One way or another, one of us is right, but we may never know who!

I hope this is a suitably agreeable last word?

In other words, if McLaren released the telemetry and it demonstrated unambiguously that Lewis Hamilton did not press a button that caused his car to slow down, then I would be prepared to believe it. So yes, I believe Pitpass over McLaren as things stand. But if I see the raw data, and it demonstrates that the McLaren story is true, then there will be no option but to accept that Lewis Hamilton did not press the wrong button. I have always said that I come to my views on the basis of the evidence available. As such, if more evidence emerges then my view changes.

I sense that there is no point in continuing this debate. The comments thread has now run on for over 60 comments, which is more than enough for me. I think our respective positions on this issue are clear, and I think continuing the discussion would be a waste of resources. So this will be the last comment I post on this thread.

However, I will keep the comments open, so you of course can have the last word if you want. And anyone else can chip in as well.

Thanks for the debate though. I hope you stick around and contribute a bit in the future, even if we disagree.

Oh, and before you pick holes in the above with comments like “McLaren would never confess even if LH was at fault and all the investigations showed him to be”…..if you can find hard evidence (better video footage for example) I would accept that too.

Actually, that’s a bit oversimplified. I would say it’s more:

You believe PitPass over McLaren

I think there’s doubt over the whole situation (and back to the whole ‘benefit of the doubt’ thing….again!)

I never suggested that you meant both definitions…i was highlighting that, once again, you are selective in the evidence/quotes you present. You chose the word ‘apparently’, failing to understand it’s possible interpretations and then, when queried about it, ignore possible alternative meanings because it would be an admission that word was open to interpretation.

And how can you sit there and say that you do not question McLaren’s integrity? By suggesting that they are covering op the story you are accusing them of outright lying. Is that not a break down of integrity on McLaren’s part?

“This is all I am saying when I point out that a McLaren press release is not the most reliable source.” Is reliability not a measure of integrity?

“subjective opinion”? Hardly. I think, had you included a question mark in the title, I may have been somewhat less sceptical about your parody suggestion but I think you’ve managed to be so subtle that all indications of satire have been lost.

[Incidentally, I wasn’t the one who was asking to see the telemetry.]

No, i was trying to make a point. the only possible evidence for a gearbox failure is the telemetry but, be honest, if they presented the telemetry, and it did reveal a failure, would you believe it?

Other than that, it is not possible to prove that LH didn’t push the button. Proving a negative in these circumstances is impossible.

[You keep on saying that I dismiss one of the other theories (even when I haven’t). But then you say that I should dismiss the other one? This is hypocrisy. This is what I’m getting at. How can you jump up and down and accuse me of ignoring one of the theories but not one of the others?]

I haven’t asked you to dismiss anything…..merely acknowledge the lack of hard evidence. Of course, you won’t do that because you consider McLaren’s statement to be less convincing that an unsubstantiated quote from another source.

[That is the point I keep on trying to make. When you are asking me to give equal footing to the McLaren spin, when I don’t believe it, then it is the thin end of the wedge.]

And there’s the dismissal.

[Next thing I know, I would have to give credence to every single theory out there. But that is just nonsensical. That was what I was trying to illustrate when I said that nobody talks about gravity then mentions the theory that it’s all the doing of invisible vacuum cleaners.]

Erm…..so let me get this right. You consider McLaren’s statement to be, in your opinion, as implausible as any of the other theories out there and therefore not worthy of further consideration?

I.e. you have dismissed it?

Regards media reliability (or dedication), what makes PitPass more credible than, say, Autosport, F1 Racing, etc? Their ‘independance’ stems from what? That they started as a group of individuals coming together from a number of different area of motorsport and the media? So did every other motorsport mag/website out there. Each has it’s own take on the scene(s) and each is financed. How does it make one better than the other?

I think we can best sum up the situation as follows:

You believe PitPass over McLaren.
I don’t.

I have declared quite clearly, somewhere above, that if someone from McLaren comes forward and confesses to LH pushing the button, i will issue an apology here. I don’t see any similar offering from you and, given your lack of faith in McLaren, i don’t suppose that you feel the need to.

In the meantime, there is doubt.

Tosh! Just another example of how you bias your commentary to suit. You didn’t even acknowledge the existence of a second main entry. If you’re going to use ambiguous language, why act so surprised when someone holds you to account for it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Explain to me how I could have possibly meant both definitions of “apparently”?

Besides, it really is splitting hairs. The original question was about whether or not my post contained qualifications. Whether it was four or five qualifications is neither here nor there. It contained qualifications.

