- May 11, 2011
See hidden discussions | Win great prizes | Get free support
It's a consequence of todays reporting.
I bet the reporter flat out asked "So did Toto call you" and when he replied with a single word sentence of no the headline wrote itself. But of course the question could also have been so who called you and then he went on a 20 minute monologue detailing it all. This is why I only pay attention to videos (and even there you have to be cautious about how it was edited), otherwise modern journalism simply twists the context to drive those clicks
"The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review.It sounds like the Red Bull babies even made unsubstantiated allegations against the stewards in their review paperwork.
The FIA has tonight rejected Red Bull's call for a review of the incident on the opening lap of the British Grand Prix and the subsequent penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton.www.pitpass.com
FIA rejects request to review Silverstone decision
The FIA has tonight rejected Red Bull's call for a review of the incident on the opening lap of the British Grand Prix and the subsequent penalty handed to Lewis Hamilton.
A review was only possible if Red Bull was able to provide a "significant and relevant new element", and despite Helmut Marko's claim that this was the case, it didn't satisfy the stewards.
Earlier this week, Marko told RTL that his team would "bring new facts that were not available to us at the time of the race interruption or when the whole thing was dealt with".
Adding that: "Those facts will be brought forward on Thursday, and we hope that that will result in a reassessment, because we still think that this penalty was too lenient for Hamilton."
Other than a number of slides provided by the Austrian team based on GPS data which compared Lewis Hamilton's overtake of Max Verstappenand his subsequent pass on Charles Leclerc, Red Bull's "significant and relevant new element" also comprised slides containing data following a 're-enactment' of the Briton's opening lap carried out by Alex Albon during a filming day at the circuit last week.
In total, Red Bull produced four pieces of evidence:
• GPS data available to them of both Hamilton and Verstappen's car
• GPS data drawing "various alleged comparisons" with the line taken by Hamilton when passing Charles Leclerc for the lead later in the race at the same corner
• Alleged lap simulations of the incident
• What was described as a "re-enactment" of Hamilton's lap one line at Silverstone based on a lap allegedly driven by Alex Albon
What was presented to the Stewards was not "a significant and relevant new element [that was] discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned," said the FIA in its statement.
"The slides in Appendix 2 of the Competitor's letter that were relied upon as New Evidence were not "discovered" but created for the purposes of submissions to support the Petition for Review.
"And they were created based on evidence that was available to the Competitor at the time of the decision (namely the GPS data). That clearly does not satisfy the requirements of Article 14."
In a further twist to the whole sorry saga, the stewards noted allegations that had been made by Red Bull, though they failed to expand on what exactly the allegations were.
"The Stewards note, with some concern, certain allegations made in the Competitor's above letter," said the stewards in their statement.
"Such allegations may or may not have been relevant to the Stewards if the Petition for Review had been granted.
"The Stewards may have addressed these allegations directly in any decision that would have followed. The Petition having been dismissed, the Stewards make no comments on those allegations."
[Peter Hardenacke] I just spoke to Max Verstappen! He stressed that almost all team bosses and drivers called him after the crash in Silverstone to ask how he was doing! Toto Wolff, however, has not been in touch.....