for driving into a wedge with Button and then for Kobayashi driving into his wedge. Then ask how can be wrong in them all. One more incident blaming Hamilton really would just be the nail in the coffin (unless he is to blame) and confirm the fact that everybody in F1 jumps the gun and it's Hamilton being too aggressive.

 

[Fenderman]

I like the sentiment but I think his fans and neutral's (for believe it or not, I am no-one's fan) are more than happy to do that for him. We have both an advantage and a curse, for we are on the outside looking in and it's only our own prejudices that paint a picture one way or another. Which is why I really get the goat with this so called transparency from the FIA. We still do not get access to a true record of why Stewards decisions go the way they do and until that happens we will always have to defend drivers (our favourites or otherwise) in the face of controversy and perceived injustice.

 

[no-FIAt-please]

Definatley agree with you there Fenderman, stewards should fully publish their findings so we the fans can better understand why decisions are made.

 

[mjo]

He is also responsible for regularly forcing drivers, who he has well and truly overtaken and left behind, off the track. I think that is a particularly nasty trait. What on Earth is he thinking about? Driving his racing car? Dear God!

Edit: Oh, and I forgot, he's also to blame for being there in the first place.

2008 italian grand prix.

 

[mjo]

I just wish Hamilton himself would publicly say that he was blamed for the Webber collision, Massa collision, for driving into a wedge with Button and then for Kobayashi driving into his wedge. Then ask how can be wrong in them all. One more incident blaming Hamilton really would just be the nail in the coffin (unless he is to blame) and confirm the fact that everybody in F1 jumps the gun and it's Hamilton being too aggressive.

Yes, but for half of these, many people agreed that Hamilton was to blame for these incidents. (Massa and Button incidents). So you can't really count those two, as they are generally agreed to be his fault. As for double standards, it all comes down to reputation. As Hamilton has a history of an aggressive driving style, and been involved in the incidents mentioned above, it is almost always assumed that he has some blame - precisely why a jury in a court isn't allowed to know the defendant's history.

 

[Fenderman]

Yup, mjo, that's the very race! I should have put that in the "Single Question Quiz!"

 

[mjo]

Yup, mjo, that's the very race! I should have put that in the "Single Question Quiz!"

Wasn't it with Webber and Glock at that race, and Massa at the 2008 german grand prix?

 

[Fenderman]

As Hamilton has a history of an aggressive driving style, and been involved in the incidents mentioned above, it is almost always assumed that he has some blame - precisely why a jury in a court isn't allowed to know the defendant's history.

All part of the mythology. If anyone can tell me who in top flight racing doesn't have an aggressive driving style I would dearly like to hear it. Can't we for once put this cack of an idea to bed. Some drivers may be weaker, meeker, harder or stronger than others but if you're going to win Grands Prix and championships you're either aggressive or you're out. Ask Michael Schumacher!

We are talking about double standards here, evidence of which is added to the pile after every Grand Prix. When does mythology become truth and history and when does it just become prejudice (and I'm not talking about racism - that prejudice starts before a guy has any history or mythology).

By the way, the Massa and Button incidents are not generally agreed to be his fault. Those incidents are as debatable as the rest of them. If you recall, in Buttons case he apologised to Lewis.