And what would be more convincing? You’ve mentioned telemetry but, given your suspicion of McLaren’s integrity, i’m pretty sure that you would respond with some implication that the telemtry was rigged. After all, if you consider a direct quote from McLaren to be less than convincing then why would you put any more faith in telemetry from the same source?

I have never questioned McLaren’s integrity. I have just pointed out that they have an interest in covering up for Hamilton’s mistakes. I don’t blame them for this. It is understandable.

I mean, all the teams are at it. None of them would need press officers otherwise. It is pretty much an open secret that when an engine fails teams often say that it was a “gearbox” problem to save the engine manufacturers from embarrassment. The game was given away when teams started to get grid penalties after having a gearbox problem.

This is all I am saying when I point out that a McLaren press release is not the most reliable source. It is bound to be biased, just like all the other teams.

ISTR when Takuma Sato pressed the wrong button, BAR didn’t say so either — they cooked up a story about unexpected mechanical failure. The story actually came out a month or so later, and I’m not sure BAR ever actually officially confirmed it. But it’s widely considered to be the truth today.

Incidentally, I wasn’t the one asking to see the telemetry.

So you would seriously consider giving the aforementioned ‘magnetic field’ theory equal footing to either of the two options so far discussed?

Once again, you have completely missed the point. Of course I do not give the magnetic field story any weight. That was my point!!

You keep on saying that I dismiss one of the other theories (even when I haven’t). But then you say that I should dismiss the other one? This is hypocrisy. This is what I’m getting at. How can you jump up and down and accuse me of ignoring one of the theories but not one of the others?

That is the point I keep on trying to make. When you are asking me to give equal footing to the McLaren spin, when I don’t believe it, then it is the thin end of the wedge. Next thing I know, I would have to give credence to every single theory out there. But that is just nonsensical. That was what I was trying to illustrate when I said that nobody talks about gravity then mentions the theory that it’s all the doing of invisible vacuum cleaners.

a penchant for misquoting others; the confidence to dismiss, nay, ridicule sound engineering logic without the engineering know-how to back it up.

Who have I misquoted? If you are talking about the issue as to whether or not the drivers thought Hamilton drove dangerously behind the SC, we have already covered that. I concluded that there is not a safe (i.e. non-dangerous) way of contributing to a crash. You didn’t respond to that conclusion.

I never even quoted anyone on that issue anyway.

There’s nothing remotely satirical about your title.

Well, that is a subjective opinion. I’m sorry if it wasn’t obvious enough to you, but I usually treat my readers with enough intelligence not to have to put big flashing neon signs every time I am not being totally straight-faced.

You have to believe me when I say this. I thought about including a question mark in the title. But I thought to myself, “Well, the media will swallow the gearbox line whole, so I’ll make a point about it here.” You will see if you read straight to the bottom of the post that part of my intention was to lambast the media’s bias. It is just a reaction to the media’s one-sidedness.

I’m still trying to figure out what my red herrings are.

I’ve already said, twice. The red herring is that you continually accuse me of dismissing this and that and not being able to conclusively prove that Hamilton pressed the button. But that is not the real point of your arguments. Because if it was, you would be equally scornful of the media’s response, one which is genuinely dismissive and wilfully ignorant of the existence of any controversy.

engineering knowledge, media savvy and their numerous contacts within the F1 scene

…and books to sell and parochial British tabloid readers to keep happy!

Update to respond to #56 which was posted while I was writing:

But it does raise an interesting point. What if the other MSM outlets have better contacts in the F1 industry than, say, PitPass? Could that be one possible explanation of why they have not given much credence to that idea?

Possible. But as I’ve said, the British mainstream media have a certain vested interest in defending Lewis Hamilton. I would tend to trust the likes of Pitpass more, though. For one, Pitpass is an independent website. It is aimed specifically at motor racing enthusiasts. Unlike the MSM, they are under no pressure to sensationalise stories. Nor do they feel the need to over-hype the British drivers.

I believe the majority of F1 journalists for newspapers also tend to cover more than just Formula 1, and are only called upon to write about F1 when the editor decides he wants an article about it. Pitpass, on the other hand, is a dedicated motor racing website. As such, I would tend to believe that Pitpass has better contacts than the MSM journalists, but who’s to say?

But it does raise an interesting point. What if the other MSM outlets have better contacts in the F1 industry than, say, PitPass? Could that be one possible explanation of why they have not given much credence to that idea?

