Bernie Ecclestone and Lewis Hamilton

How Hamilton and Ecclestone’s escalating feud prompted Massa’s new mission

News Focus

Posted on

| Written by

A comment made by former Formula 1 CEO Bernie Ecclestone last year has prompted a legal challenge to Lewis Hamilton’s first world championship win.

Felipe Massa, who lost the 2008 title to Hamilton by a single point, seized upon Ecclestone’s remark as proof he was that year’s true champion.

If Ecclestone’s words ultimately force Hamilton to surrender silverware which has sat on his mantlepiece for over a decade and a half, it will be the culmination of years of brewing animosity between the pair.

By the time Hamilton arrived in F1 in 2007, Ecclestone had wielded near-total control of the championship for decades. That ended 10 years later when Liberty Media took over and gave him the token title ‘chairman emeritus’.

Bernie Ecclestone, Lewis Hamilton, Bahrain International Circuit, 2015
The pair were on better terms in the past
While Ecclestone was in charge, crossing him was unwise. Hamilton’s rapid emergence as the sport’s superstar meant he could afford to sail closer to the wind than most. He challenged Ecclestone’s refusal to embrace the emerging power of social media and received a stack of cease-and-desist letters from Formula One Management for posting their footage on his feeds.

Once Liberty Media booted Ecclestone upstairs, Hamilton didn’t disguise his satisfaction. “I’m glad that Liberty has come in because I’m not quite sure if Bernie was here they would have made any changes,” he said in 2019.

“They still wouldn’t have social media because he thought it was useless and it’s just not important, all these different things.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Hamilton may have been dismayed by Ecclestone’s archaic attitude to social media but F1’s lack of progress in other areas concerned him more. In 2020 he launched the Hamilton Commission to investigate the reasons why black people and other groups are under-represented in motorsport, which led to the creation of the Ignite charity to promote diversity in motorsport.

Felipe Massa
Ecclestone’s comments prompted Massa call his lawyers
While Ecclestone described Hamilton’s campaign as “wonderful” he also questioned its merit, saying it wouldn’t “do anything bad or good for Formula 1.” In the same interview he added: “In lots of cases, black people are more racist than what white people are.”

The new administration at F1 denounced the comments made by its former head. “At a time when unity is needed to tackle racism and inequality, we completely disagree with Bernie Ecclestone’s comments that have no place in Formula 1 or society,” it said, adding that his “emeritus” position ended in January 2020.

Hamilton’s response was stronger still, noting how under Ecclestone F1 reacted weakly to public racist abuse he suffered at the end of his first season in the championship.

“It makes complete sense to me now that nothing was said or done to make our sport more diverse or to address the racial abuse I received throughout my career,” said Hamilton.

“Bernie is out of the sport and a different generation but this is exactly what is wrong: Ignorant and uneducated comments which show us how far we as a society need to go before real equality can happen.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The rift between the pair escalated in 2022, when it emerged world champion Nelson Piquet had referred to Hamilton using racist language. F1 barred Piquet from the paddock and others took similar action against him.

Report: F1 criticises Ecclestone as he defends Piquet’s Hamilton comments and Putin’s war
Ecclestone, who as Brabham team principal took the driver to two of his three titles, denied the comments were racist and said Hamilton should have “just brushed it aside.” In the same interview he reiterated his support for Russian president Vladimir Putin, three months after the country’s invasion of Ukraine, saying: “I’d still take a bullet for him.” He soon apologised for the latter remarks.

Hamilton made it clear he’d had enough. “It comes back down to F1, to the media, we should not be giving these people a platform,” he said. “These old voices, whether they’re subconscious, or consciously do not agree that people like me, for example, should be in a sport like this, they do not agree women should be here. Discrimination is not something we should be projecting and promoting and giving a platform to create and divide people.”

Ecclestone’s comments may have led some to regard him as a pariah, but the nonagenarian who shaped F1 into the global phenomenon it is today continued to attract media interest. Even, or perhaps especially, when it seemed he had scored to settle.

Last year he clearly had Hamilton in his sights when he made a series of remarks on the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix. In this notorious race, Renault ordered Nelson Piquet Jnr to crash early on in proceedings, triggering a Safety Car period which would hand the lead to his team mate Fernando Alonso.

The plan worked and Alonso won. Massa, who led the race until Piquet’s crash, ended the day point-less, as Ferrari botched his pit stop during the Safety Car period. Hamilton fell from second to third as a result of Piquet’s crash but without the six points he scored he would not have beaten Massa to the title three rounds later in Brazil.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The truth of Renault’s win did not emerge until the team fired Piquet following the Hungarian Grand Prix in 2009. At the same round Massa was fortunate to survive a head injury when he was hit by debris and spent the rest of the season on the sidelines. The FIA investigated and exposed the ‘Crashgate’ conspiracy, but as the previous year’s championship was long settled, altering the race result appeared impossible.

Nelson Piquet Jnr, Renault., Singapore, 2008
Feature: Crashgate – The 2008 Singapore Grand prix controversy explained
But last year Ecclestone cast doubt on that version of events, claiming the FIA had been alerted to Renault’s cheating before the end of 2008 and therefore could have acted earlier to annul the race. Doing so would strip Alonso of one of his 32 grand prix victories but, strikingly, Ecclestone made no mention of this in his comments reported by F1 Insider, instead focusing entirely on its implications for Hamilton.

“We had enough information in time to investigate the matter,” he said. “According to the statutes, we would probably have had to cancel the race in Singapore under these conditions. That means it would never have taken place for the world championship standings. Then Felipe Massa would have become world champion and not Lewis Hamilton.”

When Massa first indicated he would follow up on Ecclestone’s remarks last year, Hamilton brushed aside questions over whether his first title might be taken away from him, saying: “I’m honestly paying no attention to it.” That may have changed now legal proceedings have begun.

The seven-times champion is already an inspiring example of the value of diversity. Beyond his own achievements, Hamilton has done terrific work to encourage other under-represented groups to enter F1.

Given his passion for the cause, it is probably inevitable that he was going to clash with Ecclestone, who Hamilton sees as an obstacle to progress. No doubt Ecclestone felt slighted by Hamilton’s remark that people shouldn’t listen to “old voices” and is taking satisfaction from the fact Massa has done exactly that.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Formula 1

Browse all Formula 1 articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

105 comments on “How Hamilton and Ecclestone’s escalating feud prompted Massa’s new mission”

  1. Someone someone hasn’t tripped Bernie down a flight a stairs, the guy exemplifies everything that’s wrong with late stage capitalism.

    1. Eccelstone has always seemed to have a dislike for hamilton from very early on. For what reason I know not, but there has always been a dismissed and spiteful venom from Eccelstone.

      I will always remember a grid walk that Brundle did….I’ll be impressed if anyone can find it…but, it must have been after Hamilton’s first title. Perhaps at the first race of the next season, or one of the first races. Or it may have even been before he won his title, and he had won a few races.

      Anyway, I remember Brundle was on a grid walk and was saying how great it was for a Brit to be winning again, and he asked Bernie what he thought of it, and Bernie replies something a long the lines of “no, I don’t think it’s good, I don’t want him to win a title (or another title) I don’t want another schumacher”

      Now, I can see that view point from the perspective of “the good of the sport”. You don’t want a single driver to dominate. So you could say he was speaking from that perspective.

