Steve

Desperatore should be your user name.

@hammerheadgb It’s hard to say much about it when we don’t know what it says. It should be a condition of the request for a review that you letter is published.

You do realise this was Red Bull trying to get an increase in Hamilton’s penalty? They failed miserably.

I think you missed the joke.

” He “failed” to inform Lewis. It was known max was on his way to the hospital for precautionary checks.”

Fixed that for you. The way folks keep banging on about Verstappen’s hospital visit, you’d think he was […]

@Peartree The only basis for a review is if new and significant information comes to light that wasn’t available to the stewards at the time of the investigation. A good example is the grid penalty that Hamilton […]

@Peartree What happened in the race after the penalty is irrelevant because it hadn’t happened when the stewards investigated the incident. The future cannot be retrospectively applied to the past. It makes no […]

He’s just raging.

@stash You seem to be assuming that the review is allowed. There’s a very good chance that the request will be rejected.

@esploratore1 You mean you want what you think is justice. As many, if not more, think the penalty wasn’t justified.

@esploratore1 The penalty was exactly what it should have been, given the stewards didn’t think Hamilton was wholly to blame. Plenty of analysts and drivers thought it was a racing incident and that no penalty […]

@david-br Exactly. After Verstappen called Stoll a “mongol” and a “retard”, Horner just shrugged it off with a “That’s Max for you!” It took Marko, of all people, to tell Verstappen to zip it.

@peartree How can something that happens “in the future” be taken into account for an incident “in the past”? That’s nonsensical.

@peartree I really can’t see how things that happened “in the future” (relative to when the incident occurred) can be submitted as evidence for the stewards to review their decision.

If that is all Red Bull […]

@Robbie The words used by the race stewards in their communications is very proscribed. They use a different form of words when a driver is judged 100% to blame – see the Russell judgement from the sprint race at […]

@mysticus Exactly – it’s hard to understand how that can possibly be considered as new evidence when it happened “in the future” compared to when the incident happened.

@blik Maybe you need to use both your eyes? See the Jolyon Palmer video where he looks at Verstappen’s steering inputs.

That would indeed be hilarious.

Some of the interview comments are priceless…

MV: I was just so surprised he turned in.

CH: Both (drivers) have a role to play.

CH: 50-50 and that’s it.

@peartree What picture?

I suggest anyone interested watches Jolyon Palmer’s analysis on the incident on a well known video website. Most especially his analysis of Verstappen’s steering inputs.

Either way, […]