FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
controversy

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton

News wrote:

> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
> controversy
>
>
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton

but, but, but...

An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
and transparent'. (Jan 22)

Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.

On 2022-02-14 10:53 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>> controversy
>>
>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>
> but, but, but...
>
> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
> and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>
> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
>

Hmmmm...

It's almost like the FIA has things they want to hide about this.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
> News wrote:
>
> > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
> > controversy
> >
> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> but, but, but...
>
> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
> and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>
> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!

Dan

News <News@Group.Name> writes:

> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
> controversy
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>

This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last
season and it bit them in the backside.

They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
they have the faster car on paper.

Red Bull and Max got into their head so much that they've even brought a
freaking barrister in Abu Dhabi. So much for a 'well-oiled machine'.

Onwards to 2022 and more racing!

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
>> News wrote:
>>
>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>>> controversy
>>>
>>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>> but, but, but...
>>
>> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
>> and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>>
>> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
> Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
>
> Dan

But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...

....why would they need to do that?

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 9:53:37 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
>
> ...why would they need to do that?

So... ...that... ...you... ...can...
....post... ...more... ...dots.

On 15/02/2022 7:53 pm, Bigbird wrote:
> News wrote:
>
>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>> controversy
>>
>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>
> but, but, but...
>
> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough, objective
> and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>
> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
>

Certainly a new take on the meaning of the word 'transparent' ....

geoff

On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>
>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>> controversy
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>
>
> This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
> Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last
> season and it bit them in the backside

A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the rules
by Massi.

>
> They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
> they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
> they have the faster car on paper.

Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).

geoff

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
> > > News wrote:
> > >
> > > > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
> > > > Prix controversy
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > but, but, but...
> > >
> > > An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
> > > objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
> > >
> > > Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
> > Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
> >
> > Dan
>
> But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
>
> ...why would they need to do that?

Explain your thought process?

rtr wrote:

> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>
> > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
> > controversy
> >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> >
>
> This is getting tiring at this point.

Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.

> Max won on track.

....and that is all there was to it?

If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.

[snip irrelevant asides]

On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> rtr wrote:
>
>> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>>
>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>>> controversy
>>>
>>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>
>>
>> This is getting tiring at this point.
>
> Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
>
>> Max won on track.
>
> ...and that is all there was to it?

Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want made public?

Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?

On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
>>>> News wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
>>>>> Prix controversy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>> but, but, but...
>>>>
>>>> An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
>>>> objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
>>>>
>>>> Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
>>> Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>> But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
>>
>> ...why would they need to do that?
>
> Explain your thought process?
>

You really can't understand?

I guess that was predictable.

It's simple:

If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in response to
pressure from below, there would be no reason at all for the FIA to
conceal its findings.

The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the reasons
that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to disclose.

Does that explain it for you?

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:45:28 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> I guess that was predictable.

keep on guessing asshole

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-15 2:02 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-15 5:10 a.m., Dan the Man wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 1:53:30 AM UTC-5, Bigbird
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > News wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
> > > > > > Grand Prix controversy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > > > but, but, but...
> > > > >
> > > > > An FIA spokesperson said the investigation will be 'thorough,
> > > > > objective and transparent'. (Jan 22)
> > > > >
> > > > > Bodes well for the new, double speaking, president.
> > > > Break out the broom, time to sweep this under the rug!
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > >
> > > But... ...if it was all Masi's doing...
> > >
> > > ...why would they need to do that?
> >
> > Explain your thought process?
> >
>
> You really can't understand?
>
> I guess that was predictable.
>
> It's simple:
>
> If the whole of the story was that Masi acted on his own in response
> to pressure from below,

"below"?

> there would be no reason at all for the FIA
> to conceal its findings.
>
> The only reasonable conclusion is that there are elements to the
> reasons that Masi did what he did that the FIA does NOT want to
> disclose.
>
> Does that explain it for you?

It explains your flawed thinking.

Did you consider what their actions should be if they were to admit
that the FIA double fucked themselves? If they admit the championship
was handed to Max and that the stewards backed those incorrectly made
decisions?

How would that look for the FIA and the sport? Anything there they may
wish to keep as quiet as possible about?

That you cannot think of any other "reasonable conclusion" speaks to
your conceit.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > rtr wrote:
> >
> >>News <News@Group.Name> writes:
> > >
> > > > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
> > > > Prix controversy
> > > >
> > > >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is getting tiring at this point.
> >
> > Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
> >
> > > Max won on track.
> >
> > ...and that is all there was to it?
>
> Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want made
> public?

Yup, like their conclusions. They cannot unfuck this so they prefer to
keep their conclusions private.

>
> Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?

There is no evidence of any other instigation nor any reason to think
there are.

We've been through this and you had NOTHING.