      But, I don’t think I heard him utter that when alonso won his second, nor when Vettel was on a role.

      But, it was the tone and spitefulness of how he said it, it really did sound almost personal. To the point where it has stuck with me all these years.

      1. You know his friend was a certain Max who had some 1930-1945 idea’s and he is also from that era…….
        We call those persons racist but as long we don’t have any recorded proof he is a silly old man.

        1. He attended a few of Max’s parties, either dressed as Napoleon or Attila the Hun.

      2. I remember that grid walk and it was a very noticable comment

      3. and Bernie replies something a long the lines of “no, I don’t think it’s good, I don’t want him to win a title (or another title) I don’t want another schumacher”

        Now, I can see that view point from the perspective of “the good of the sport”. You don’t want a single driver to dominate. So you could say he was speaking from that perspective.

        But, I don’t think I heard him utter that when alonso won his second, nor when Vettel was on a role.

        I can’t speak to why he said that, but purely from a factual point of view he was completely correct given that Lewis won 7 championships like Schumacher did, while Alonso won 2 and Vettel won 4. And neither Alonso or Vettel ever dominated like Schumacher and Lewis did.

        1. But there was no way to know that would happen back then, and Alonso and Vettel showed similar promise early on without attracting this kind of comment. He also never made any similar comment about Max, to my knowledge.

          To me, this either shows he recognised a significantly stronger talent in Hamilton than in Alonso and Vettel, hence a much greater threat of Schumacher-esq dominance, or a strong dislike from at least the beginning of Hamilton’s F1 career for whatever reason. Or possibly both, of course.

          1. @drmouse

            You are now making assumptions about how people should perceive the situation. Perhaps Bernie was actually extremely good at judging those drivers and he correctly surmised that Alonso and Vettel would never be that dominant. Or perhaps he made the comment for other reasons. We cannot know without knowing what Ecclestone was thinking at that moment.

            He also never made any similar comment about Max, to my knowledge.

            Not a comparable situation, since Bernie sold F1 before Max became champion.

      4. I don’t think there is much to this. I remember end of 2005/ early 2006 Ecclestone saying how Alonso was a bad champion for the sport because he never said anything/ lacked personality – seems bizarre now. Just putting in a spikey comment

  2. For once I agree with Hamilton.

    Though this whole thing is bad for the sport. Massa became an enormous fan favourite because of the humble and graceful way he accepted the defeat on the podium that day. It pretty much came to define sportsmanship in F1. If he wins, it opens up so many other cases, 1997, 2021, 1989, etc , and makes the sport look unprofessional and childish. I hope they stop giving Ecclestone a platform to talk. What he did for the sport was amazing and remarkable, but his time is well and truly over.

    1. 1989 championship-decider didn’t really feature any review-worthy behaviour like the 1990 equivalent race, but I agree as a whole.

      1. José Lopes da Silva
        18th March 2024, 15:46

        … but just because Senna crashed in rainy Adelaide.

        1. And for 2021, I think Verstappen is fine with removing the results of the last race of season

          1. And spa? Which wasn’t a race?
            Would he be fine with removing the last lap?

  3. Felipe just wants 80million euros for supposed loss of earnings from being an F1 world champ. This will get thrown out (or quietly settled out of court) Everyone will keep their championships. end of story

    1. This is the real goal, Massa would undoubtedly take 1/5 of that amount any day and be done with it. If he has anything to say he may as well fund a documentary to tell the world his story.

      1. The thing is that if you want to haggle for something you don’t just name the price you’d settle for. If Massa says he just wants his money he is much less likely to get the maximum out of it.

    2. I think that’s the real goal too. And to be fair, in his position, I’d also fight that part of the injustice. Losing the world championship isn’t only about the silverware…

      1. notagrumpyfan
        18th March 2024, 16:13

        Not sure what FOMs interest is in settling this, or even encouraging FIA to do so.
        And with a less exciting championship* in front of us, they could benefit from a bit of courtroom drama.

        I always assumed that FM dragged FOM into this, as that’s where the money sits, and where reputation is more important as it’s a listed entity. But as soon as it is actually going to court, it is less interesting for FOM to settle, and more interesting for them to state ‘we have nothing to do with the sporting championship side of the sport’.
        Let Massa sort it out with FIA.
        I would not even be surprised if this gets thrown out of the English courts: FIA is based in France, the race was in Singapore, Massa is Brazilian, and the ex FIA boss is no longer amongst us.

        * I still find the racing interesting, but the championship, especially the ultimate winner of 2024, seems to get less exciting every week.

      2. @fer-no65 The biggest injustice of 2008 was Hamilton being denied his Spa race win (and points) long after the race.

        1. @david-br
          It really is – thankyou for pointing it out

          G

    3. Felipe just wants 80million euros for supposed loss of earnings from being an F1 world champ

      I fail to see how suing the wrong party will gain him anything.
      The thing that lost him the race was the Ferrari team failing to disconnect the fuel hose before allowing to leave the pit box.
      Sue Ferrari is the proper solution.

    4. Exactly

      Massa, who led the race until Piquet’s crash, ended the day point-less, as Ferrari botched his pit stop during the Safety Car period.

      There isn’t even a case. Ferrari botched it themselves. I agree with Hamilton it is time to move forward and leave these old dudes behind. Now the only issue is that Liberty is even worse. Maybe not in terms of social and inclusion but in terms of money grabbing and totally disregarding the sport (‘s integrity) they are way worse than Ecclestone.

      1. Couldn’t agree more! The woeful drive to survive making press conferences a parody. And the greed in ticket prices – think I got a three day ticket to a stand at Monza for 100-150 Euros ten years ago.

  4. The seven-times champion is already an inspiring example of the value of diversity. Beyond his own achievements, Hamilton has done terrific work to encourage other under-represented groups to enter F1.

    Perhaps slightly more neutral wordings would amount to higher journalism standards.

    To be clear, I think Ecclestone is a repulsive multi-billionaire. But Hamilton is nothing more than a millionaire funded by billionaires, and this matter is nothing more than Ecclestone reminding him what hands have fed and are feeding him. Diversity is not their priority and criticism is not appreciated.

    In this light, do Hamiltons initiatives towards promoting diversity and opportunities for underrepresented minorities in motor racing really help the people who should benefit the most of this, or do his initiatives instead become a useful marketing instrument for the feeding hands?

    I am inclined to say that the engineering and scientific talent Hamilton is bringing into F1 on making these cars burn fuel as efficiently as possible for driving in circles as possible, could perhaps tackle the real problems in the world they are a part of instead.

    1. I agree with quite a bit of what you write but with you finish of

      perhaps tackle the real problems in the world they are a part of instead.

      you really aren’t finishing on a high, and undermine most of the seeming realism of the rest of it.

      1. Well, it’s not what people like to hear, but it’s hard to consider the engineering efforts towards F1 to be of much use to the world beyond it. It’s not zero, but the resource could be directed much more efficiently if working on other problems directly.

    2. Hamiltons initiatives towards promoting diversity and opportunities for underrepresented minorities

      Nah. It is some minorities chosen by Hamilton political culture nothing more, if it was a person with another culture – of different diversity itself – it would choose other minorities.
      For example should we for example have F1 pilots representative of major religions? of major political groups?

