FIA allows Hamilton to wear nose stud in car as removal may risk “disfigurement”

2023 Bahrain Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has allowed Lewis Hamilton an exemption from its requirement for drivers not to wear jewellery while in their cars.

The sport’s governing body tightened up the enforcement of its rules which require drivers not to wear jewellery due to the risk of injury in the event of a fire. This put it in conflict with the seven-times world champion who wears many items of jewellery, many of which cannot be easily removed.

Ahead of the first practice session for the new season the FIA confirmed Hamilton’s team had not confirmed in its self-scrutineering sheet that their driver would not wear “any jewellery, in the form of body piercing or metal neck chains or watches.”

However the FIA medical delegate subsequently advised the stewards that Hamilton should be granted an exemption due to the difficulty of removing one of his items of jewellery.

“The stewards consulted the FIA medical delegate, who viewed the medical report, examined the driver and concurred with the opinion therein,” they noted. “We have determined to take no further action as there are concerns about disfigurement with frequent attempts at removal of the device.”

Last year Hamilton explained a nose stud he had fitted cannot easily be removed. “It was like soldered in so it didn’t come loose,” he said. “They gave me, at the time, for many races, an exemption until I could find a solution. I then went and got it taken out and tried to find a solution, and put it in and put it out. It got infected because of that.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2023 Bahrain Grand Prix

Browse all 2023 Bahrain Grand Prix 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.

45 comments on “FIA allows Hamilton to wear nose stud in car as removal may risk “disfigurement””

  1. if it’s in the name of safety, “disfigurement” especially in the form of an infection is a small price to pay at best.

    Or did they realize an equally potentially degloved ring finger shattered their argument?

  2. Priorities

  3. petebaldwin (@)
    3rd March 2023, 11:57

    This is just insanity now…. How long is this nonsense going to go on for?

    Firstly, Hamilton doesn’t have to repeatedly take it out. He can take it out once and leave it out. Problem solved. No disfigurement, no infection… He could even have it removed by a doctor to ensure it’s done safely with no damage caused. The damage is caused by the fact that Hamilton will choose put it back in after the race and will then have to take it back out the following weekend. They’re giving Hamilton an exemption because his own choices mean following the rules will cause him problems.

    Alternatively, just stop talking about it, let him race with it in and we all move on. It’s not something that is going to cause issues for anyone but himself so as long as he’s willing to accept the extra risk, why should anyone else care? I certainly don’t.

    It’s just another example of the FIA making a rule and then having no clue how to enforce it – exactly as we’ll see the first time someone decides to make a political statement at a race.

    1. @petebaldwin
      Yes good point. I’ve seen this many years ago during a socioligy class. A new and very green teacher trying to establish dominance over a group of bored teenagers by imposing all kind of nonsense rules on them, not knowing how to enforce them or even coming up with suitable punishment for a transgression. As you’d expect that experiment didn’t go too well and ended with kids climbing through windows and the class bin being on fire. I don’t know if she persued her dream of becoming a teacher after that…

      All parents (should) know: you don’t pick a battle you can lose with your kids. This jewelry thing certainly is a peculiar choice of hill to die on

      1. Baasbas, your sociology class example is a very good analogy to what is happening here.

        1. The Dolphins
          3rd March 2023, 14:32

          It’s a very good analogy for Mohammed Ben Sulayem’s role as president in general.

    2. “MRI”?

    3. FIA still going after the black guy. If Verstappen had this it would never have been a problem.

      1. nonsense. If Verstappen had a ring too then your comment would be spot on, however since it is not the case your comment is actually racist.

  4. What about the screws in Stroll’s wrist? Are they jewellery?

    1. Cosmetic internal screws inserted in his arm?

      “Show us your bling, Lance!”
      “Okay… Got an X-ray machine or a scalpel?”

  5. Oh well…that validates the 2021 Abu Dhabi gp result then. The rules don’t have to be followed! ;)

    1. Exactly what I was thinking.
      Although, it was already validated….

      1. I’m sure you’re very well aware that there’s a huge difference between a competitor wearing jewellery, which has zero impact on race results, and a race director ignoring the rulebook in a way which directly changes the result of a race, let alone a championship.

        1. However, I do agree that rules are rules and they should be enforced. The FIA look ridiculous when they don’t enforce their own rules. If they don’t intend to enforce them, the rules shouldn’t exist.

        2. Breaching a rule deserves a penalty, not an exemption. Doesn’t matter what the rule is.

          And it remains perfectly and legitimately arguable that the FIA did not actually break any rule that ‘changed the results’ of anything – but it’s absolutely, 100% indisputable that the rules explicitly prohibit the wearing of jewellery.

          1. I completely disagree, but that’s no surprise.

            The rules about safety cars are very clearly written, Masi had said previously he had no choice but to follow them. If he had, the race would have ended behind the safety car and the result would have been different. He didn’t follow them, and the result changed.

