Charlie Whiting inadvertanlty reveals he's an idiot and/or stooge

Slutmonkey57b

From Autosport:

Whiting, who was present in both hearings that debated whether or not Hamilton had let Jarno Trulli past behind the safety car in Australia, has told AUTOSPORT that he had noticed a change in the world champion's behaviour in the two meetings.

"I was distinctly uncomfortable about Lewis's demeanour on Sunday [in Australia], and on Thursday [in Malaysia] I would say he was just doing what he was told to do," said Whiting. "On Sunday it was completely clear that he was telling lies.

Riddle me this Whiting:

If it was "completely clear he was telling lies" that day:

WHY
did you make a decision about the race result without further reviewing the evidence?

I can only think of two reasons:
1) Moron
2) Setting things up to see if political capital could be gained against McLaren and Ron Dennis.

zeris

3) Revisionist recollection

Slutmonkey57b

Nope - he asked Hamilton twice at the first hearing if he was *sure* that he hadn't moved over. Remember, McLaren had already tried to get an answer out of him while the incident was happening - but he never responded.

I am leaning strongly towards "stooge"

zeris

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Nope - he asked Hamilton twice at the first hearing if he was *sure* that he hadn't moved over. Remember, McLaren had already tried to get an answer out of him while the incident was happening - but he never responded.

I am leaning strongly towards "stooge"

It was Steve Chopping who asked Hamilton the questions. Whiting is there, but doesn't get a say in the outcome. The three stewarts and Alan Donnelly make the decisions.

Slutmonkey57b

Do you think if Whiting had stood up in the meeting and said "I know you're a liar because I heard the radio transmissions and you asked me about it during the race" it wouldn't have had an effect?

It has already been stated by the FIA that Whiting asked Hamilton the two questions .. in question. I don't know where you're getting alternative informatiion.

And none of that addresses why a man who was "clearly lying" was allowed to lie twice in one week without being pulled up on it, OR why a decision was made on the race result in the liar's favour. But none of this is getting asked, which suits Max down to the ground I'm sure.

zeris

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Do you think if Whiting had stood up in the meeting and said "I know you're a liar because I heard the radio transmissions and you asked me about it during the race" it wouldn't have had an effect?

There is no evidence to suggest that Whiting or the stewarts at the time of the first stewart meeting had heard the radio transmission. Just because they had the capability to listen to the recording does not mean they did. The numerous stories written would give the very strong impression that neither Whiting or the stewarts had heard the radio transmissions at the time of the first stewart meeting. The press release from the WMSC says: "based on this information, a recording of the pit-to-car radio exchanges between Hamilton and McLaren was retrieved and examined by the Stewards and the FIA Race Director". This was after the first meeting. I have not read anywhere where it says that Whiting or the stewarts had heard the recording later used as evidence against McLaren and Hamilton before the first stewart meeting.

Do you know what question Dave Ryan asked Whiting during the last two laps and slow down lap? Was it something like "Trulli went off and Lewis went past. Now Trulli overtook Lewis behind the safety car. Can Lewis take the place back?" Was it something like "Trulli went off, Lewis went past and Lewis then let Trulli past. Can he retake the place?" I don't know. Do you know?

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

It has already been stated by the FIA that Whiting asked Hamilton the two questions .. in question. I don't know where you're getting alternative informatiion.

Kinda. Yeah, your right the press release does say that Whiting asked him whether he let Trulli pass. Chopping had asked the previous question about whether the team told Lewis to let Trulli pass. This question is referenced in the press release but unattributed. I am getting my information from an article written by Adam Cooper of Autosport. The co-author of the story you linked to at the start of this thread and was written at the same time as the linked article above but has more detail.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And none of that addresses why a man who was "clearly lying" was allowed to lie twice in one week without being pulled up on it, OR why a decision was made on the race result in the liar's favour. But none of this is getting asked, which suits Max down to the ground I'm sure.

I still stand by the "clearly lying" is a revisionist recollection. Body language, speech patterns and behaviour will all take on an ulterior motive in hindsight. During the first stewart meeting there was no evidence other than the sector timing and the two drivers with two conflicting opinions. Why not believe the world champion seeing as he wasn't the one who went off the track.

If you want to find a conspiracy then you will find a conspiracy.