      1. Nah. It is some minorities chosen by Hamilton political culture nothing more, if it was a person with another culture – of different diversity itself – it would choose other minorities.

        huh, that’s odd, looks like Hamilton chose personnel with “different diversities”, “other minorities”, and “another cultures”. Fascinating innit?

        1. Is Hamilton worried because there is a lack of religious persons in F1? does Hamilton is worried because lacks people of all political persuasions? Is Hamilton worried because lacks all type of human personality – optimists, pessimists, realists, old souls, extroverts? Of course not, Hamilton diversity is not very diverse, it is restricted to Hamilton progressive ideology that only exists because of political needs of that said ideology.

          1. excuse me, I’m going to have to catch my breath here
            the g forces on that pivot was insane

            you questioned whether his ideology matched his actions, you were provided with concrete evidence of the personnel behind the charity: old, young, white, black, etc., differing backgrounds, different experiences, different ideologies, different perspectives, and presuming religions and now we’re going to discuss whether Hamilton cares about “optimists, pessimists, realists, old souls, extroverts” etc

            Are you seriously asking me to read Hamilton’s thoughts?
            Are you asking me if Hamilton cares about political persuasions in F1?
            Are you genuinely prepared to die on this idiotic hill that you’re making up false dichotomies?
            Are you that scared of entertaining the thought you may need to revisit your stance that you’ve decided you’re the arbiter of what diversity is? I’m asking because it looks like that’s exactly what you’re doing here
            Alex, what the hell do you mean by Hamilton’s diversity is not very diverse?

          2. Still way better and useful than taking the time to answer on this very website.

          3. excuse me, I’m going to have to catch my breath here
            the g forces on that pivot was insane

            you questioned whether his ideology matched his actions, you were provided with concrete evidence of the personnel behind the charity: old, young, white, black, etc., differing backgrounds, different experiences, different ideologies, different perspectives, and presuming religions and now we’re going to discuss whether Hamilton cares about “optimists, pessimists, realists, old souls, extroverts” etc

            Are you seriously asking me to read Hamilton’s thoughts?
            Are you asking me if Hamilton cares about political persuasions in F1?
            Are you genuinely prepared to die on this hill that you’re making up false dichotomies?
            Are you that scared of entertaining the thought you may need to revisit your stance that you’ve decided you’re the arbiter of what diversity is? I’m asking because it looks like that’s exactly what you’re doing here
            Alex, what do you mean by “Hamilton’s diversity is not very diverse”?

    3. Where do you usually go for your higher journalism standards?

      1. Honestly, for F1-media, I’m yet to find something better than Racefans, but that does not mean I can’t give criticism. F1 has the massive problem that the people reporting on it are financially dependent on the traction their articles gain, and this works against any expensive, time-consuming, investigative journalism.

        Deep investigative journalism is also inherently what F1 and it’s teams dislike, so as a reporter who is financially dependent on this franchise, you have your hands tied behind your back.

        In terms of non-F1-news, I have my sources if you are interested. But quality journalism is getting less and less profitable, and getting less and less funding throughout the world, so it is on the decline. And yes, that is a massive problem.

    4. Then it’s a good thing the fight for equality did not require the approval of non- black people. Other wise we would still be firmly stuck in 1920s Alabama or worse. A lot of these comments are horrifically tone deaf and ignorant on the matter.

  5. What is clear and has always been clear is that Ecclestone is trash. And those who cozy up to him will get tarnished by his slime. I wish Massa would realize that but he is his own man and has to make his own mistakes.

  6. isthatglock21
    18th March 2024, 14:45

    I can’t recall exactly what it was but I’m pretty sure there was a story not long ago about Anthony Hamilton & Bernie still talking but seemed to have a fallout over a business deal? Bernie has long been a bitter old man. Funny cause I still recall him singing Lewis’s praises all the time in the mid 2010s for keeping the sport relevant & his big profile outside F1, especially in the USA where he was always on late night talk shows etc. What better way to stay relevant than always throwing digs at 1 of the sports biggest names?

  7. I actually agree with altering the Singapore grand prix results, Alonso should be DQ and Rosberg gets the win, Massa still loses the championship but now by more points.

    That is what should have happened back in 2010.

  8. If this really succeeds, and he loses his 2008 WDC, then who ha to return the trophy to whom?
    I believe McLaren and Ferrari both keep all drivers trophies, don’t they? That includes the trophy for WDC right?
    So would McLaren have to give Lewis’s 2008 WDC trophy to Ferrarri or would Lewis have to give his replica to Massa? Or both?

  9. Coventry Climax
    18th March 2024, 15:01

    So much soap, and the dirt still won’t go out.

    1. talking about AD 21?

  10. It would be quite a thing if Hamiltons career was bookmarked by two stolen championships ;-)

    1. Lol, as soon as I hit post I realised I should of put ‘bookended’….. Oh for an edit button :)

      1. Just wait until you realise that you should have put “have” ;)

        1. I really should’ve off checked that :)

  11. Massa is obviously trying to take some money from F1 and he’s definitely correct on doing that if Singapore is the open secret that we now know it turned out to be.

    The race could’ve been canceled at the time but wasn’t, Alonso could’ve been DSQ and wasn’t, they did nothing about it while being aware it was rigged.

    Now it’s time to pay him and close this case for good.

    1. Yeah, there is no way this is going to change the championship but a settlement seems fair enough with one of the involved parties – and the only one still alive – openly admitting there was a conspiracy to cover things up.

    2. if Singapore is the open secret that we now know it turned out to be.

      I don’t think we know that at all. We know Bernie is now claiming that, but is anyone corroborating that? I don’t think so. Where is the evidence that the race directors knew at the time that it was rigged?

      Now it’s time to pay him and close this case for good.

      Why pay Massa? It is only in his head that he would have been WDC if Renault had behaved themselves. Massa was not the victim of a conspiracy. There was an incident involving another team and Ferrari and Massa bottled it.

      1. If they didn’t act on it in any way of form, while aware a team cheated to win the race they’re wrong and Massa has a case on his hands. As simple as that.

        1. I repeat my question, what evidence is there to corroborate Bernie’s ramblings?

          And even if one team cheated and the authorities didn’t act, how can Massa claim to have a case? He only has a case if you think these events and lack of response were orchestrated against him. If he was alleging the stewards had smeared superglue on the nozzle of his refuelling rig, that I could understand, but basically Massa is complaining that he and his team didn’t cope with the pressure and unlike all the other drivers, teams, and even the fans who watched the race, he wants special treatment and millions in compensation.

  12. so much hate for Bernie, I remember racing before Liberty Media, and it was pretty good. Even Mercedes let their drivers compete against each other, unlike RBR who pretty much develop a car around their #1, and whose setup matches the optimum window that the engineers are targeting.

    Hamilton will be old one day, and he will realize what he is saying, but maybe hes still something to learn.

    1. The racing and paddock was way better back then. It was still about the sport. With liberty they brought the murrican way in, so the commercial crap, oh sorry, show arround the races is now way better, supposedly. Too bad that racing has now taken second place after that

    2. @pcxmac Telling Hamilton to ‘brush off’ Piquet’s racism and complete lack of respect for a fellow (and better) driver who achieved far more than he did really deserved the response he got. But of course part of structural racism is that black people don’t get to complain: they have to be perfect and absorb any racism stoically, as Ecclestone suggested.

