With just three days left until the hearing to which McLaren look to gain Hamilton's race win back from Belgium and re-open the Championship lead to 7 points, the F1PU will continually provide news stories regarding ChicaneGate here. Discuss any news that arrives here and your reaction to the result when it is released.

Hamilton Penalised, McLaren to Appeal, Race Stewards' Statement

BBC Interview w/ Lauda, Petition, Stewards didn't investigate Raikkonen, MASSA: "Hamilton Passed Too Soon", James Allen's Opinion, Stewart calls for full-time stewards, McLaren presses ahead with appeal

McLaren thought FIA "OK" was enough, No Anti-McLaren bias insists steward, Mark Hughes on "ChicaneGate", SYMONDS: Spa ruling bad for racing

Unbowed Lewis vows to stay on attack, McLaren appeal set for September 22nd, DC: Stewards should publish reasons

DENNIS PUTS FAITH IN APPEAL COURTS:

McLaren boss Ron Dennis has put his faith in the FIA International Court of Appeal process ahead of Monday's hearing in Paris.

The ICA will convene to hear McLaren's appeal against the 25-second penalty given to Lewis Hamilton after the Belgian Grand Prix, which stripped the British driver of victory and demoted him to third place.

The ruling proved hugely controversial and, following on from the decision not to penalise Felipe Massa for his unsafe release from the pits at Valencia, prompted some British newspapers and angry fans to accuse the governing body of having an anti-McLaren and pro-Ferrari agenda.

Dennis, however, says he does not share the conspiracy theories and - despite McLaren's bruising experience at the hands of the FIA World Motor Sport Council over last year's 'spygate' saga - has confidence in the impartiality of the ICA on sporting matters.

"Although Lewis has had five penalties already this season, I wouldn't claim that he hasn't been treated fairly," he told French newspaper Le Parisien.

"More importantly, we have to have faith in the system, and in the fairness of the FIA International Court of Appeal at which our appeal will be heard," he added.

McLaren will challenge the Belgian GP stewards' contention that Hamilton gained an advantage in his battle for the lead with Ferrari rival Kimi Raikkonen by cutting the Bus Stop chicane.

The team will argue, inter alia, that Hamilton took to the run-off in the first place to avoid a collision with Raikkonen, who braked much earlier than him for the chicane; that by allowing the Ferrari to repass him on the following straight he negated any advantage gained; and that his subsequent pass at the La Source hairpin was a separate manoeuvre rather than one facilitated by cutting the chicane.

The Spa penalty handed the win to Hamilton's title rival Felipe Massa and brought about a six-point swing in the Brazilian's favour in the standings.

With a disappointing seventh-place finish at Monza cutting his lead to a single point, some have accused Hamilton of throwing away points through rash decisions and questioned whether he can stay the course in the championship.

But Dennis insists his long-time protégé is improving all the time and his performances stand comparison with some of F1's all-time greats at the corresponding stage of their careers.

"No one - not Michael Schumacher, not Ayrton Senna, not Alain Prost - has ever gone through an entire season without a single error," he said.

"But Lewis's improvement is ongoing and incremental; just as he's better this year than he was last year, he is also better at the end of this year than he was at the beginning of this year.

"And I expect him to be better still next year.

"He's still only 23, remember, and no one has ever yet won a Formula 1 world championship at such a young age - not Emerson Fittipaldi, not Michael Schumacher, not Fernando Alonso.

"I'm not saying Lewis will win the championship this year for sure - maybe he will, maybe he won't - but if he does he'll become the youngest man ever to have done so."

SOURCE: ITV-F1

There are many reasons why I think the penalty was wrong:

- The race director told McLaren the pass was acceptable, showing a lack of continuity of rules between the stewards and the race director.

- The FIA needed to clarify the rules, but only after the penalty was given. This is completely unfair on Hamilton, as he did not get this clarification when it mattered, namely before the Belgian Grand Prix.