            But as I said, I do agree that, if they are going to have the jewelry rule as written, they need to enforce it. There shouldn’t be a penalty, a driver wearing jewellery shouldn’t be allowed to take part. Personally, I believe studs should be excluded as they are in most workplaces with rules about jewelry, but that would need to be written in the rules. Written as they are, the FIA look ridiculous by allowing Lewis to ignore them.

          2. *I completely disagree about the Masi AD SC situations

  6. Hamilton and rules don’t seem to go together very well.
    He continues to show contempt for both the rules he has agreed to play by and the people whose job it is to enforce them.

    Quite the troublemaker….

    1. Sounds like he submitted a medical exemption as per the rules and it was approved. That’s quite different to not playing by the rules or being a troublemaker.

      1. Yeah, exactly – he decided the rules shouldn’t apply to him, and so put in for an exemption.

    2. I think he loves it. He needs everyone’s eyes just to feel seen.

  7. If it was in the name of safety, I would agree with the FIA, but I don’t think there is any evidence to support the idea that it is a safety issue. Can anyone point to an incident in any formula in recent years where a driver’s metalwork has caused a serious avoidable injury?

    Metal conducts heat, but any contact burn would be localised. If the accident is hot enough to cause contact burns then the flame burns and lung scorching would be a much more serious issue. As Bullfrog has pointed out, metal implants cannot be removed, I myself have some metal in my jaw, but they are not rated as a risk factor for people in fires. As T mentioned, rings on fingers are potentially a much more serious safety issue. An ear-ring being ripped out can happen and is painful but not serious. Finger rings getting hooked on something cause significant bone and tissue damage, even in low energy accidents, and is a much greater risk.

    The “safety” argument sometimes raised is that it could burn the emergency responders. No, this doesn’t happen. Metal cools down rapidly, and EMS regularly have to deal with fire victims who were wearing jewellry at the time. They know how to deal with it. They don’t get burnt. It doesn’t inhibit their ability to treat the patient.

    Arguing that other sports prohibit jewellry is irrelevant. The safety issue in football, for example, is completely different. There the risk is two players colliding and a neck chain flying up into the teeth etc. Footballs rarely explode into a fireball so fire isn’t the risk.

    1. What happens if Hams helmet gets crushed against his nose and the stud is tangled in the inner cloth? Hes gasping for breath but they just can’t remove his helmet…

      1. Superman, has there ever been a case of an F1 helmet being crushed? Do you realise that with the current helmet specs, they can run a tank over it and it won’t deflect. In addition, trying to wrench a helmet off an accident victim is not recommended until the neck has been stabilised. Usually, the breathing difficulties are caused by the strap under the chin, not by the helmet itself.

      2. The visor of the helmet surely shatters in said impact and while Hamilton has more air to breathe he has to deal with shards in his eye

        Or

        EMS does a controlled cut to vent air buying themselves time to figure out a way to safely extract Hamilton from his helmet

        Or

        On his way to get his nose stud caught in the inner fabric, Hamilton is dead because the position of the stud in relation to the inner fabric dictates g forces a skull cannot withstand even with a HANS device

        1. Good point T, to which I would add emergency intubation, i.e. they make an incision in the thoat, insert a breathing tube into the airway, and feed with oxygen if necesary. Intubation is probably quicker than helmet cuts, but for sure the F1 medical car will have all available options in the kit. All safety regulations should be dictated by science and the experience of EMS who really do know what they are doing.

          1. @slowmo , AlanD Hakkinen Adelaide?
            He was immediately unconscious although he had not hit his head on the wall or the cockpit surround. If he had done so the Finn would almost certainly be dead. The medical crews were very quick and a tracheotomy was being performed – to clear his air passage – as the medical car, carrying F1 doctor Professor Sid Watkins, arrived at the scene. Mika was taken out of the car, and was worked on beside the car for 15 minutes before being put into an ambulance and driven the few hundred yards from Brewery Bend to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

      3. I assure you a medic would happily remove the helmet by force and tear the jewelery from his nose in the process if his airway was compromised.

    2. Arguing that other sports prohibit jewellry is irrelevant.

      It doesn’t matter why the rules exists – what matters is that it does exist and everyone agrees to abide by said rules.
      One (1) person has an exemption from the rules, for a reason that is truly and utterly frivolous. Vanity.

      What message does that send? That it’s okay to take a stand against the rules/rule makers and get away with it.

      The FIA have made themselves look weak yet again. No wonder nobody respects them.

  8. What happens if the next person rocks up with a ridiculous bull nose ring or hoop earrings? Where does it end? What is acceptable?

    It’s so much easier to have a blanket ban on all jewellery than make exceptions for pathetic individuals that think they know better.

