I hope you all managed to have a good Christmas. I have to say, I can’t remember the last time I enjoyed Christmas so much.

In recent years I have enjoyed it just as a nice day off with a big meal. But beyond that I didn’t enjoy them much more than a normal day of leisure. So maybe I’d watch my new DVDs, but I would probably spend a great deal of the day on the internet anyway.

Perhaps it is because I have had such a tough year (not emotionally tough, but physically and mentally). Maybe it was because last year my brother wasn’t here, but it was probably mostly because I have become older, jaded and cynical.

Of course, when you’re young, Christmas is probably the most exciting part of the year. All those presents! Unfortunately as you get older this wears off. One day you find that you have the responsibility to give presents as well, with all the shopping hell that entails. And soon enough you might be earning enough to buy pretty much all of the luxuries you want.

For that reason, I always tell my parents to try and surprise me. They still want me to write them a list of what I want, but that is rubbish. Normally if I want stuff I can just buy them anyway. So I find myself not buying things just so that I can put them on my Christmas list. What a load of old bum. What is the point of knowing what you are getting anyway?

So I was quite pleased when my parents decided to buy me a poker set, which I completely didn’t expect. I didn’t even realise the big box was meant to be for me, so I just left it at first.

Apparently my father didn’t really want to get me it in case it encourages me to gamble. I think that’s a bit rich coming from someone who spends £2 on the lottery every week, but there you go! I doubt I’d ever gamble myself. I am pretty risk-averse and the odds are always stacked against you.

I have kind of hinted at getting a poker set before, but only as a sort of “ooh, wouldn’t that be amusing” kind of thing. I wasn’t dead serious about getting one. But I found myself getting quite excited about it, and we all played a game later in the evening.

I had never played a game of poker before, and I knew very little about it. All I knew was whatever I gleaned from watching Late Night Poker back in the day, which was very little. I only ever watched that because there was nothing else on, and I was mesmerised by the amazing under-the-table cameras.

My brother led us all by the hand, explaining the rules as we went along. My parents were knocked out quickly, and it was just the young’uns — me, my brother and his girlfriend — left. Time flew by really quickly. Before we realised it, three hours had passed and it was after midnight.

And in the end, I won my first ever game of poker! Muhahah!

And this evening, I won at Scrabble. This is in stark contrast to my record on Facebook Scrabble (won 2, lost 8). This winning streak is unusual, because normally I am just one big loser. I should ride the wave and carry these optimistic feelings with me into 2008. It’s a big year, so being optimistic is probably the only way I can get things done from now on, even though it goes against my instincts.

What else did I get for Christmas? Well, most of the other stuff was on my list. A few books to add to the ever-growing pile of books I haven’t yet got round to reading. Jackie Stewart’s autobiography (very hefty looking and thorough — unlike Lewis Hamilton, Jackie Stewart has lived a life), The Long Tail and Dead Children Playing.

My brother got me Dead Children Playing, although I had already bought it for myself and had got it wrapped up. Amusingly, I bought it partly as a backup for my brother in case I couldn’t find him anything better (eventually I got him this). That we both got it for each other is a sign that it was a good present, I think. We are keeping a copy each.

I also got a few DVDs — the F1 season review, 30 Century Man (a documentary about Scott Walker) and Taking Liberties (a documentary about Tony Blair riding roughshod over the constitution).

I have just watched Taking Liberties and I can very much recommend it. It concisely documents what is happening to this country under the Labour government and why it matters. It demonstrates that this affects a wide range of people and includes interviews from critics of the government across the political spectrum, from all of the major parties. If you don’t recognise the loss of freedoms that is happening in this country, you should watch this film and you will soon enough understand.

The film looks as though it’s only half of the story as well, because taking a look at the list of DVD extras, there is lots more to get through.

Back to normal tomorrow I think. I decided — two days off: Christmas Day and Boxing Day. But deadlines loom. Back to writing essays and dissertations tomorrow.

Despite what I have written about Lewis Hamilton’s actions behind the Safety Car over the past couple of days, I think the FIA’s decision was the correct one (it’s not often I say that!). Hamilton broke the rules, but it was not the sort of thing that merited a serious punishment. A slap on the wrists or a fine perhaps, but not points deductions or anything like that.