On 2022-02-16 2:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> rtr wrote:
>>>
>>>> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
>>>>> Prix controversy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is getting tiring at this point.
>>>
>>> Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
>>>
>>>> Max won on track.
>>>
>>> ...and that is all there was to it?
>>
>> Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want made
>> public?
>
> Yup, like their conclusions. They cannot unfuck this so they prefer to
> keep their conclusions private.

If there conclusions were only that Masi acted alone, why would they
want to do that?

>
>>
>> Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?
>
> There is no evidence of any other instigation nor any reason to think
> there are.
>
> We've been through this and you had NOTHING.

Now we have the fact that they're not going to disclose their findings.

What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote" him)?

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-16 2:58 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-15 2:08 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > rtr wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>News <News@Group.Name> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi
> > > > > > Grand Prix controversy
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is getting tiring at this point.
> > > >
> > > > Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
> > > >
> > > > > Max won on track.
> > > >
> > > > ...and that is all there was to it?
> > >
> > > Obviously there are elements to this that the FIA doesn't want
> > > made public?
> >
> > Yup, like their conclusions. They cannot unfuck this so they prefer
> > to keep their conclusions private.
>
> If there conclusions were only that Masi acted alone, why would they
> want to do that?
>

Asked and answered.

Please read and comprehend before responding.

> >
> > >
> > > Do you really think that's just Masi making a decision on his own?
> >
> > There is no evidence of any other instigation nor any reason to
> > think there are.
> >
> > We've been through this and you had NOTHING.
>
> Now we have the fact that they're not going to disclose their
> findings.
>
> What do you want to be that they keep Masi (or possibly "promote"
> him)?

"Promote" him to a different role?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

"Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:

> rtr wrote:
>
>> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>>
>> > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>> > controversy
>> >
>> >
> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>> >
>>
>> This is getting tiring at this point.
>
> Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
>
>> Max won on track.
>
> ...and that is all there was to it?
>
> If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
>
> [snip irrelevant asides]

At this point we're splitting hairs. As some have already pointed out
even Hamilton won a championship in "questionable" circumstances.

Sorry, but I can comment on anything I damn please.

The one who came across the chequered flag first is the one who won. I'm
sure people who are in Hamilton's side of the argument would say the
same if we finished the race under the safety car.

Before you go: "but this is an issue with race direction! Masi bent over
and took RB in the backside!"

No. Masi can't win. Letting the race end in a safety car would have been
a more controversial result given that the track was already clear by
lap 56.

The initial blunder was to not let the lapped cars through, but that
argument favors the Mercs more than RB so take what you will. In my
opinion, Masi took the least worst option given the initial
blunder.

Besides, it's not as if he had given Verstappen the win like
some asshats appear to be alluding at. He still had to pass Hamilton and
he still had to defend. It was Hamilton's blunder to let Verstappen
easily at T5 that cost Hamilton the championship.

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:

> On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
>> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>>
>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>>> controversy
>>>
>>> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>
>> This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
>> Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last
>> season and it bit them in the backside
>
> A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
> rules by Massi.
>
>> They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
>> they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
>> they have the faster car on paper.
>
> Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
>
> geoff
>

Not really. The track was already clear by lap 56. It would have been a
highly questionable decision to end the race under the safety car and I
think Masi knew that.

It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

On 16/02/2022 11:53 pm, rtr wrote:
> geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:
>
>> On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
>>> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
>>>
>>>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
>>>> controversy
>>>>
>>>> https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
>>>>
>>> This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes and
>>> Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their strategies last
>>> season and it bit them in the backside
>>
>> A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
>> rules by Massi.
>>
>>> They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres but
>>> they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position. Even if
>>> they have the faster car on paper.
>>
>> Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
>>
>> geoff
>>
>
> Not really. The track was already clear by lap 56. It would have been a
> highly questionable decision to end the race under the safety car and I
> think Masi knew that.

Um no it wouldn't. That would have been in accordance with the rules.

>
> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.
>

Yes, all of them, at the stipulated time during the process.

geoff

rtr wrote:

> "Bigbird" <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > rtr wrote:
> >
> >> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
> >>
> >> > FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
> Prix >> > controversy
> >> >
> >> >
> >
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> >> >
> >>
> >> This is getting tiring at this point.
> >
> > Then ignore it and carry on in ignorance.
> >
> >> Max won on track.
> >
> > ...and that is all there was to it?
> >
> > If you have chosen to live in the dark why even comment.
> >
> > [snip irrelevant asides]
>
> At this point we're splitting hairs. As some have already pointed out
> even Hamilton won a championship in "questionable" circumstances.
>
> Sorry, but I can comment on anything I damn please.
>
[snip tiresome bullshit]

Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
you was it.