- There never was a 'wait until after the next corner rule' before, and this was also invented rather conveniently after the incident.

I don't think there has been a bias against Hamilton this season, I just think this penalty was totally unjustified. You cannot penalise somebody, then tell everyone else previously unknown and undefined information about the cutting a corner rule. You tell everybody, and warn them that in future, they will receive a penalty if they break the rule in such a way.

And the sport needs permanent stewards, who can communicate with the teams. In football, the referee is on the pitch, telling the players if they've done wrong. He isn't hidden in an unknown location, leaving the result of the match a complete mystery.

We saw the same thing with Alonso against Klien at Suzuka in 2005, he was forced to concede the place to Klien a second time and pass him a second time as he hadn't negated the advantage he had gained by cutting the chicane. It's delicate stuff but the precident had been set. Hamilton passed Vettel by cutting a chicane in France and was penalised for it. He SHOULD know how it works.

Granted in Belgium when I saw what happened I knew he would have to give the place back, not doubt about it. However had Hamilton bothered/decided to stay on track he would have not been as close to Kimi going into La Source thats the only thing. Hamilton could have backed off and stayed on circuit instead he made a concious decision to go off track and let Kimi back through once he got back onto the tarmac. When I saw the Race Control message turn up on screen that was what I thought of. I though he had probably played by the rules more or less. I didn't like obviously :D but that was the way it was and it was purely academic once Kimi spun and ended his race.

The clarification of the rule AFTER the penalty does smell rather fishy, however it was needed after Belgium and after the precident had been set in Suzuka 2005. Thats when the rule should have been clarified.

But a fair point about Charlie Whiting saying "ok" it looked ok to me too, but with hindsight and seeing photos and other on board footage I think maybe Hamilton would have avoided the controversy by staying on circuit. His car would have allowed him to mosey on past Raikkonen again easily later in the race anyhow. So unfair to McLaren? Yes if they were told it was ok go for it. But these things have to be properly considered, which takes time, which the drivers and stewards don't often have.

HAMILTON SET TO APPEAR AT HEARING

Lewis Hamilton will appear before a Paris appeal court on Monday as he looks to get his victory at the Belgian Grand Prix reinstated.

Stewards handed Hamilton a 25-second penalty, demoting him to third behind rival Felipe Massa, claiming he gained an advantage by cutting a chicane.

The decision cost the 23-year-old four world championship points, a penalty his team will argue was too harsh.

"All we can do is present the facts," said McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh.

"Most people who were watching would say Lewis deserved to win that race and not Felipe.

"I'm probably slightly partisan on this but I do actually believe that's what most people would imagine.

"We have just got to present the data and, whatever the outcome is, that is the outcome.

"We are not counting on those points, we hold the lead at the moment in the drivers' championship by one slender point and we can expand upon that in the coming races."

McLaren bosses will stand alongside Hamilton at the hearing before he flies to Singapore for formula one's first ever night race on 28 September.

If successful, the Englishman will win back the four points he lost as a result of slipping to third and, with Massa losing two points on being moved back to second, Hamilton would see his championship lead extended to seven points with four races remaining.

The verdict is due to be released on Tuesday after the three judges have decided whether or not McLaren's plea is justified.

Hamilton was battling with Massa's team-mate Kimi Raikonnen at the Spa circuit and cut the Bus Stop chicane, resulting in him overtaking the Finnish driver.

Despite allowing Raikonnen to immediately reclaim the lead, Hamilton then overtook the Ferrari driver at the next corner to take the lead.

However, the court must now decide whether Hamilton sufficiently surrendered any advantage he gained by cutting the chicane.

SOURCE: BBC SPORT

Internal Memo

Recipient: The World

From: Sam

The message is as follows:

Stop using the '-gate' suffix.

Thanks

McLaren lawyer: appeal is admissible

Discussions about whether McLaren's appeal into Lewis Hamilton's Belgian Grand Prix penalty is admissible have dominated early proceedings in the FIA International Court of Appeal hearing in Paris this morning.