      1. Nelson sr. is old school, from an older time where these views were maybe in a way necessarily based on the structure/politics of the day. IN A WAY, hes as much a victim of the toxic/reactive way of thinking as any other. Obviously there are those who are done (actions) unto much worse, … the behaviors themselves should be seen for what they are separate of intent. Everyone thinks a whole bunch of things, but ITS WHAT WE DO that is really important.

        1. *necessary

    3. PCX

      I remember racing before Liberty Media, and it was pretty good

      The racing was, but that wasn’t down to Bernie. In fact, if Bernie hadn’t bled so much money out of the sport and into his own pocket then maybe not as many teams would have gone to the wall, and others struggled to compete. If he hadn’t been funnelling a special bonus to Ferrari, maybe other teams would have been more competitive against them. Maybe we wouldn’t have lost tracks from the calendar if they were not having to pay and pay and pay. In other sports, the TV revenue revolution has been used to develop the sport, to develop junior programmes, infrastructure enhancement, etc.

  13. Does this mean that instead of Lewis gaining another title, he might actually end up losing one?
    And all the while Alonso is holding on to his Singapore 2008 win?

  14. The research actually shows that white Americans have the least in-group bias, which you can call racism, while African-Americans (and other ethnic groups) have way more in-group bias. For example, you can find this by searching for: “How racial groups rate each other Zigerell”

    But to be honest, I doubt that any of the offended people care about the actual facts.

    Ironically, the only actual discrimination I see here is the age discrimination by Hamilton, calling for the “old voices” to be removed. Note that he also falsely accused Ecclestone of not wanting to have people like Hamilton in the sport. Something I have not seen any evidence for. When has Ecclestone tried to get Lewis kicked out of F1?

    1. The research actually shows that white Americans have the least in-group bias, which you can call racism, while African-Americans (and other ethnic groups) have way more in-group bias. For example, you can find this by searching for: “How racial groups rate each other Zigerell”

      there’s also research that quite literally proposes otherwise but “I doubt that any of the offended people care about the actual facts.”

      Plus the author of the research you’re butchering quite literally says

      The plot of mean ratings about racial groups by race depicts group-level ratings, so individual-level analyses would be more appropriate for making inferences about individuals. I have a plot of individual-level analyses indicating that a higher percentage of Whites than of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians rated all four included racial groups equally (https://www.ljzigerell.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/EQ-by-race.png).

      I think it’s fine to describe unequal ratings about racial groups descriptively as “racial favoring” or “racial bias”, but “racism” is such a disputed term that involves value judgments that I wouldn’t want to classify anything as racist without a definition of “racism”.

      Moreover, if the intent is to measure a general tendency of individuals or groups, I’d rely on more than a particular measure of racial attitudes from a particular survey. But, given that intent, I think it’s a good idea to incorporate results from racial feeling thermometers.

      someone else can argue the semantics of ageism with you, it would require them to divorce context from Hamilton’s words to continue and I can’t be bothered right now

      1. The plot of mean ratings about racial groups by race depicts group-level ratings, so individual-level analyses would be more appropriate for making inferences about individuals.

        The claim that Bernie made was not about a specific individual, but about groups as a whole. You seem to have simply taken a perfectly valid explanation of the limitations of this data by the author and saw it as an opportunity to dismiss this data, even though this criticism is not actually applicable to how the data is being applied here.

        That is just typical of the common way people seem to relate to science, where they believe it uncritically when the claims are to their liking, but dismiss it for poor reasons if they are not.

        there’s also research that quite literally proposes otherwise but “I doubt that any of the offended people care about the actual facts.”

        Ah, the implicit bias research (IAT).

        Implicit bias appears to be a total scam. It was invented because woke people have this conspiracy theory that all white people are continuously racist, and cause structural racism whenever they have power, but the wokies have this chronic inability to support their conspiracy theory with actual evidence. With IAT you can ‘prove’ that nearly everyone is racist.

        First of all, the criticism you make that of my data that the findings are not necessarily the same as racism, is in itself valid. For example, liking your own culture and thus ethnicity better doesn’t have to be called racism. Yet it is obviously a much more valid claim to consider an explicitly stated dislike of other races racist than to claim that a high score on IAT means that you are racist, because the IAT merely tests what things you associate with certain races. If you associate poverty with black people, that is simply factually true on the group level in most Western nations, but doesn’t mean that you want black people to be poor. In fact, it is likely that someone who is very concerned with reducing the disadvantage of black people would have this association quite strongly.

        However, it is even questionable where IAT tests measure anything useful, because the outcomes are very unstable and correlate very poorly with other measures. What I mean by instability is that giving the same people the same test again tends to see them score significantly differently. If something real is measured, you’d expect much more similar results each time.

        And the tests correlate very poorly with high scores on other racism measures. Having different kinds of tests show the same results is an important way to verify that you are actually measuring something real or are making mistakes. It would be very weird if people who say explicitly racist things do not have implicit bias, but that’s what the results often show. So then what is this ‘implicit bias’ even? Does it correlate at all to actual behavior? Is it even testing for anything real, or is it just testing noise? It’s claimed that IAT is testing for associations that people have, but it actually tests very small speed differences in accomplishing tasks and then assuming these differences are because of the associations that people have. However, this is just an assumption and there is no proof that it is true.

        Note that science has a severe problem with generating results from nothing, in part because there are a lot of incentives to produce poor science, but also because very many scientists use statistical math, without actually understanding it properly, so they misuse it.

        1. It was invented because woke people have this conspiracy theory that

          Yet again Ludewig (I think from now on I will just refer to you as L) you demonstrate your ability to read and not understand while echoing the ramblings others feed you.

          Woke is not a negative thing, people being educated, informed and thoughtful of the needs of others is not bad.

          First of all, the criticism you make that of my data that the findings are not necessarily the same as racism

          That’s not data, that’s your theory. Whether you should continue using that theory depends upon whether you actually understand the scientific method.

          Note that science has a severe problem with generating results from nothing, in part because there are a lot of incentives to produce poor science, but also because very many scientists use statistical math, without actually understanding it properly, so they misuse it.

          Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

          So, speculate, theorise, study the results of experiments and work through the proof of your theory and see what needs adjustment to match the evidence. If your proof shows the whole theory to be way off target, then bin it, if the proof shows it to be close, then use the theory until you find a better one.
          A useful tool in that is the use of statistic mathematics to suggest the probability of something matching one or more of a set of options. No more, no less.
          Like the stats show that over 70% of the Americans surveyed believe Trump should not be immune from prosecution.

          1. @Steve

            I do think that the racism, sexism and conspiracy theories that underlie wokism is a serious issue. But it is almost impossible to discuss this honestly with the adherents. You typically get these falsehoods about wokism merely being just education and being considerate, while the reality is that people get discriminated against for their race and gender, and a total lack of consideration with other opinions, or other needs than those of the groups that are supposedly always victimized.

            Science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

            That’s a nice little sermon which in no way addresses anything I said.

            You just seem to wave your hand really quickly around, hoping that no one notices that you are not actually addressing any of my arguments.