But I don’t like the implication from the biased British media that Hamilton was found “not guilty”. Remember that Sebastian Vettel’s punishment was taken away from him. There has only been one major piece of new evidence since Sunday, and we all know what that shows.

Of course, the British media is absolutely unbearable when it comes to this sort of thing. Mark Blundell was on ITV this morning criticising the fact that the stewards have never driven a Grand Prix car before, so they’re bound not to know what it’s like. That’s funny, I don’t remember him making such a criticism before, but there you go.

It’s also quite amusing because Blundell would know a lot about not being qualified for your job. He is, after all, a broadcaster who has a shockingly poor grasp of the English language.

Funny also how all of the other Grand Prix drivers seem to have been criticising Hamilton as well. Mark Blundell conveniently ignored this point. After being grilled by his colleagues, Hamilton said:

It was a bit disappointing because I knew a few of the drivers there and I didn’t expect them to say certain things.

Perhaps it’s time to admit when you are in the wrong.

In a way, the FIA couldn’t really have risked giving Hamilton a larger penalty because they would have been accused of manipulating the championship. It’s a sign of the sorry state of affairs that the FIA has found itself in. It is constantly being accused of bias one way or another and of manipulating this and that.

There are a few measures that I would like to see the FIA bring in to help prevent this.

1. When the race result is announced, it should not be changed

   I think there should be a time limit on when the race result can be changed. This is not to say that teams should not be able to appeal or that stewards should be unable to punish bad driving. But there should be a time limit for when a team can appeal a result. Something like six hours for instance. This does not even necessarily mean that the result has to be set in stone — just that we know what is going on. For a race result to come under question several days after the event is simply unacceptable.
   (This would be the case for drivers breaking the rules, but should be different in case a car is found to be illegal. But illegal parts on a car ought to be caught during scrutineering anyway.)

2. Stewards in one race should not rule on something that happened in another race

   For the second time this year, the stewards have found themselves ruling on something that happened in another race. This week the Chinese GP stewards had to discuss something which had already been discussed by the Japanese stewards. This is not on really. It is like a referee at a football match giving someone a yellow card for something a footballer did in his previous match.

3. Make penalties more sensible and predictable

   Whenever somebody is in trouble, you simply do not know what kind of punishment they are going to get. I once saw somebody referring to ‘The FIA Random Penalty Generator’ and it really is true. Disqualification? 10 place grid penalty? Drive through penalty? Start the race from the pits? Points docked? Seconds added to your time? We just don’t know which of these punishments will be used at a particular time. The stewards appear to award penalties in a completely arbitrary manner. It is no wonder people wonder about possible FIA bias. This must be sorted out, as a matter of priority.

What happened during the Japanese Grand Prix is actually a good case in point. Robert Kubica was given a drive-through penalty for being involved in an accident with Lewis Hamilton. Now, Kubica’s move was quite ambitious and he was unlikely to be able to pull it off, but did it really merit a drive-through? After all, other drivers crash into each other all the time and never get so much as a slap on the wrists. It’s kind of seen as part of the territory of motor racing.

You have to wonder when Fernando Alonso got whacked pretty hard by Sebastian Vettel. Unlike Hamilton, Alonso sustained quite bad damage to his car. Did Vettel get punished? Of course not — the FIA is biased against Alonso and in favour of Hamilton.

I know some people don’t believe me when I say that the FIA is biased in favour of Hamilton and that he is the successor to Michael Schumacher in this regard. To me, it is clear in the FIA’s eyes that the departure of Schumacher has left a void, and they have decided that Wonder Boy Britain’s Lewis Hamilton shall fill that void. (I believe it is actually illegal to say ‘Lewis Hamilton’ without prefixing it with ‘Britain’s’.)

There is a resentment about the fact that Alonso was able to beat Michael Schumacher fair and square, when Schumacher had no excuses. Alonso is the only driver ever to have managed this (apart from possibly Mika Häkkinen, and he only did it once, not twice like Alonso did).

But don’t ask me if the F1 establishment favours Hamilton. Ask the F1 establishment itself.