Although Lewis Hamilton has turned up as the team's star witness in McLaren's bid to overturn the 25-second penalty that he was handed for gaining, what the stewards claimed, was an unfair advantage by cutting a chicane, the young Briton has yet to speak.

Instead, the first two hours of discussions were dominated by debate among lawyers about whether the appeal is admissible in the first place.

Under FIA regulations, drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal. However, McLaren's barrister Mark Philips QC has argued that this case can be appealed because the discussion is about the 25-second time penalty only.

It was highlighted that at last season's Japanese Grand Prix, an appeal was heard about whether or not Vitantonio Liuzzi should have been handed a 25-second time penalty for passing Adrian Sutil under yellow caution flags. That punishment was in lieu of a drive-through penalty that is normally handed down for such offences.

With the argument about the state of the appeal having taken place in front of the five appointed judges - Xavier Conesa (Spain), Philippe Narmino (Monaco), Erich Sedelmayer (Austria), Harry Duijm (Netherlands) and Thierry Julliard (Switzerland) - discussion about the actual incident itself is expected to dominate proceedings after lunch.

Philips has already argued that Hamilton gained no advantage from overtaking Raikkonen where he did.

"Millions of viewers watched Lewis Hamilton take the chequered flag at Spa on September 7," he said in his opening address. "Millions of viewers has seen Lewis Hamilton as the quickest man on the circuit at the moment the rain started to fall.

"At that moment it became a question of when, and not if, he would drive past Kimi Raikkonen. In the wet Kimi Raikkonen was utterly defenceless. The world at large saw Lewis Hamilton on the podium taking the trophy, and then saw the post-race press conference.

"After about two hours the stewards decided to add 25 seconds to Lewis Hamilton's race time, so relegating him from first to third. The stewards say Lewis Hamilton cut a chicane and so gained an advantage.

"The evidence will show Lewis Hamilton gave the advantage back to Kimi Raikkonen. When they crossed the line, Hamilton was 6.7 kilometres per hour slower, and at one stage seven metres behind.

"If he had stayed behind Raikkonen through the corner and down the straight, he would have passed him anyway into turn one. But Lewis Hamilton had no other choice but to take an escape route, a decision he made at the last second through that chicane.

"The suggestion he could have braked and slowed down is simply wrong. If Kimi Raikkonen had not forced him off the track he would have passed him down the straight."

The court was also played a radio clip of the conversation between McLaren sporting director Dave Ryan and race director Charlie Whiting at the time of the incident, which cited a preliminary approval for Hamilton giving up on his advantage.

The radio transcript stated:

Ryan: 'Do you believe that was okay? He gave the position back.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was. Yes.'

Ryan: 'You believe it was okay.'

Whiting: 'I believe it was okay.'

Hamilton is set to take to the witness stand after lunch to provide his version of events.

AUTOSPORT

Hamilton awaits verdict

McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton will find out on Tuesday whether attempts to reinstate his Belgian Grand Prix victory have been successful.

Hamilton strongly pressed his case at Monday's appeal to the FIA in Paris as he aimed to overturn a 25-second penalty for cutting a chicane at Spa.

"I just hope the judges see the truth. I am a racing driver, it's what I do," he said following the hearing.

Hamilton has since left France for Singapore ahead of Sunday's night race.

The penalty cost Hamilton four world championship points, so Tuesday's verdict from world motorsport's governing body will play a role in deciding the 2008 F1 drivers' title.

"It was long and intense," said Hamilton on emerging from Monday's proceedings.

"I said what was on my mind because in that position you can be talked down to," he added, having earlier rounded on Ferrari counsel Nigel Tozzi QC during cross-examination.

Hamilton asserted his case powerfully in front of Tozzi, at one point stating: "Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight-years-old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job," he told the court.

"We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."

Hamilton later admitted there were "much better things" he could have done with his Monday, ahead of F1's first ever night race in Singapore.

"But today was a very important issue," he added.