    2. in fact your inference is so asinine I’m making a second comment to relay verbatim, Zigerell’s nuanced answer on both the narrow ratings of whites and the point that these results or facts like you called them DO NOT translate to the real world I acknowledge it’s a double edge sword for the Harvard study, but that’s the neat part about nuance. We can discuss that ad nauseum if you wish, anyway:

      ANES data indicate that White ingroup bias relative to ratings of Blacks has been declining over time (https://www.ljzigerell.com/?p=8168). Work by Zach Goldberg indicates that White liberals now have a racial outgroup preference (“America’s White Saviors”, at the link), and this at least somewhat offsets a racial ingroup preference among White conservatives (https://www.tabletmag.com/contributors/zach-goldberg). Zach’s “How the Media Led the Great Racial Awakening” article at the link discusses potential media influence on over-time change in racial attitudes (https://www.tabletmag.com/contributors/zach-goldberg).

      Patterns from items directly asking participants to rate racial groups can be interpreted only so much. The relative lack of net ingroup bias among Whites is consistent with other survey experiment work (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017753862), but I wouldn’t interpret any of these results to cover real-world discrimination, especially discrimination detected in field experiments (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561).

      1. @T

        What you are quoting, that white liberals may be the only group disliking their own group more than other groups, is actually fully consistent with the claim that white people have less bias against other races than the bias that other ethnic groups have against other races.

        You are quoting evidence in favor of my claim, but seem to believe that it does the opposite.

        1. hey ludewig, what does the other half of the quote say?
          steve just chastised you for selective interpretation and yet here you are, doing it again

          you read the part where white liberals have a preferential outgroup and stopped before you got to the part Zigerell openly tells us that this can only be interpreted so much and in fact goes as far as to say they would not interpret the data to extrapolate any real world discrimination, and even name checks discrimination in field experiments.
          notwithstanding the inherent nuance that this phenome was used to theorize that this may explain the relative lack of net ingroup bias as liberals would alleviate conservatives and the potential role of media over time in racial attitudes. you blew right past that one too huh?

          I’m not quoting “in favor of your claim” I’m quoting the verbatim statement that the author of the complied data you’re parroting is telling you, plainly that their findings don’t support the explicit conclusion of “racism” you drew.

          Also, just to pull back for a second and just stare at and admire the horizon, the data you’re using to draw your conclusion of racism is net positive for all groups making it a stretch AT best. participants were asked to rate how they feel about a group with ratings between 50 degrees and 100 degrees meaning that you feel favorable and warm toward the group and ratings between 0 degrees and 50 degrees meaning that you don’t feel favorable toward the group and that you don’t care too much for that group.
          mean ratings for Whites for the various groups appears to bounce between 70-71 maybe 72
          mean ratings for Hispanic for the various groups appears to bounce between 65-80
          mean ratings for Black for the various groups appears to bounce between 62-85
          mean ratings for Asian for the various groups appears to bounce between 68-80
          I did this by eye and there are error bars so please check if you disagree, i went for the center
          we can agree though that all in groups across out groups, appear to be majoritively in favor of and are warm to each other. actually I don’t know why I’m asking, there only one right answer given the data: yes.
          hold on, that doesn’t sound very racist does it?

          while we’re admiring the view, check this out:
          yea, Whites have less racial favoring but did you also see what Zigerell’s data also shows us?
          did you catch it the part where like the other groups, Whites appear to still favor themselves, you see that part where mean ratings of whites by whites is net higher just like how mean ratings of hispanic, black, and asian is respectively net higher?
          this is the part where I say that word again ludewig, are you ready……. nuance
          I’ve got to hop into a meeting, when I come back, maybe we can talk about how age can make this even more interesting to traverse.

          I haven’t forgotten about your other reply up there. I have a few clarifying questions but I’m running late, I’ll do my best to try to pencil you in later today

          cheers mate!

          1. The reason why I didn’t address that part is because I never claimed that the measured bias necessarily results in actual discrimination. So that statement has no bearing on my claims. It’s important to keep track of what I’m actually claiming, rather than put words in my mouth and then chastising me for not defending a claim that I never made in the first place.

            But since you seem to care, I will humor you a little:

            Ziggerell is actually wrong there, pointing to a paper that failed to replicate. If you search for “Greg vs. Jamal: Why Didn’t Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) Replicate?”, you will see that this particular paper and other papers that use the exact same methodology, probably mistakingly used naming lists with a bias in them. The black names they used are coded more lower class, so they probably misidentified class discrimination as racial discrimination. This is an easy trap to fall into, since black Americans are more often lower class in the first place, so they would more often face class discrimination.

            If you mistake class discrimination for racial discrimination, you make exactly the kind of mistake that woke people tend to make, like assuming that all white people benefit from this. However, it seems quite likely that certain white subgroups, like pale Appalachian people, face severe discrimination. If you separate them out from the more successful white people, they seem to have very poor outcomes. Similarly poor outcomes for black people are often regarded as evidence for severe discrimination.

            Anyway, the point of all of this, from my perspective, is merely to point out that racial segregation cannot just be assumed to be caused entirely by bias of white people against black people, as the woke people tend to claim, but can also be the opposite. And this is of course just one possible mechanism that drives segregation. There are others, like cultural differences, that align to a certain extent by race, but certainly not fully. See Appalachian culture as an example.

            An easy mistake is then to assume that cultural preferences that cause racial segregation is racism, when it is not. And cultural preferences are certainly not one-directional. For example, there is quite a bit of scientific research into ‘black pride’ and pressure on people to not ‘act white,’ which also have pro-segregation effects.

          2. The reason why I didn’t address that part is because I never claimed that the measured bias necessarily results in actual discrimination. So that statement has no bearing on my claims. It’s important to keep track of what I’m actually claiming, rather than put words in my mouth and then chastising me for not defending a claim that I never made in the first place.

            so what’s this ludewig?

            The research actually shows that white Americans have the least in-group bias, which you can call racism, while African-Americans (and other ethnic groups) have way more in-group bias. For example, you can find this by searching for: “How racial groups rate each other Zigerell”

            are you about to weasel out with “necessarily”?
            I don’t think you understood what Zigerell wrote, they said they wouldn’t interpret any of their data to cover real-world discrimination, especially discrimination detected in field experiments then linked Bertrand and Mullainathan. You saw that link and boom, ya did it again, selective interpretation.
            Zigerell just told you their data doesn’t legitimize discrimination out in the real world or even in the linked fieldwork and you zoomed right past that to attack the paper they already shot down.
            let’s read it again shall we

            Patterns from items directly asking participants to rate racial groups can be interpreted only so much. The relative lack of net ingroup bias among Whites is consistent with other survey experiment work (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168017753862), but I wouldn’t interpret any of these results to cover real-world discrimination, especially discrimination detected in field experiments (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0002828042002561).

            fascinating, isn’t it?
            Anyway, I’m going to have to respectfully bow out of this conversation.
            answer, don’t answer, I couldn’t care less. I’ve been here before, I’ve never walked away from conversations like this feeling particularly great about myself or the person I was talking to or the world.

            if this thread we’re on is anything to go by, discussing your frankly, circular reasoning for throwing out Harvard’s results and your assumption that me quoting the author verbatim telling you nowhere does their work permit you or Bernie to claim racism will be a headache and I just have better things to do today. Implicit bais is a scam, except when you’re corelating “explicitly racist” behavior. For some omniscient reason known only to you, seeing poverty and associating it with black people is fine – just black people by the way – is fine because it’s that is “simply factually true” on “the group level” but again, for omniscient reasons you seem to magically know that doesn’t mean you want black people to be poor, heck maybe you want to help fix it and that’s why it’s ok to associate black people when you think of poverty.
            I mean wow, but anyway, like I said, I’ll have to respectfully bow out of this one, you’re right I’m wrong or I’m wrong you’re less right, whichever works for you as long as I’m wrong. you can tell your friends the “woke” mob got me, you lost another one ludewig, sad day for the fellas really.

            cheers, hope you have a better day!