    And ‘disfigurement’? This is why Ham is just so unlikeable, he’s a toxic hack!

    Behaviour like this is just teaching younger drivers that they don’t have to follow the rules of their sport.

    1. Superman: “What happens if the next person rocks up with a ridiculous bull nose ring”

      The fact that you have already judged it as ridiculous should tell you where your prejudices lie. If it was big enough to bang against the teeth in accident or was big enough to complicate to fitting of a helmet then yes, it becomes a safety issue, but the driver would have addressed that long before they got to the track. But just because it offends our sense of good taste doesn’t make it a safety issue.

    2. he’s a toxic hack!
      Who?

  9. This needs to stop.

    Either it’s against the rules or it isn’t. If it is, and they intend to keep it as a rule, they need to insist he gets it removed or will not be allowed to race. If they aren’t, they need to change the rules. This half-way “it’s against the rules but we will make an exception” is ridiculous.

    That said, the FIA made a rock for their own back by not enforcing these rules earlier. Everyone know Hamilton was wearing jewellery for years. This is similar to the new “political statements” rule: if you allow someone to do something for a significant time and then try to stop them, you’re taking their rights away. If you nip it in the bud early, they never had that right.

    Personally, I don’t see what the big deal is with a stud. Most places which ban jewelry make an exception for studs, as they are highly unlikely to cause any issues, and they maintain the piercing so that the person can wear that jewellery outside the workplace. However, this needs to be settled one way or another, because it’s just making the FIA look (even more) incompetent.

    1. *rod for their own back

    2. Dr Mouse, I agree, it is always easier to begin strict and then relax rules than it is to begin with no rules and then try to restrict things later. If there is evidence that a rule is needed, people will comply. For example, for years cars didn’t have a halo, but evidence from accidents suggested the cars needed to be safer around the driver’s head area, and first we had raised cockpit sidewalls, and then the full halo. People might has said “yuk” when they first saw the halo design, and some people needed winning over, but everyone complied. With this jewellry regulation though, they have plenty of accidents in F1, but I’ve yet to hear of one which was caused by the driver’s medallion getting caught under the brake pedal.

      I remember a few years ago that one of the stewards at an F1 event tried to insist drivers had haircuts before the race because, in his opinion, they looked scruffy. If he’d had his way, that would be in the regulations too.

      1. I don’t believe the rule necessary, either.

        However, while ever it exists, the FIA should enforce it. By giving exemptions, the FIA look weak at best. It’s ridiculous to have a rule on the books which, whenever someone breaks it, they just grant an exemption.

        The FIA do have form for this, though. Remember the 107% rule? I don’t remember anyone failing to qualify from this, because the stewards just granted an exemption every time someone failed to meet it.

        1. As far as I remember, the 107% rule came about thorugh politics, not science. There were a couple of teams who would make only token attempts at qualifiying and no real prospect of ever scoring a point, and were being lapped several times each race. So the rule was introduced and 107% chosen which just happened to exclude these slow teams. Putting a number on it, a precise percentage, made it sound like it was fair and objective and logical, and not just the FIA kicking out the slow teams. I cannot remember the name of the team, but both cars were excluded under the 107% rule in the opening race, the sponsors then refused to pay as the cars hadn’t competed, and so the team folded before the second race. I agree though that mostly the rule is never applied, and the stewards always seem to find a reason why an exemption can be made.

      2. People might has said “yuk” when they first saw the halo design, and some people needed winning over, but everyone complied.

        That’s probably because nobody was given an exemption….

        As for the 107% rule – Wiki lists 28 breaches that resulted in a non-start. Most recently featuring HRT in 2011 and 2012, and both at Melbourne.

  10. Well yay for A-train fighting for all our civil rights

  11. Andy (@andyfromsandy)
    3rd March 2023, 15:03

    Some years ago in snooker if a player turned up with a note from their doctor about breathing issues or whatever they could get away with not having to wear a tie or bow tie.

    Hamilton has turned up with a note from his doctor as to why he should be allowed to keep his nose stud in.

    In both cases it seems the rules have been applied and exceptions have been accepted.

  12. Can this non-issue please just go away forever.

  13. You’ve heard of being “lead around by the nose”? A ring was used for that purpose. Water buffalo, etc. – even humans have historically been chained together by the nose, or lead by a master holding the chain. It’s basically a symbol of subjugation. Lose it, and there will only be a little dimple or freckle left over.

  14. Is it in his front nose?

  15. These are echoes of the past. A dalit with a nose ring and chain. People think it’s fashion. It was not. Like the records of slave breeding, or of the vast number of bounty transactions paid for shooting “wild men”. These unpalatable histories have been expurgated from the record books. You won’t find much about people daisy chained by the nose. All that you can hear today are the echoes, and all you can see is “fashionable” mimicry of a forgotten world.

Comments are closed.