Formula One supremo Bernie Ecclestone has hailed Lewis Hamilton as the saviour of the sport…

“Lewis Hamilton has been a real breath of fresh air and has resurrected Formula One,” Britain’s Guardian newspaper quoted commercial rights holder Ecclestone, who is not in Shanghai, as saying…

“We lost a big hero in Michael Schumacher but in Lewis we have another. But for him, I’m not sure where the sport would be heading.”

Straight from the horse’s mouth.

There is no doubt that the mess that the FIA and Formula 1 as a whole currently finds itself in is directly the fault of its power-mad President Max Mosley. A lot of people have been criticising the FIA’s bad management recently (not just the Hamilton investigation, but the bungled email to the teams about tyres at Fuji).

Max Mosley seems to do business on the basis of personal vendettas and the FIA’s institutional pro-Ferrari bias rather than anything to do with notions of fairness or merit. This year’s witch-hunt against McLaren is a case in point — all to do with Max Mosley’s personal dislike of Ron Dennis.

Then there are the extraordinarily offensive comments he made about Jackie Stewart, somebody who had the cheek to criticise the FIA’s handling of the Stepneygate row. Doesn’t he know that people are not allowed to criticise Mosley?

Mosley said: “There’s one particular ex-driver who because he never stops talking, never has the chance to listen — so he doesn’t know what’s going on.

“He said the FIA’s decision would not have worked in a civil court. He has no qualification to say that.

“Then he starts saying this is personal between me and Ron Dennis, at great length, because everything he does is at extreme length.

“It’s annoying that some of the sponsors listen to him because he’s won a few championships. But nobody else in Formula One does — not the teams, not the drivers. He’s a figure of fun among drivers.”

Mosley, presumably alluding to the tartan trousers and cap Stewart wears to races, added: “He goes round dressed up as a 1930s music hall man. He’s a certified halfwit.”

The comment about Jackie Stewart being a “certified halfwit” is seen as a reference to Stewart’s dyslexia. Damon Hill says all that needs to be said in his letter to Autosport magazine.

Update: Pitpass also has a good article on Max Mosley’s comments about Jackie Stewart.

With such contemptuous regard for his fellow inhabitants, one has to wonder what Mosley really feels about the diminutive former second-hand car salesman who not only facilitated his entry to Planet Paddock but has allowed him to enjoy the sort of totalitarian power trip his name prevented him enjoying in the real world.

You don’t often see professional media outlets referring to the fact that Max Mosley is the son of fascist leader Oswald Mosley. Some believe that Max Mosley really wanted a career in politics, but was advised against it due to who is father was. So rather than fucking up the country, Max Mosley decided to go into motor racing politics instead so that he could fuck up motor racing.

This has turned out to be McLaren’s annus horribilis when it should have been a year of celebration. After an unprecedented series of years in the doldrums on the track, McLaren have finally gone back to their winning ways. But off the track, it is difficult to imagine what else could have gone wrong.

It would have been bad enough had it just been the Stepneygate scandal from which McLaren (at the time) escaped any harsh punishment (probably rightly given the evidence there was at the time). But despite escaping punishment, the cloud of suspicion lingered, the media was not impressed and the tifosi were livid.

But there have also been rows over team orders and the status of the drivers which was kicked off by a deterioration in the relationship between Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. McLaren probably have the two best drivers in the world in their cars, but instead of being an unmitigated success it has turned out to be a disaster.

At Hungary the FIA stepped in to prevent McLaren from scoring constructors’ points due to what was essentially an issue between the two drivers. It was harsh to levy such a heavy penalty on McLaren due to something that the team itself was seemingly quite peripheral to.

Then at Monza the race stewards decided to fine the team $50,000 for running a lightweight gearbox at the Hungaroring. The race stewards say that the new gearbox should have been crash tested prior to being run. For their part, McLaren say they were open with the FIA at all times about the existence their new gearbox.

Even if the FIA were not made aware of the situation, you have to ask the question: what were the Italian stewards doing passing judgement on something that happened two races ago? There is a discussion on this over at BlogF1. This is the equivalent of a referee in a football match giving a footballer a yellow card for something he did three weeks ago.