:-)

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

rtr wrote:

> geoff <geoff@nospamgeoffwood.org> writes:
>
> > On 15/02/2022 8:37 pm, rtr wrote:
> >> News <News@Group.Name> writes:
> >>
> >>> FIA will not disclose findings of inquiry into Abu Dhabi Grand
> Prix >>> controversy
> > > >
> >>>
>
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/feb/14/fia-formula-one-inquiry-abu-dhabi-grand-prix-max-verstappen-lewis-hamilton
> > > >
> >> This is getting tiring at this point. Max won on track. Mercedes
> and >> Lewis have been very, very, very conservative with their
> strategies last >> season and it bit them in the backside
> >
> > A strategy which would have paid off but for the 'bending' of the
> > rules by Massi.
> >
> >> They had multiple chances in that race to give him fresher tyres
> but >> they didn't because they're too afraid to lose track position.
> Even if >> they have the faster car on paper.
> >
> > Yes, and would have been fine but for (see above).
> >
> > geoff
> >
>
> Not really. The track was already clear by lap 56. It would have been
> a highly questionable decision to end the race under the safety car
> and I think Masi knew that.
>

No, it would have been within the regulations.

> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.

Yet he didn't.

You should know this. There was a thread at the time you could read to
catch up. :-)

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 3:43:28 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> Seems you are not so tired of this after all; wasn't difficult to out
> you was it.

yup. rtr is alan baker
fuck is he dumb

Bigbird <bigbird.nospam.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> rtr wrote:
>
>> It's stupid to not let the lapped cars through in the first place.

rtr - there is no way you can let the lapped cars through straightaway.
The whole point of bunching the cars up as quickly as possible is so
that the track is as safe as possible for the marshalls working to clear
the accident. You want them in as tight a queue as is possible leaving
long periods of "clear track" where they don't have to watch their backs
the whole time.

This is why the regulations say what they say, and only release cars to
unlap themselves once it's safe to do so.

There were two ways through this that would have met both safety and
regulatory concerns without (undue) controversy:

1. Complete the unlapping and bring the safety car in a lap later
2. Call a red flag earlier and restart the race when the track was
clear

Neither was a simple call, but either would have been easier to explain
and to weather the criticism for than what was actually decided.

Bear in mind, we have the benefit of hindsight...

With (1), by the time it became a big issue (after more laps under the
safety car than might be expected), it would guarantee that the race
ended under the safety car. That is never good, but it's "just one of
those things". Some you win, some you lose. Clearly, this is the
situation that Red Bull wanted to avoid at all costs as it neutralised
the tyre advantage they had.

With (2), hindsight tells us that would have been a better call. Of
course, by the time this looked like ending on a safety car, there were
few laps left. It would still be better than ending on a safety car -
and much less controversial than taking a positive decision to ignore a
number of established rules/precedents as happened - but 2/3 laps of
racing with no DRS where everyone had a chance of fresh rubber would
have been unlikely to change positions, and unless there was a mistake,
Hamilton would also have won. Red Bull wouldn't be happy with this
either. Also unhappy would be the rights holders who want to see more
racing and fewer red flags. This would start to set a precedent for more
red flags automatically when there are accidents close to the end, and
that wouldn't be popular. See "Option 4".

Option 3: Masi's call wouldn't have been so controversial if there was a
good precedent for it. Bear in mind that the key reason Hamilton wasn't
on fresh rubber was because he couldn't cede track position. As the one
in front, he couldn't respond to Verstappen's moves but the opposite was
possible. There was no way he could come in without Verstappen deciding
to stay out which, based on precedent, would have been the strategic
thing to do. Once that die was rolled, Mercedes would have believed they
would be protected by the calculation of time left...which was
completely turned on its head by Masi. That's the controversy. And why
I'm 100% certain that had the tables been turned, it would be Red Bull
shouting just as loudly about Masi, possibly more.

There could (if there was agreement to change the rules) be an option 4.
If people want a less controversial way to deal with this situation,
they could look at opportunities for the Race Director to extend the
race based on number of laps under SC when called close to the end of
the race. The trigger for that and the calculation of how many would
have to be carefully considered to make it transparent, ensure it
doesn't conflict with other rules, and also allow drivers and teams to
be aware of and plan for additional fuel burning.

Of course, those more knowledgeable about the fuel calcuations may well
say that this final option is impractical, but we have to get away from
the situation we saw. And I say that for the Race Director as much as
anyone else. They have to have options that satisfy everyone fairly. As
it stands, he is open to much criticism and with no defense other than
saying "it was at my discretion". That's unfair on Masi.

> Yet he didn't.
>
> You should know this. There was a thread at the time you could read to
> catch up. :-)

Bigbird - it's like people want to let time obscure the complex debate
and turn it into a simple thing that people are making an unnecessary
fuss over. ;-)