          3. @T

            so what’s this ludewig?

            It’s me not saying that I consider it racism, but that it can be consider such, for example by Ecclestone. So you are misreading me, by claiming that I would consider it racism. I never said this and it is irrelevant to my claims.

            It may be relevant to what Ecclestone claims, but he is not here to clarify his statement, so I don’t know what he considers to be racism. I just want to point out that a legitimate argument can be made based on scientific fact.

            Zigerell just told you their data doesn’t legitimize discrimination

            That not at all what he wrote. I’m actually wondering if you know the meaning of the word ‘legitimize’ if you actually think that it reflects that he wrote in any way.

            Implicit bais is a scam, except when you’re corelating “explicitly racist” behavior.

            I have never used any implicit bias research to support my points and I would never use it, since it is indeed garbage. And I never correlated explicitly racist behavior, so what I have no clue what you are even refering to.

            You keep misreading and misunderstanding my arguments, or just making stuff up, and then get upset since I supposedly am doing all kinds of bad things. However, all these bad things that you see are just mistakes on your end.

          4. I’M MISREADING AND MISUNDERSTANDING?!

            you said it can be called racism and cited research
            I pointed out the author of the research you cited explicitly says they don’t want to nor would like their data to be used to classify anything as racism especially without a definition.
            a whole lot of word salad between us later and now actually, you don’t consider it racism just Bernie does?! You won’t define what racism is that’s up to Bernie but you’ll happily point out “that a legitimate argument can be made based on scientific fact.” Again, a fact whose author expressly warns about the follies of extrapolating unequal ratings to confer racism?

            I’m sorry we’re done with this conversation, good night

          5. I’m trying to find a dimension where I’m misunderstanding you and I have nothing

            ‘i’m not considering it racism, it’s just that others like Bernie can and I’ve provided scientific fact’
            except the author of the scientific fact you’ve provided said they wouldn’t use racism because of how loaded, disputed, and subjective that term is, especially without a definition

            so what are we doing here ludewig?
            you get top marks for the weirdest conversation I’ve add all week, inspired work mate
            Anyway, now I’m off to bed, I thought of this getting ready for bed and had to get this out so I don’t go to sleep and forget it
            good night and don’t be a stranger!!
            it was enlightening interacting with you

          6. @Mr T

            Ziggerell never addresses whether explicit bias against a group should or should not be called racism. He doesn’t use the word racism at all in the sentence you quote. You are just making things up. It’s very hard to have a discussion with you when you insist that I should believe something that Ziggerell wrote, when he never actually wrote what you say he did.

            And I don’t blindly believe anyone, so your assertion that we should take as fact anything that Ziggerell says, or that it is inconsistent for me to believe that he is right on some things and wrong on other things, just shows that you have a black/white view of the world, which is utterly incompatible with my world view.

            Ziggerell does claim that explicitly stating that you like certain races/ethnicities more (or less) doesn’t seem to translate into actual discrimination, but I’ve already shown that the evidence he uses for that claim is very much flawed. This is what happens in science, scientists get things wrong as well. That’s not a problem as long as they are willing to change their views once new evidence comes to light.

            My point still stands that depending on how he defines racism, and it is not my call to say how he should or does define it, Bernie’s statement was fully consistent with plausible scientific theories, which means that insinuating that he is racist for saying it, like the article does, is a form of science denial.

          7. Ziggerell never addresses whether explicit bias against a group should or should not be called racism. He doesn’t use the word racism at all in the sentence you quote. You are just making things up. It’s very hard to have a discussion with you when you insist that I should believe something that Ziggerell wrote, when he never actually wrote what you say he did.

            ludewig

            and don’t you dare try to semantically weasel out of this, it’s the exact same conversation about nuance you and I have been trying to have and it was collapsed into one thread 4 comments ago

            And I don’t blindly believe anyone, so your assertion that we should take as fact anything that Ziggerell says, or that it is inconsistent for me to believe that he is right on some things and wrong on other things, just shows that you have a black/white view of the world, which is utterly incompatible with my world view.

            Dr. LJ Zigerell Jr is an Associate Professor of Politics and Government at Illinois State University. His current research activities involve the study of race and sex discrimination and beliefs about inequalities. He recently just published in the Journal of Political Science Education if you don’t happen to know what that is, it’s political science’s leading journal on teaching and learning that publishes the highest quality scholarship and research on teaching and pedagogical issues in political science. But you know what, I don’t care about that right now, but I want to give you the floor to keep shooting yourself in the foot. Please continue to attack the ethos of the author whose research your entire argument hangs on while you attempt to make this about black/white view of the world. Hand pick what you want when you need it and pretend you can’t read when you don’t like what you see, the floor is yours

            Ziggerell does claim that explicitly stating that you like certain races/ethnicities more (or less) doesn’t seem to translate into actual discrimination, but I’ve already shown that the evidence he uses for that claim is very much flawed. This is what happens in science, scientists get things wrong as well. That’s not a problem as long as they are willing to change their views once new evidence comes to light.

            no, for the last time, Zigerell said “patterns from items directly asking participants to rate racial groups can be interpreted only so much” then went on to link work that corroborates “the relative lack of net ingroup bias among Whites” then concluded saying “but I wouldn’t interpret any of these results to cover real-world discrimination, especially discrimination detected in field experiments” then linked an in field experiment (Emily and Greg v Lakisha and Jamal). ONE LAST TIME, Zigerell says their results should not be used to corroborate discrimination either in the real word or in field experimentation. A THING YOU ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO DO. Even when I give you the fact that Emily and Greg v Lakisha and Jamal cannot be replicated, Zigerell LITERALLY JUST SAID, MY RESULTS SHOULD NOT BE USED TO COVER DISCRIMINATION DETECTED IN FIELD EXPERIMENTATION. What asinine game of semantic stupidity are we playing here ludewig?

            My point still stands that depending on how he defines racism, and it is not my call to say how he should or does define it, Bernie’s statement was fully consistent with plausible scientific theories, which means that insinuating that he is racist for saying it, like the article does, is a form of science denial.

            this point just showed up magically a few comments ago, you don’t have a definition of racism, you don’t EVEN KNOW what Bernie’s definition of racism is, but you were happy to allow others to call racism, citing work whose author explicitly tells you NOT to do that especially without a definition. And when it’s brought to your attention, you stand your ground while waxing poetic about changing views when new information is brought to light.

            ludewig, this is the dumbest conversation I’ve had with a stranger in the internet ever.