This is not to say that the FIA should not have punished McLaren. But the race stewards are not the people to do it. And the scrutineers at Hungary were seemingly okay with the new gearbox. It all looks a bit fishy to me, particularly since it happened at the Italian Grand Prix. Italy is, of couse, the country where Ferrari almost rivals Catholicism as the biggest religion.

A similar thing happened last year at the Italian Grand Prix when Fernando Alonso was penalised for “blocking” a Ferrari that was a hundred metres behind him. The video of the entire lap is still available. Yes, that distant speck on the horizon is meant to be blocking Felipe Massa. The only people in the world who actually believe this are FIArrari.

But the FIA does not have to be in Italy to unfairly find in favour of Ferrari and against every single other team. Jackie Stewart rightly pointed this out today.

Now the whole Stepneygate saga is being opened up again, and the World Motor Sport Council is meeting on Thursday to discuss it. It will be a big day for Formula 1. Will the FIA cave into their pro-Ferrari instincts and award the Scuderia the Championship in the courtroom? Or will they act like the governing body of a sport and allow the Championship to be won and lost on the racetrack?

This series of events has prompted some to ask: are McLaren being picked on by the FIA this season? Craig has also taken a look at this. Many have mentioned the fact that FIA president Max Mosley has a pretty frosty relationship with Ron Dennis. The FIA deny that there is a witch hunt, but they would say that wouldn’t they?

For what it’s worth, I do not think that the FIA are deliberately singling out McLaren. At least, not beyond the extent we have come to expect from the FIA’s pro-Ferrari bias. But I think the adverse reaction to the original WMSC hearing in July has encouraged the FIA to punish McLaren heavily for the slightest wrongdoing.

The FIA are quite right to re-open the Stepneygate case if they think there is sufficient evidence. The integrity of the sport is important, and if McLaren are found to have benefited from Ferrari documents then they should face a heavy punishment.

But to me, it just does not stack up for the reasons I explained in my previous post on Stepneygate. The McLaren car had already been built by the time Mike Coughlan got his hands on the documents, and from then on basing developments on Ferrari blueprints would surely be like trying to piece together pieces from two different jigsaw puzzles.

But the whole saga became much more serious when drivers became involved. It is suggested that Fernando Alonso gained some insight into set-up data as a result of an email conversation with test driver Pedro de la Rosa, who is good buddies with Mike Coughlan.

This could prove crucial because beforehand McLaren had claimed that no employee was aware of the Ferrari information except for Mike Coughlan. If it transpires that de la Rosa and Alonso also knew, then there could be serious consequences.

A lot of people are asking themselves how the FIA could punish McLaren (if they are found guilty) without damaging the great story of this World Championship — particularly the emergence of the hugely exciting Lewis Hamilton. There is a nasty idea in my head that the FIA could end up punishing McLaren and punishing Alonso (because of the emails) but exonerating Hamilton. That way, Hamilton can win the World Championship while McLaren still get punished.

Yesterday Rory left a comment on this blog pointing out that the rumoured conversation between de la Rosa and Alonso was infact a fabrication. But that does not mean that the emails did not exist. They could have contained perfectly innocent information — or it could have been far worse than suggested by La Gazzetta dello Sport.

For the integrity of F1, and for the sake of this year’s fantastic World Championship, let us hope it is the former.

Update: See also Formula 1 Insight: Sport and Politics in Formula One.

I am sorry to keep on banging on about this, but the “team orders” row has reached a whole new level in the wake of the news that the FIA will be investigating it. There is just so much you can say.

First of all, it seems as though the world has been split into two camps. It is not the MSM vs. everyone else, for once. It is people who know shit all about F1 vs. people who have a clue.

It was good to see David Croft, in his column for the BBC, saw the team orders row for what it is — a media-driven storm in a teacup. Note for the MSM: The following paragraph is sarcastic.

…let’s talk about Lewis Hamilton for a moment instead. Or rather let’s jump up and down in outrage at Lewis being deprived of his first Grand Prix win in Monaco. In fact, let’s jump up and down so much that governing body the FIA will step in and make sure that Mclaren never dare to put the team first ever again. Why stop there? Why not strip team boss Ron Dennis of his CBE for his unpatriotic judgement call?