Tosh! Just another example of how you bias your commentary to suit. You didn’t even acknowledge the existence of a second main entry. If you’re going to use ambiguous language, why act so surprised when someone holds you to account for it?

[As for your not dismissing all claims to the contrary; “McLaren are denying this, just like they denied the incident”, etc , etc.
Is that not dismissive?

It’s just a statement of fact.]

Given the context and content of the paragraph concerned, you were implying that McLaren’s statement was nonsense. If that’s not dismissive, what is?

[I still don’t think McLaren’s explanation is convincing enough. Please, please read what I write.]

And what would be more convincing? You’ve mentioned telemetry but, given your suspicion of McLaren’s integrity, i’m pretty sure that you would respond with some implication that the telemtry was rigged. After all, if you consider a direct quote from McLaren to be less than convincing then why would you put any more faith in telemetry from the same source?

[Are only you allowed to decide which theories are “outlandish” and which are not?]

So you would seriously consider giving the aforementioned ‘magnetic field’ theory equal footing to either of the two options so far discussed?
I mean, think for a minute; given the two quotes you refer to, and the video footage, it does not surprise me that the ‘button error’ has been given weight by some. By i’m sure we’re both mature enough to weed out the less sensible theories that might be generated given any particular issue (e.g. giant invisible vacuum cleaner theories for gravity).

That is my point. You are jumping up and down accusing me of all sorts of things simply because I have a different interpretation of the events to you. I wonder how you ever get through a newspaper without completely imploding with rage, asking them to prove that their ideas are 100% true and asking them why they “dismiss” your favoured interpretation.

Far from jumping up and down accusing you of all sort of things (which would cause no end of trouble typing!), my initial point (ahh….so long ago) was that the evidence doesn’t support a conclusion. After that, well, i’ve always been of the opinion that you give the benefit of the doubt. And that’s where we are diametrically opposed. My points have since expanded as you have progressively demonstrated numerous foibles in your attempts to support your case, e.g. a penchant for misquoting others; the confidence to dismiss, nay, ridicule sound engineering logic without the engineering know-how to back it up.

[You see, I could say the exact same things about the gearbox theory. I could say, “Can you prove for certain that it was a gearbox failure? Show me the telemetry. If you had the background knowledge to consider human nature you would realise that it is possible for Hamilton to have made a mistake and you would have provided a more balanced assessment,” etc, etc.]

I fully agree, human infallibility is an option. I’ve not declared “Hamilton could never have pressed that button”, i’ve simply stated that the evidence for that theory is inconclusive (back to the whole benefit of the doubt thing). On the other hand, you have made a statement, clear as the bold type in the title. That you’ve since declared that your title is a parody of the mainstream media strikes me as backpedalling. I mean, a parody should be satirical and obvious with it: “McLaren unreliability caused by leprechaun in hydraulic valve”….that’s a parody. There’s nothing remotely satirical about your title.

[This is my point when I say your arguments are red herrings. You are deciding to have a go at me for “dismissing” McLaren’s favoured theory (even when I don’t dismiss it). But you do not complain to any of the mainstream media outlets who dismiss the alternative theory, sometimes without even having the grace to acknowledge its existence.]

Alas, i’ve been to busy writing on your blog to scrutinise every media outlet for dismissive comments. Although i have this weeks Autosport and there is mention in there that McLaren are still inspecting the gearbox and hope to be in a position to report their results next week. Hell of a lot of work just to maintain a cover story!

I’m still trying to figure out what my red herrings are. I’m pretty sure i’ve limited my reponses to facts, rather than trying to distract anyone from the points in hand.

[Why? It is because, perhaps, you are not so concerned about the truth as you try to make yourself out? Is it perhaps because you can’t handle the notion that Lewis Hamilton might be — horror of horrors — a human being, capable of making mistakes just like anyone else?]

I’ve already seen Hamilton make mistakes. No problem there. I’m certain he could have looked after his tyres better in China, and perhaps not have attacked so hard on the first lap in Brazil. Like i’ve said numerous times (this will be the third time in this post alone), i’ve looked at the evidence and it’s inconclusive. I’m also sure that all the MSM outlets, other than PitPass/LePresse, have considered the evidence in hand and, with their wealth of engineering knowledge, media savvy and their numerous contacts within the F1 scene, have given the theory exactly the amount of column inches it warrants.

Heresay?
Ah, yes. It is contrary to the beliefs of my religion that Hamilton may have made a mistake. Could some up Woody’s position.

OK, so I’m a sarcastic so-and-so. I know he meant hearsay rather than heresy
.
But, come on guys. Give it a break.