          8. @T

            Please continue to attack the ethos of the author

            I never attacked his ethos. I said that he made a mistake. Do you believe that any human is a God who never makes any mistakes?

            In my world view, making a mistake is not in itself a moral/personality flaw, and pointing it out is not a personal attack.

            Zigerell said “patterns from items directly asking participants to rate racial groups can be interpreted only so much” then went on to link work that corroborates “the relative lack of net ingroup bias among Whites” then concluded saying “but I wouldn’t interpret any of these results to cover real-world discrimination, especially discrimination detected in field experiments” then linked an in field experiment (Emily and Greg v Lakisha and Jamal)

            I interpreted his words as him arguing that the detected bias does not match the bias found in the experiment he quotes. But if the experiment is flawed, then it cannot be used as evidence against the possibility that stated bias would roughly match behavior.

            The problem with your interpretation is that it would mean that Ziggerell merely provided his opinion, but without any evidence to support it. Then why should I believe that opinion to be right? You then seem to just be making an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. It is not scientific to trust people for their credentials, rather than the evidence they provide.

            citing work whose author explicitly tells you NOT to do that especially without a definition.

            It’s hardly even his work. He just makes nice graphs out of data that is collected by someone else. And I know that someone else verified the specific graph that I referred you to and found that it correctly represented the data collected in the survey.

            I have absolutely no idea whether this researcher does good work in general. I just consider that specific graph reliable enough given that it was verified by others.

            And I have absolutely no obligation to do what he says, especially when he doesn’t even say what you claim he said. Again, he never argued that stated bias must not be called racism.

          9. stopped by to check in on this thread and I gotta say, I am very impressed
            you actually managed to semantically weasel out of this
            10/10, no notes from me – partly because it’s exhausting but more-so because I don’t know why I bother with conversations like this. I mean you already acknowledge and agree with Zigerell.
            You say so right here at the prefix of your “implicit bias appears to be a total scam” circular reasoning

            First of all, the criticism you make that of my data that the findings are not necessarily the same as racism, is in itself valid

            The rest has been you moving the goal post (we are now linking Zigerell to God??!!!) whenever new information is provided or you have no counter argument. My favorite part is when you claimed it’s fine to associate black people – only black people by the way – with poverty because it’s “simply factually true” on the “group level” and I threw in data that showed black individuals are enjoying a historic low poverty rate – even better than pre pandemic levels and actually American Indians and Alaska Natives are topping the charts on poverty rates and not a single word from you, you just slid right past it to tell me I’m misunderstanding, misreading, and making stuff up.

            anyway, this was unpleasant, I should have left when I said I wanted to and you have yourself a nice day/night!
            this thread is three days long and I’m done.
            Continue throwing around Zigerell’s “nice graphs” when the topic of racism between racial groups comes up or don’t. I’m not your parent, I won’t be there to be to cheer you on or scold you.
            cheers!

          10. @T

            My favorite part is when you claimed it’s fine to associate black people – only black people by the way – with poverty because it’s “simply factually true” on the “group level” and I threw in data that showed black individuals are enjoying a historic low poverty rate – even better than pre pandemic levels and actually American Indians and Alaska Natives are topping the charts on poverty rates

            I never said that is was fine or not fine to associate black people with being poorer on average. I said that people do this and that it is factually true as well, which it is. Are you against facts?

            African-Americans may be doing a little better financially, but they are still way behind white Americans, let alone more successful groups like Asian-Americans. For example, Indian-Americans on average have twice the household income of white Americans. The gap between Asian-Americans and white Americans in dollars is about the same as the gap between white Americans and African Americans.

            And wealth is not the same as class.

            Of course, I’ve already argued that the category ‘white Americans’ actually seems to consist of different ethnic groups, with far different outcomes. And I’ve already explained that one of these groups, Appalachian Americans, suffer from severe poverty and probably class discrimination on the group level, just like African Americans. So when you say that I single out black Americans, this is another one of your falsehoods.

            I’m not sure why you think that I should have addressed native Americans when you never brought them up in the first place. This is a fairly small group and they are also only really present in the US, while Bernie is British and F1 is to a large extent a British sport as well. So it’s hardly logical to bring them up in this context.

            Even in the US, native Americans get disproportionately less attention and research done about them than black people. You can’t blame me for that.

          11. nope, not going to take the bait
            I’m wiser now ludewig

            we’re four days and three pages deep into this…whatever…this…is
            I’d tell you we can agree to disagree but that’s a lie: I disagree, Zigerell’s words disagrees, the ANES study based on Zigerell’s “nice graphs” disagrees, and most importantly, you know and have acknowledged the basis of the counterargument presented to you is completely valid.
            You know relying on a singular and specific measure of racial attitudes from a single survey that has no lie detectors is a wild approach to cover discrimination irl or in the field especially so when the definition is entirely unknown to you.
            You know the poverty rate for black Americans has been on the steady decline since 1950s yet you choose to use them to make a “factually” correct corroboration even when available research and your very own admission tells you there are poorer groups.
            A significant amount of your arguments rely on semantics and very interestingly handpicked interpretations that allow you to hold on steadfast to opinions you spout with quite a bit of bravado. This isn’t ad hominem, read our five thousand plus words conversation and ask yourself if we switched roles, what would happen? would you draw the same conclusion?
            It’s quite clear that as much you parrot changing your view when new information is brought to your attention, you appear to have no intention of doing so whatsoever.

            this isn’t how I’m going to start my weekend, I really truly am done
            I’m practicing what I preach and closing this tab
            if you need me I’ll be pregaming for Albert Park
            don’t need me

    3. The research actually shows that white Americans have the least in-group bias

      Lugewig, My wife’s ex-boss would probably ask whether you were “sitting the right way up”
      As “T” points out, quoting out of context slices of a sentence or two does nothing but diminish your argument

    4. Ludewig

      Ironically, the only actual discrimination I see here is the age discrimination by Hamilton, calling for the “old voices” to be removed.

      You are misunderstanding the use of the word “old”. It is clearly not a blanket reference to people of age, but rather to the old order, the incumbents, the establishment, etc. It is the juxtaposition of old and new, not old and young.

  15. Surely Masa is focussing on the wrong target. The F1 boss was Ecclestone ( billionaire good for a few million in damages), the fix was put in by Briatore (a multimillionaire ) and Symonds and had nothing to do with Hamilton or the FIA per se.

    Believing something is fishy from gossip in the pit lane is not the same as knowing there was, absolutely was, a conspiracy. Many may have had their suspicions even watching the TV at home and wondering how a driver can make such a mess of his corner, and the FIA might have had similar vibes but that is not proof. If Ecclestone is saying he had evidence at the time or before the end of the season then Masa should sue him for letting it go. No-one else.

    It is sad to see such money grubbing from Masa. It is clear he knows he can’t really get at the real individual culprits and their money so he it trying for the institutions instead.

    1. @Witan

      I don’t really understand your argument. If Massa wants the title to be put on his name, instead of Hamilton, which he appears to think would have been the end result without the cheating, then it is not money grubbing and it also clearly has something to do with Hamilton. Not that I see Massa blaming Hamilton, but it would mean that Lewis loses a title.

      And the reason why Massa blames FIA is because he apparently believes that they mishandled the cheating and caused him damage by doing so.