"I was unfortunately penalised, so it was good to come here and put our point of view, as well as listen to other people's opinions."

If Hamilton wins the appeal, his championship lead will be increased to seven points with four races to go.

Hamilton would regain four points and Felipe Massa, who was awarded the win following Hamilton's penalty, stands to lose two.

If the appeal is rejected, Hamilton will take a one-point lead over Massa into the Singapore Grand Prix.

The appeal court judges have been faced with two decisions.

They have first had to consider whether the appeal is admissible, as Formula One rules do not allow teams to appeal against drive-through penalties.

The penalty given to Hamilton was technically a drive-through penalty.

However, as it was issued retrospectively McLaren barrister Mark Philips QC has argued that no actual drive-through took place, so the appeal should be considered.

Secondly, the judges must decide if Hamilton sufficiently surrendered the advantage he had gained when cutting the chicane.

The Englishman was battling with Massa's team-mate Kimi Raikkonen at the Spa circuit when he cut the Bus Stop chicane, resulting in him overtaking the Finnish driver.

Despite allowing Raikkonen to immediately reclaim the lead, Hamilton the overtook the Ferrari driver at the next corner to go back in front.

As video footage of the incident was shown, Hamilton told the court he was trying to avoid crashing into Raikkonen.

"We had a great battle and there was no need to take stupid risks, so I had to cut the chicane," he said.

"I've since studied the footage about 10 times and I can remember it vividly like it was yesterday.

"I believe I then gave the advantage back. I honestly, hand on heart, feel I did so."

McLaren chief executive Martin Whitmarsh told reporters he believed the judges were "confident of our facts" following the hearing.

"Based on the evidence we saw at the time, and from subsequent analysis, we believe any advantage was ceded," he added.

"Therefore it's even more reason to get those points back."

Hamilton is unlikely to learn his fate until he lands in Singapore on Tuesday, having flown out of Paris en route to the Far East via Zurich.

BBC SPORT

Hamilton: I hope judges see the truth

Lewis Hamilton flew out of Paris on his way to Singapore on Monday night saying he hoped the judges at the FIA International Court of Appeal had seen the 'truth' after their lengthy hearing into the Belgian Grand Prix controversy.

Hamilton testified at length about his version of events at Spa-Francorchamps in front of the five judges, and at one stage got into an exchange with Ferrari counsel Nigel Tozzi QC.

And as he left the court, Hamilton said he would not worry tonight about what decision the judges will come to when they deliver their verdict tomorrow morning.

"Whatever happens I am not worried either way," he said. "I just hope the judges see the truth. I am a racing driver, driven by excellence. It's what I do. It's what I enjoy doing. I am now just going to focus on my next race and hopefully winning there.

"At the moment, as I see it, I am one point ahead and that's how I will go into it."

Hamilton had only been called up to testify in the afternoon, with the morning's session dominated by talk between lawyers about whether the appeal was admissible.

When he was called up to give his account of the events, Hamilton stood his ground when cross-examined by Tozzi.

And at one stage, when angered about some comments regarding his behaviour, Hamilton said to Tozzi: "Are you a racing driver? No!

"I have been a racing driver since I was eight years old and I know pretty much every single manoeuvre in the book, and that's why I'm the best at my job. We are talking about a skilled driver under intense pressure making a split-second decision which no-one, not unless they are in Formula One, can comprehend."

The court looked at detailed video footage of the incident to try and get a better understanding of the situation.

Hamilton remarked: "Your heart is battling whilst you are racing.

"The last thing I wanted to do is crash into him. When you have gone so far, you want to finish the race. We had a great battle and there was no need to take stupid risks, so I had to cut the chicane.

"I've since studied the footage about 10 times and I can remember it vividly like it was yesterday. I believe I then gave the advantage back. I honestly, hand on heart feel I did so."

The five judges presiding over the case - Xavier Conesa (Spain), Philippe Narmino (Monaco), Erich Sedelmayer (Austria), Harry Duijm (Netherlands) and Thierry Julliard (Switzerland) will spend this evening deliberating on their verdict.