I heard the newsreader on Radio Five Live overnight acting as though Jackie Stewart — an actual expert in F1 — was off his face when he said that McLaren were right to tell its drivers to hold back. As Stewart pointed out, not only is there the risk of throwing the cars into the barriers, but there is also the risk that the drivers will push the car too hard and end up stressing it to the point of breaking.

In this age where engines have to last for more than one race, that is something that an F1 team simply cannot afford. It is common sense and, indeed, common for a team to tell its drivers to take it easy once the race is under control. McLaren dominated the Monaco GP in a way which they haven’t for almost a decade. Even when they “lifted off” they managed to lap everyone apart from Massa. So there was no need to push too hard.

The “ban on team orders” was brought in by the FIA in 2002, although it is generally recognised by F1 fans as not a ban on team orders. We all know team orders exist, and they exist for a very good reason. What was banned was a repeat of the kind of blatant move that happened in Austria 2002, where Rubens Barrichello slowed on the very last corner of the race to allow Michael Schumacher to win.

That was an exceptional circumstance. Everyone was expecting Barrichello to let Schumacher through for the sake of the World Championship. But Barrichello had a point to prove — that he was the rightful winner of the race. So, as a protest, he left it until the last corder. It was quite sickening to watch, and one of F1’s darkest moments. Understandably, the crowd booed all the way through the podium ceremony.

The ridiculousness of the situation and the public outcry that followed led the FIA to introduce the “ban on team orders”, although what it exactly entails is very vague. Team orders as we know it are still allowed, and they have been allowed to go on for the past five years, mostly without the FIA batting an eyelid.

It might seem strange to somebody who is not an F1 fan. But team orders have a long history in F1. Indeed, they have probably been around for as long as F1 itself has been. The FIA couldn’t really ban team orders.

The FIA didn’t ban team orders. They just brought in that rule as a fig leaf to outraged supporters. It pandered to the media and the public, but most see it for the hollow rule that it is. It was a ban on public outcry more than anything else.

So of course, when the British media kicks up a stink over what is actually a pretty regular policy for an F1 team to have — particularly on the narrow streets of Monte Carlo — the FIA wheel out the rule on public outcries. The media were pushing for them to do something, so they have done something. But the real scandal would be if the FIA punished McLaren for doing what any other team would have done.

The actual rule on team orders states:

Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.

What is meant by this is vague. But you could argue that in Austria 2002, Ferrari interfered with the race result by swapping 1^st and 2^nd positions. In Monaco 2007, McLaren didn’t interfere with the race result because the drivers stayed in the positions that had been naturally established. (Don’t forget that Alonso qualified on pole, he led after the first corner, and he led when he took both of his pitstops. Alonso was the rightful winner.)

Ask yourself this question. If it was two Ferraris leading in Monaco and they did what McLaren did this weekend, would the FIA have launched an investigation? Of course not. Anything Ferrari does is A-OK in their book (Austria 2002 was an exception because it was so greatly against the interests of the sport).

I’m not the only one to allude to the FIA’s pro-Ferrari bias this weekend. During the BBC’s Chequered Flag podcast, Anthony Davidson suggested — if I read his comments correctly — that the only reason he was given a drive-through penalty was because he happened to be holding up Massa. If it was anyone else, he wouldn’t have been given the penalty.

Is it impossible to foresee a situation where McLaren are stripped of all the points they rightfully earned at Monaco? As I pointed out in my previous post on this issue, that would give Ferrari the Championship lead, instead of the 20 point deficit they currently face.

In that situation, Lewis Hamilton would lose the 8 Championship points he earned. And the British media would only have themselves to blame.

These people actually have a clue about F1

• Pitpass: FIA to investigate McLaren team orders
• BlogF1: McLaren Under Investigation
• F1 Fanatic: Outrage over McLaren ‘team orders’

One side effect of what is now sickeningly called “the Lewis Hamilton effect” (i.e. media-driven bollocks-hype), is that now journalists are being expected by their employers to cover more F1. Moreover, whenever Lewis Hamilton fails to win (which is every race of his career so far, let us not forget), somebody must be to blame. It could not be down to the fact that, for instance, golden boy Lewis was maybe not fast enough to win.