  16. I thought Massa’s challenge to overturn the WDC had been nullified and put to rest and this is now just a damage claim about seeking lost earnings?

  17. They’ve already taken away 1 of Hamilton’s 8 titles, why not another I guess? Or all of them?

    1. 2021 was absolutely not taken away, his opponent simply drove better, he has more of a claim on 2016 than 2021.

      1. Masi made an ‘erroneous’ intervention to ensure a ‘finale’ to the race, clearly under pressure. Whose we may find out some day. That intervention assured Verstappen the race win and championship. So it was effectively taken from Hamilton. As for the better driver, Verstappen started more aggressively, they both drove exceptionally for most of the season, but Hamilton finished the season racing better, Verstappen resorting to tactics that should have been more heavily penalized, but were allowed for the ‘spectacle’. What rankles is that it’s precisely the end of the season that matters, when the pressure is highest and when the drivers are really tested. In my view, Verstappen cracked, especially in Brazil and the Saudi Arabia GP, and for that Hamilton deserved the championship (since you’re talking about merit not the intervention of the race director to decide the season).

        1. @david-br

          Masi and the Stewards (my new band name) actually made a bunch of erroneous interventions, where some were to the benefit of Lewis.

          Of course the Lewis fans prefer to pretend that only one bad intervention happened, because otherwise it becomes a lot more muddy who would have won the season with proper race control and stewarding.

    2. 2008 also wasn’t an impressive season by hamilton, he’s usually far stronger than massa, but he was up there that season, which should say enough, and hamilton had even better luck that season.

      1. Hamilton produced some of his best ever races that season. If you’re not impressed by Silverstone or Spa that year, then really I don’t know what you measure any racing by.

        1. @david-br I always believed that Hamilton winning one title out of 2007 and 2008 was fair and just. I just happen to think that 2007 was the one that he deserved instead as 2008 was very hit amd miss.

          For the brilliance of Silverstone and Spa in 2008, he had some absolute shockers as well. Canada (especially), France and Japan jump to mind.

          1. @chimaera2003 Fair comment, I’d have preferred to see that rookie win too, it was probably more impressive and don’t entirely blame him for being left out too long in China and whatever happened in Brazil at the start. Canada 2008 was basically failing to see a traffic light… :) His driving was certainly more ‘feisty’ in 2008, though I still don’t see what he did wrong at the Japan start since he didn’t actually collide with anyone.

    3. I still to this day mutter an grumble BMW an the cool fuel Brazil 07…. Should have come fifth :)

    4. Titles? 8 titles? what titles?
      The Hockenheim CraneMaster title? or the Melbourne BigLiar Title? Or the “Boys don’t wear princess’ dresses” Diversity Title?

      Yoy say 8 titles, well I say 2 race wins, 9 podiums, 3 pole positions, 2 fastest laps, that’s all (and zero titles of course). Then the Hungaroring qualification and exit from the knowable Universe.

  18. “Old voices” the so diverse modern Hamilton is an Ageist….interesting if pushed he criticizes people by their condition not by their ideas and opinions.

    1. Alex, do you choose to deliberately misunderstand an expression to support your bias, or do you simply not understand the nuances of English?

      1. There is nothing to misunderstand, Hamilton practice/behavior is very clear in this circumstance.
        He could have said that Bernie is a idi0t, but no, he choose to paint all old people as Bernies .

        1. Right, so the answer is you don’t understand this English usage then. Fair enough.

    2. A lot of people claim to like diversity but don’t like diversity of opinion. In fact they try to censor other peoples opinions! So the opposite of diversity.

      Diversity is our strength, unless it’s an opinion they don’t like. The sad part is, those people think they’re doing the right thing. It won’t be until their voice is silenced that they’ll realize, too late, that they should have been protecting all opinions, right or wrong.

    3. Lewis clearly doesn’t practice what he preaches. None of this is exactly news and everything written here has been dredged up. He disgraces himself with his general behavior. The odd thing is that so many who don’t need to humour him because they need his driving talents inhabit the twilight zone that is Planet Lewis. Bizarre episodes abound, like where Lewis clumsily takes out Alonso, Alonso remarks that this is hardly an isolated incident… and it somehow ends with Alonso apologising to him.

      I prefer to talk about driving, and I think Lewis is still only second to Max on the current grid. His strongest areas are race pace and qualifying, although he seems to be slipping a bit in the latter. I’m not so sure about his abilities when it comes to passing people for position, but DRS makes this less important. I think it will be interesting to see what he can do at Ferrari, and future success is not out of the question if he gets the car.

      I’m not interested in much of what Bernie says. It is not because he’s an older voice. There has to be a standard of behaviour that is a fair measure of doing the decent thing. Nobody is exhibiting it here and the “older voices” comment is naked tribalism. Lewis is a wreck-the-head and, as is noted above, a very inspiring individual. He inspires headaches.

      1. If only the dude could drive that would be a redeeming grace

        1. He’s a very talented driver. My list of greats ends with Schumacher and doesn’t include Senna (who was perhaps one of the greatest qualifiers and a formidable opponent to tangle with on track). I’m quite sure that Lewis is a more complete driver than Senna based on race pace and consistency.

          It’s too bad modern drivers don’t have to contend with poor reliability. This was an important part of driving – not to drive the car to destruction. Any time I hear a driver complaining about having worse reliability than their team mate I wonder why they’re drawing attention to this. This is not a comment on Lewis. The most recent example of this was Alonso in 2022. That may have been bad luck, I don’t know. Alonso is a good driver, but I’m not bothered to investigate all of his claims.

          I’m not sure what a modern driver has to do to be great. I don’t think Alonso would have gotten his first championship had Schumacher not been deliberately disadvantaged by the rule change. Still, I’ve enjoyed his recent exploits, like in Brasil last year. I think Lewis has better and more consistent pace in the races if he doesn’t make some mistake trying to pass someone. Max’s consistency is scary, and, I think it’s most likely unprecedented. His story is yet to be told fully, though. F1 may be becoming a bit of a joke. Perhaps Max needs to go to other categories and be great in those, too?

    4. Haters gonna hate. He’s clearly not training about old as in elderly people, but as in old-fashioned, old guard. He’s referring to the establishment, the old boys coin, which have run the sport for so many years and did have entrenched discriminatory views and policies.

      But if course it fits your narrative to call him ageist…

  19. The “Drivers Championship” part of F1, is, and always has been, a ridiculous concept. This, and almost all, arguments over what driver should have won any given year of F1 is more silliness than anything.

    F1 is an engineering series, and the manufacturers championship is what really makes any sense. Which is fine. I am an engineer, and engineers could have even more sports to play in, and I’d like it. But this “Drivers Championship” happening on the same cars and rules is nonsense.

    1. ?!
      I guess Formula 1 could clone the cars and we’d see the drivers evenly competing. Or clone the drivers and see the cars evenly competing… You’re for the latter I take it? :)

    2. @greasemonkey

      Not really. If it truly was an engineering championship, the different cars would be tested in a standardized way, independent of individual driver skill. For example, by having each driver drive each car, only doing quali laps.

      As it is, both the constructors championship as the drivers championship are rewarded to the best combination of driver and car.

  20. Dude, you do not get to tell me whom to listen or not, who the h3k do you think you are?

Comments are closed.