Report: Whiting made right calls in Valencia
29 June, 2010
Charlie Whiting
Jun.29 (GMM) Information has emerged that counters Fernando Alonso’s claim that the FIA manipulated the European grand prix.
Ferrari and the Spaniard implied that the governing body unfairly favoured Lewis Hamilton by imposing only a drive-through penalty when he overtook the safety car.
The leniency of his penalty aside, complaints were also made about the time it took to be imposed; Alonso claimed the decision was made “when it could no longer have any real influence on his finishing position”.
But the Guardian cited FIA officials in insisting that the delay “was a mere seven minutes and not the 20 laps claimed by Alonso”.
Actually, it was seven laps before the Hamilton investigation was announced, and another four laps before the penalty was imposed.
The rules then allowed Hamilton another 3 laps before he had to serve the penalty.
Mark Hughes, the British broadcaster BBC’s commentary box producer, insists race director Charlie Whiting “acted absolutely correctly”.
Hughes said Whiting was initially “primary concerned” with attending to Mark Webber’s huge crash, and that is why no cars were waved past the medical car until after the crash site, “without regard to which competitors it affected”.
Hughes, apparently writing with insider information, also revealed that Whiting was faced with “key difficulties” in coming to a decision about Hamilton’s penalty.
Whiting waited to collect helicopter video footage and car transponder information, because the footage from Hamilton’s in-car camera was not conclusive.
He also need to confirm the differing locations of the transponders on the McLaren and the safety car.
“Only once he had all this compiled did he feel confident in confirming that an offence had taken place,” wrote Hughes.
He also said a drive-through, and not a harsher penalty, was selected by Whiting because a drive-through was “the precedent” and therefore more justifiable, as opposed to setting a precedent where the race director always selects a penalty subjectively.
“What happened on Sunday was the opposite of manipulation; just a systematic, consistent response that took no account of who suffered or who gained,” said Hughes.
Related posts:
- FIA confirms no action against Ferrari
- Hamilton needed black flag says Briatore
- War of words as Valencia “scandal” boils
- Ferrari boss says Valencia was unacceptable
- Ferrari anger at Hamilton “scandal” grows
I think you are right Bec, they should start taking the delay it takes to impose the penalty in view.
I would understand that the priorities at the times were Webber’s crash and susequent medical and car evacuation… then you tend to infractions… it makes sense.
but he had to take into effect if the penalty would affect his gains in the race.
perhaps a 10 second stop and go penalty would have been a more reasonable approach and fair approach.
Bec, reading comprehension > you. I agree with what James said. Actually have there be a penalty. They need to look at this in the future and change the rule. You can’t have something happen like this happen again. I hate Alonso and greatly dislike Hamilton, for the record.
I think the 20+ laps delay should have been taken into account when deciding on the penalty, although that’s probably not in the regulations, but it would have made the penalty a penalty rather than a non-event.
Whiting is a moron, he should have given a penalty that would have been as effective when actually handed out, as it would have been had he not been loafing.