They will first of all have to decide if the appeal was admissible in the first place.

According to FIA regulations, drive-through penalties are not subject to appeal, but McLaren's QC Mark Phillips has argued that this case should revolve simply around the time penalty as there was no way to serve the drive-through.

Only if the judges rule that the appeal is valid will they then deliberate over their view on whether Hamilton did gain an advantage by cutting the chicane.

Hamilton admitted to an element of relief when he left the court, as he headed for a flight to Singapore via Zurich.

"It was long and intense," he explained. "I said what was on my mind because in that position you can be talked down to. But by no means am I an idiot. I had a right to my opinion.

"But I am very, very proud of my team because I am amazed at how much work and attention to detail went into it.

"There were much better things I could have done with my day, like prepare for the next grand prix in Singapore, but today was a very important issue.

"I was unfortunately penalised, so it was good to come here and put our point of view, as well as listen to other people's opinions."

AUTOSPORT

FIA rejects McLaren's Spa appeal

The FIA has rejected McLaren's appeal against the penalty imposed on Lewis Hamilton following the Belgian Grand Prix Spa-Francorchamps.

The decision means Hamilton remains just one point ahead of Ferrari rival Felipe Massa in the drivers' world championship with four races to go.

Hamilton would have received a drive-through for benefiting from cutting the Bus Stop chicane, but was given a 25-second penalty instead because the event was already over.

The penalty dropped Hamilton from first to third.

McLaren maintained Hamilton had not gained any advantage from jumping the chicane and decided to appeal the penalty.

The FIA said, however, that drive-through penalties could not be appealed.

"Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are 'not susceptible to appeal'," a statement from the FIA's Court of Appeal said on Tuesday.

"The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward's decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

"Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible."

McLaren claimed in the court that a precedent to appeal Hamilton's 25-second penalty had been set at last year's Japanese Grand Prix, when Scuderia Toro Rosso were allowed to challenge a similar punishment handed down to Vitantonio Liuzzi for overtaking under yellow flags.

The FIA told McLaren, however, that there had been a mistake in Liuzzi's original penalty - and that he too should have been given a drive-through penalty. FIA race director Charlie Whiting claimed that the chief race steward at the time, Tony Scott-Andrews, had told him there had been an error.

However, McLaren produced a statement from Scott-Andrews in court countering the claims of the FIA.

In his statement, he set the record straight by stating: "I have seen the email and I'm extremely surprised by its content. In short, it is grossly inaccurate and misleading."

Although Whiting stood by his belief that Scott-Andrews had informed him he made an error, McLaren's lawyer Mark Phillips made sure that the court should be made aware of the implication.

Phillips labeled it as an 'unfortunate email' and pleaded with the judges: "to reflect when you come to consider your judgment the way in which certain members of the FIA conducted themselves. I won't say any more."

AUTOSPORT

The International Court of Appeal's decision in full:

At the Grand Prix of Belgium, run on 7 September 2008, and counting towards the 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship, the Stewards of the meeting imposed a drive-through penalty upon the driver of car No. 22, Lewis Hamilton, for a breach of Article 30.3 (a) of the 2008 FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations and Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 2 (g) of the International Sporting Code.

As the drive-through penalty was imposed at the end of the race, 25 seconds were added to the driver's elapsed race time in accordance with Article 16.3 of the FIA 2008 Formula One Sporting Regulations.

Article 152 of the International Sporting Code states that drive-through penalties are "not susceptible to appeal".

The competitor Vodafone McLaren Mercedes appealed the Steward's decision before the International Court of Appeal in a hearing in Paris on September 22nd.

Having heard the explanations of the parties the Court has concluded that the appeal is inadmissible.

The International Court of Appeal was presided over by Mr Philippe NARMINO (Monaco), elected President, and composed of Mr Xavier CONESA (Spain), Mr Harry DUIJM (Netherlands), Mr Thierry JULLIARD (Switzerland) and Mr Erich SEDELMAYER (Austria).

