F1 Betting: Hamilton waits to learn fate as appeal looms

Formula One / David Croft / 19 September 2008 / Leave a Comment

The F1 Court of Appeal judges are an unpredictable bunch who have been known to overturn and, in some cases, increase steward's penalties. David Croft looks at the different fates which could await Lewis Hamilton.

With four races to go the Formula 1 Drivers Championship currently looks: like this

Lewis Hamilton: 78 points
Felipe Massa: 77 points
Robert Kubica: 64 points
Kimi Raikkonen: 57 points

On Monday or, more likely, Tuesday of next week it could look like this:

Lewis Hamilton: 82 points
Felipe Massa: 75 points
Robert Kubica: 64 points
Kimi Raikkonen: 57 points

It all depends on the view of the three judges sitting in Paris at the FIA International Court of Appeal when Mclaren present their case and try to overturn one of the most controversial stewards rulings of the season.

In handing Lewis Hamilton a 25 second penalty for gaining an advantage by cutting the final chicane three laps before the end of the Belgian Grand Prix, the stewards at Spa have stirred up a huge controversy and left those backing Lewis Hamilton for the title a little more frayed round the edges than necessary. The British driver is currently a [1.74] chance with Betfair, expect that price to shorten if his team are successful next week, but what are their chances? Felipe Massa meanwhile is a [2.58] chance to become champion.

Stewards decisions have been overturned in the past - back in 1997 for instance after the stewards in Jerez decided that Michael Schumacher's collision with Jacques Villeneuve was a racing incident the Court of Appeal disagreed and disqualified the German driver from the Championship. Hardly, though, the most severe of punishments given that the Championship had finished with Schumacher ending up in second place and he was allowed to keep his wins from that season.

Meanwhile, drivers have gone to the Court of Appeal and ended up with a greater penalty - Eddie Irvine had his ban increased from one race to three in 1994 for causing a multi-car accident in Brazil.

The key to the way the Court of Appeal operates is that whilst it is a legal court recognised under French Law, it may take into account previous rulings but is not legally bound by them. Therefore precedents don't apply, so in the case of Mclaren and Lewis Hamilton any argument they may use from examples in previous races might not carry much sway, the Court of Appeal judges each case on its' own merits.

Bizarrely the first decision the Court may have to make is to rule whether Mclaren's appeal is admissible or not. Technically a drive through penalty - which is the penalty given to Hamilton in Spa - cannot be appealed. Mclaren's argument though will surely be that as a 25 second time penalty was applied instead of a drive through they should surely be allowed to contest the decision. For the sake of the sport I hope this is the case.

Not for one minute do I believe that the FIA are anti Mclaren as some of the Internet forum conspiracy theorists would have you believe, but to quell the voices of discontent the appeal should be allowed and the reasons behind the decision should be discussed in the open. Whether Mclaren are successful or not, as commentators and fans of Formula 1 we need to understand how and why the stewards arrived at their verdict, and why they were directed to look at the incident when according to the Mclaren team Race Control hadn't flagged up a problem during the final three laps, even when asked.

Discussing the decision in Monza last week with Formula 1 drivers and team personnel, the overriding view was that by cutting the chicane Lewis had gained some advantage. Some drivers believed he deserved the penalty others thought it a touch too harsh, especially given the circumstances surrounding the incident.

In short Hamilton's advantage as I see comes when the Ferrari passes the Mclaren on the main straight and the British driver finds himself a car length behind whereas under normal racing at that stage he'd be three of four car lengths adrift. However he'd given back the place, had little option but to run straight on at the chicane as Raikkonen legitimately ran him wide when defending his lead and sooner rather than later was going to pass a car which was lapping significantly slower at this stage in the race.

The stewards in Spa seemingly didn't take into account the fact that Raikkonen failed to finish the race. Nor that he himself ran wide the following lap in the wet conditions at the Pouhon corner, gaining an advantage. Nor that he did pass Hamilton on that lap re taking his lead before spinning.

That people still have differing opinions after studying replays of the incident many times shows that the Stewards have a difficult decision to make. But if the decision is not clear-cut why is it that the rules in the case were so rigidly stuck too? Some of the trios previous decisions that weekend had already raised an eyebrow or two but was this particular case one that called for some flexibility given the circumstances of the race at the time?

Questions that must surely be asked - and with a bit of luck answered - in Paris next week.

Whatever the outcome of the appeal I believe Mclaren are in a stronger position than Ferrari to take the title with four races to go and should bag the silverware whether they are successful in Paris or not. But after such a fantastic race in Spa, it would be good to see the Court of Appeal find a way to settle and forget the controversy so that we can remember the on-track duel instead from what was easily the best race of the season.