So today Ron Dennis is being criticised for doing what any team principal worth his salt would do — ensuring that his two drivers don’t crash into each other. This BBC News article is called “McLaren deny anti-Hamilton bias”.

The fact that Lewis Hamilton and Fernando Alonso backed off from having an on-track battle is being construed as team orders. Of course, had Alonso and Hamilton had an on-track battle and then crashed into each other, everybody would be pointing the finger at Ron Dennis asking why he allowed them to race each other.

It’s difficult to remember the last time the McLarens were so dominant during a race. Today they lapped everybody apart from Felipe Massa, and even he was far behind due to the Ferrari’s long wheelbase which is very badly suited to the twisty Monte Carlo circuit. I’m guessing the last time McLaren had such an advantage over the competition was Australia 1998.

Despite being the most famous race of the F1 season, the Monaco Grand Prix is usually the most boring. This is because it is almost impossible to overtake on. Its tight and twisty corners are notoriously difficult for F1 cars to negotiate one abreast, never mind two abreast. Racing on the circuit has famously been described as like “flying a helicopter in your living room” by Nelson Piquet.

McLaren’s supreme advantage, combined with the fact that it is near enough impossible to overtake at Monaco, would have made any other course of action complete suicide for the team. Had Alonso and Hamilton crashed out, McLaren would have lost 18 points — net 24 points when you consider the extra points Ferrari would have scooped up.

In F1 championship terms, that is a huge amount of points to give away — almost two and a half race wins’ worth. Had the McLarens crashed out today, it would have been enough for them to lose the lead of the Championship.

It is not as if Alonso and Hamilton weren’t trying. A number of times during the race both McLarens looked a bit sideways, particularly in the Swimming Pool complex. As it was, they were almost chucking their cars into the barriers.

And let’s not forget that in the straight fight in qualifying, Hamilton was unable to beat Alonso (both in qualifying 3 which determines the grid, and in qualifying 2 where the fuel loads are equal). Had Hamilton been faster, the so-called “team orders” would have been to his advantage. So maybe if he wants to win a race, next time he should be fast enough to do so. Hamilton knows this. It’s not exactly rocket science.

In other words, nice try, MSM. Keep digging for that juicy Hamilton story. Unfortunately this isn’t it. I am sure it will come sooner or later without you having to resort to hype or outright distortions.

Incidentally, I was quite amused / enraged by a couple of things James Allen said over the course of the weekend. It is a typical example of how the media has lost sight of the reality, caught up as they are in the rush to create a star out of Lewis Hamilton, thereby allowing them to line their pockets.

[It is Lewis Hamilton's] fifth grand prix weekend. A lot of people say there’s too much hype around Hamilton. But it’s not about hype; it’s about performance and results. That’s what creates the headlines.

Well, that’s what should create the headlines. But what about performance? What about results? Just ask James Allen’s five-year-old son.

My five-year-old son said to me when I got back from Barcelona, “Dad, I don’t think Lewis is any good.”
“Why not, son?”, I said.
“Because he never wins; he always finishes second!”
[Laughs] I tried to explain, but eh… [sentence trails off]

But eh… didn’t your son have a point? I’m not a big fan of kids, but I always admire the way their minds have not been warped out of shape by society. They can think infinitely more clearly than anyone above the age of about 12.

And here we have an example of a five-year-old seeing straight through all of the hype, clearly able to see that Lewis Hamilton has not yet demonstrated very much. Everyone else is too busy trying to create hype, or being wound up in nationalistic pride.

James Allen’s son knows more about F1 than his dad, who happens to be ITV’s main F1 commentator (much to the fans’ chagrin). The bottom line is that Lewis Hamilton’s F1 career is only five races old. And five races do not a career make.

We’ve not seen him race in the wet, we’ve not seen how he copes under pressure, we’ve not seen how he reacts when he makes a mistake. We’ve not seen whether or not he has the qualities required to be an F1 champion. And we won’t know until he is the world champion.

A lot of crass comparisons with Ayrton Senna are being made. Let’s not forget that just a short decade ago Jackie Stewart was describing Jan Magnussen as “the new Ayrton Senna”. Magnussen was subsequently sacked mid-way through his second season for being crap. Where is he now?