OFFICIAL F1 WEBSITE

So rather than looking at the evidence put forward by Mclaren the FIA are avoiding challenging the stewards decision by deeming the whole case inadmissable.

I don't feel the penalty should have been awarded in the first place. The position was given back at the earliest opportunity, and it was confirmed by the race director as fine before the race had ended. Then we have a punishment handed out after the race has finished that is upheld on the grounds that it can't be challenged.

What is the point in having a race director to make important decisions just like this if his decision is ignored after the race?

If Hamilton loses the driver championship by less than 6 points to Massa this event will have a very damaging result on the sport. If a race, and indeed a championship get decided in a board room rather than on the track it will be a huge blow to the credibility of the sport.

Once again Ferrari will be more than happy with the "impartial" decision of the FIA :roll:

Typical.. they don't want to show the system is wrong, so they apply the 'get out of jail free' rule which means they don't even have to look at the case. I've always been concerned that the no appeal rule would cause a serious issue one day, and now it has happened. It could potentially change the championship result. Who can teams listen to if the race director is either a liar or is not following the rules of F1? And what is the point of a governing body if they can't question the decision of a bunch of part-timers?

But I guess we have to yet again turn a blind eye to the joke which we call the FIA and watch the next race. Who knows what ridiculous controversy will hit next?

Woot. Woot. The 'All is still right with the universe' train is back in town!

Oh, come on. I thought it was funny.

Ah well. I thought the penalty was a 50/50 thing, but thought that it had little chance of being reversed. Regardless of the way the ruling went though, it wouldn't have bothered me. However, if Massa wins the championship, it had better be by more than 6 points, otherwise the whinging from you lot will be unbelievable. :roll:

FIA asked to look into chicane problem

The FIA has been asked by Formula One drivers to find a better solution to the problems caused by chicane cutting in the wake of the Lewis Hamilton Spa controversy.

With Hamilton having lost his appeal over the penalty he was handed for gaining an advantage by cutting a chicane in the Belgian Grand Prix, there remains some unease about the expected driver etiquette in similar situations.

Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA) chairman Pedro de la Rosa thinks there has to be a better option to punish drivers for cutting chicanes, rather than the current guideline of handing back positions.

"The bottom line is that there is the need to find a better solution that keeps everyone happy," he told autosport.com. "We have spoken with Charlie (Whiting) and the FIA, and they are looking for a solution as well."

Chicane cutting has become a modern day issue because of the wide-open asphalt run off areas that now surround corners. Mistakes by drivers result in them simply running off the circuit without penalty and resuming further up the road.

De la Rosa admits there is a difficulty in finding an answer as to how to design chicanes whereby they are both safe and do not encourage drivers to cut across them.

"At the moment we have the best compromise," he said. "We all push for the asphalt run-offs, but one of the downsides of that is that you can cut corners without being penalised as much as with gravel or grass. So it's not all positive, but safety is first.

"We have that because it's the safest measure, so the second step is to make sure that if a driver jumps a chicane he gets a proper time loss so there is no controversy. That is the main objective. But the GPDA perspective is just about safety.

"I have nothing to say about jumping chicanes. We are happy with the run-off areas because we pushed for them, and now it is up to the FIA to find a solution to get proper time loss for a driver that jumps a chicane, not the GPDA."

De la Rosa does not believe that the wider use of speed bumps to hinder drivers who cut across chicanes would improve matters.

"It depends where you locate those. They should never be on the run-off areas, because it makes the car jump. But I am sure that there are other ways, or placing them in other areas. We are very happy with the asphalt, it is a massive step forward, but you cannot have all positives."

AUTOSPORT

Certainly am not surprised.

It sounds like this was one of those unspoken rules apparently (waiting one corner to pass again). Unfortunately the last gen drivers didn't tell Hami and the other young drivers. :|