July 13, 2010

Charlie Whiting hits back: "We warned Ferrari three times"

Not happy with all the criticism after the delayed reaction ruling in Valencia, Race Director Charlie Whiting has told Italy's Autosprint magazine he had been in touch right away with the Ferrari pit wall after the Alonso Kubica incident:

"We told Ferrari three times that in my opinion they should give the position back to Kubica, and we told them that immediately, right after the overtaking manoeuvre. On the radio, I suggested to them that if they exchange position again, there would be no need for the stewards to intervene. But they didn't do that and on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position. It's not true at all that the stewards took too long to decide. For us the facts were clear immediately: Alonso had gained an advantage by cutting the track."

This puts Stefano Domenicali, who had said by the time the ruling came it was too late, on and even hotter hot seat than he is sitting on at the moment. Did Domenicali ask Alonso to give the position back and if not, why? Did Alonso refuse his request? Did things actually happen as Whiting is suggesting?
Perhaps Domenicali though that, like Mclaren who in Valencia knew right away Hamilton had passed the Safety Car, they too might benefit from the bureaucratic procedure? Not very clever after you spent two week complaining about that very issue.

Maybe it's not just Ferrari's F10 that needs a new package.

end of post


  1. Oh man, I just read about that same story and was laughing out loud.

    We as fans knew that from our own experiences of watching F1, that Alonso had to give the position back as soon as possible. After the first replay of the move we knew that Fernando had gone completely off track at that chicane (?) and it was just a matter of time before there would be a ruling over it.

    Maybe fire Domenicali and hire Briatori and fire Massa and let Briatori have some fun with his own prodigies. Tongue in cheek.

  2. "...on the third communication they said that Kubica was by then too far back to let him regain the position. It's not true at all that the stewards took too long to decide."

    So they told Ferrari three times over the radio to make Alonso give back the position BEFORE Kubica retired on lap 20. Alonso passed on lap 18. Safety car deployed on lap 28 and penalty handed out on 27. If the penalty had been handed out one lap sooner Alonso would have taken it before the safety car came out and only lost a couple of positions.

    Basically what he's saying is "The stewards' timing is perfectly fine with me because it penalized Ferrari 14 positions for an illegal pass on a car that had already retired and also because it allowed Mclaren to not be penalized for passing the safety car and speeding past accidents."

    Bull sh__, Charlie. The problem is not the decisions themselves. The problem is the stewards' complete lack of punctuality. They delayed action until the proper penalty would not affect Hamilton's position. Then they delayed action until the proper penalty would hurt Alonso as much as possible. In the best case the stewards are incompetent to the point of it unfairly manipulating the results, ruining the competition and robbing the fans of the race we all want to see. In the worst case they're intentionally manipulating the results. Charlie Whiting, Eddie Jordan, and BBC are idiots. To say that the last two races have been fair and just is a mockery.

  3. Oh Ben...
    What a blinkered viewpoint you have there!!
    Maybe take your head outta your ass & address the real issue. Alonso spent two weeks crying about the time it took the stewards to decide the sanction for Hamilton. Even an idiot should realise that if you gain an unfair advantage by cutting the track, you really ought to give it back straight away - then the race stewards don't have to decide an alternative sanction later in the race when it's gonna hurt you more.

  4. Nobody is arguing that he shouldn't have given the position back. Alonso got the penalty he deserved. Maybe try actually reading my "blinkered" (?) viewpoint before you assume you know what I'm talking about. Specifically the part where I said: "The problem is not the decisions themselves. The problem is the stewards' complete lack of punctuality."

    Like the entire British motoring press, you're a "blinkering" idiot. And you don't even have a clue what you're talking about! Your words: Alonso complained that the stewards waited too long to penalize Hamilton in Spain, then you say he should have given back the position so "the race stewards don't have to decide an alternative sanction later in the race when it's gonna hurt you more." But you just said that Alonso was complaining because they waited so long that it DIDN'T hurt Hamilton. The whole point is that a drive through penalty will hurt less later in the race, unless there is a safety car. Tip: first read the post you're responding to, then try to figure out what you're talking about, THEN reply to the post.

    If the offense and the penalty were so blatantly obvious to everyone (and they were -- everyone could see that was an illegal pass) then why did it take so long to let Ferrari know he needed to serve his drive through? Why was it not an instant call?

  5. You numpty.
    I'm more inclined to believe the race director(a certain Mr. C Whiting) than Alonso & Ferrari regarding the time taken to notify the offender.
    Charlie says he told Ferrari straight away that the lying dago twat ought to give the place back & then repeated himself twice more before the decision was made by the race stewards later.

    Sweeping statement re. the 'entire british motoring press' you made there - eh? Any evidence for the claim?
    As to weather I 'have a clue...' let's leave that for others to decide.
    Sorry gotta go & pick my toys up & put them back in my pram now :-)

  6. In a bit of cross-post bitchery.... Suck on that Mr, M!

  7. @JamesAsh
    Hand bags at 20 paces, is it? :)

    My previous point, in the other thread, was about whether Ferrari should expect some leniency, at the British GP, with (at least) a British driver as a steward as the driver liason (or whatever they are called.)

    This is obviously something entirely different from any question of leniency - a little pliability in the rules for an odd circumstance. If this is the true and accurate story I think Domenicalli has to go - for his own safety - you wouldn't want him staring up at the sky during a wet race and accidently drowning...

    (Oh and thanks to Mr. Anonymous directly above James proving my other point - wasted no time getting to "lying dago tw*t" did he?)

  8. Anonymous, good job for not reading my post again and replying to whatever comment you thought up in your head. There must be a lot going on up there.

    I love how any reference to Hamilton being black will get Max Mosley reprimanding you as a racist, whereas "lying dago twat" is now an acceptable term, at least among British people.

    Hamilton and Mclaren fans do well by calling Alonso a liar. You know, after Oz 2009, and the whole spygate scandal thing. They are really setting the standard for being scum.

  9. GEntlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!

  10. First of all: Alonso cut, he should have given back his position, so some kind of penalty was deserved and I will not put this in doubt.

    The problem is that Withing is not meant to give an "opinion", but a decision: you can tell it two, three or one thousand times, but the opinion of a single judge (out of three) is not mandatory..

    If "the facts were clear immediately", the decision would be immediate as well.. a couple of turns, not FOURTEEN laps..
    So the options are A. the facts were everything but clear and you are just covering your ass, or B. you deliberately waited to put a non english fast car/driver out of the english gp.

    In both cases, fire him (and Domenicali and Alonso as well)


nRelate Posts Only