Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes, Circuit de Catalunya, 2022

Hamilton calls for less bias and more diversity among F1’s stewards

2022 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by and

Lewis Hamilton believes some Formula 1 stewards show too much bias towards particular drivers.

The seven-times world champion also said he wants to see more diversity among F1’s selection of stewards at race weekends.

The FIA is making extensive changes to officiating in F1 following last year’s finale in Abu Dhabi, where Hamilton lost the world championship to Max Verstappen following a controversial call by former race director Michael Masi. The role previously held by Masi will now be shared by two people.

The role of the stewards, who make decisions on racing incidents and determine any penalties which are issued, has not been changed. But Hamilton has called for broader representation among the different stewards appointed from race-to-race.

“I want to see more women in the stewards’ room,” said Hamilton at Circuit de Catalunya today. “I think last year it was maybe one or two.

“It would be awesome for them to have a male and female as the two race directors that they’re talking about doing. I think that’s a great way of promoting diversity too.”

Hamilton also suggest some stewards may take a softer stance against particular drivers.

“I just want to add, we need to make sure we get non-biased stewards too,” he said. “Race drivers, some are very, very good friends with certain individuals, some travel with certain individuals and tend to take more of a keen liking to some of them.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

A series of other disputes over the racing rules arose during 2021, notably in Brazil, after Verstappen forced Hamilton wide and was not investigated by the stewards. Nicholas Latifi expects the changes to race control this year to improve the consistency of decisions made by the stewards.

“Last year it was clear with some of the racing actions with some of the drivers it wasn’t always the most consistent calls. Sometimes a driver gets away with forcing another driver off the track without a penalty, other times it involved a penalty.

“Obviously there’s some changes now in the FIA the race directors, putting in place new measures, we’re talking about this new virtual assistant to race control. So I think there’s going to be a process to hopefully improve the consistency.

“I’m sure in terms of what is and isn’t allowed maybe at the first drivers meeting I’m sure there’ll be some chats amongst us all to try and get some clarification on that so we know from race one what’s allowed and what’s not.”

However Daniel Ricciardo expects there is always likely to be some disagreement between drivers over where the limit between hard and unfair racing lies.

“Probably amongst all of us drivers, we’re probably in line with what we think is the way to go racing,” he said. “But there will still be a bit of a difference also in what’s forcing and what’s not.

“So even between us, it’s not always that straightforward. Not an easy job, but if there is at least that kind of consistency that’s all we can ask, and then we know a little bit better what’s right from wrong.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2022 F1 season

Browse all 2022 F1 season 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...
Claire Cottingham
Claire has worked in motorsport for much of her career, covering a broad mix of championships including Formula One, Formula E, the BTCC, British...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2022 F1 season articles, F1 newsTags , , , , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 73 comments on “Hamilton calls for less bias and more diversity among F1’s stewards”

    1. My god day 1 of the season and the whining has started already.

      1. Constantijn Blondel
        23rd February 2022, 13:52

        Yeah, I was about to say the same … Someone call the Whaaaaambulance, since Lewis really seems hellbent on riding it to the WDC this year.

        1. Someone call the Whaaaaambulance

          I did that last christmas…

          1. @drmouse I both love and hate this at the same time

        1. Constantijn Blondel
          23rd February 2022, 14:16

          It’s ironic that he triggers me into whining about his whining. It must be the charisma oozing out of him even more so after he got sir-ed.

          Oh – no, wait … that’s sarcasm :)

          1. Whaaaaambulance. Love it

    2. I was surprised to read some drivers travel with stewards. It seems to me during the season a steward shouldn’t have personal involvement with drivers or teams. e.g. no stopping my team x for lunch every week, different hotel than most teams etc.

      1. @blueruck

        Given the traffic situation at the races, sharing rides with others makes a lot of sense. Also, it’s beneficial to reduce emissions.

    3. Let’s all remember for a moment that this is the person most recently being allowed by the stewards to cut a chicane, overtake an opponent in the process, and keep that position.

      1. @proesterchen Lewis only ended up having to cut across the chicane because he had to take action to avoid contact. Had he tried to take the corner they would have made contact.
        Had the stewards let that move go it would have set a bad precedent as they would all know they can just brake super late & force the car ahead off track at a chicane knowing they will be given the position afterwards.

        Had Max left enough room for Lewis to stay on track things would have been fine.

        Lewis additionally did give the time gained back as by the time they got to the next corner the gap was as it had been just before they got the previous corner. The fact he slowed down to give the time back was missed by the TV broadcast but can be seen from the respective onboard cameras on F1TV as well as the mini sector timing data available on the timing app which also includes the telemetry showing Lewis lift off the throttle down the straight. The stewards later confirmed this when Red Bull asked about it, A radio message that was heard on the broadcast.

        1. +1

          Jeez the revisionism’s from a certain crowd are tiring.

          Dive bombs get penalties in almost all other motorsport.

          That move in a long circuit 250 or current European engine regs Superkart would either send people to hospital or end with all in the gravel.

          Hardly the first time either – the Jedda was a do at best and end of championship

          Driving 100 ft off the circuit to stop your opponent overtaking?

          Well AD turn one for all the defenders is a direct result of the sacked RD not doing something about it and a rather clever racing brain figuring out how to manage barge, dive bomb and crash (which of course is what he wanted due to the crazy spa countback)

          But never mind, having been comprehensively schooled on a high pressure start despite a tyre advantage for 57 laps.

          In steps a RD…

          The rest is history

          My main worry is that decision going to see a year of ‘ I was right’ by the current WDC thus ruining any possible scene of side by side racing despite the new regs.

          1. Do – Jedda – DQ

      2. Exactly. I really wish RedBull had brought that up more often. What a spoiled crybaby he is.

        Anyway: What about children amond stewards? And can the women be normal or need to have a particular sexual dysfunction? How about obese people? F1 doesn’t seem to be very welcoming of fat people!

    4. Oh “WHAAA! They voted against me! It must be prejudiced!”

      1. Noframingplease (@)
        23rd February 2022, 18:12

        I’m afraid that Lewis will also try to recall the F1 survey outcome where Max was mentioned as most favorite driver

    5. That’s an interesting point re: the stewards being close friends and even travelling with certain drivers.

      From a professionalism perspective, the stewards should be completely detached from the drivers. I can completely understand a driver being annoyed and a little suspicious when another driver appears to get away with a questionable move and his mate is a steward that day!

      1. @sonnycrockett Kind of reminds me of the kids who always tried to become close with their teachers at school, and thus could maybe take liberties (pun not intended) that others couldn’t. “Teacher’s pets” and the sort. Can’t deny, I was probably one of them myself…

      2. Noframingplease (@)
        23rd February 2022, 17:26

        @sonny Also interesting is that you are jumping in the bandwagon of conclusion, which can not be made. Are there situations which can be seen as absolutely biased? And where there no situations where lewis as also max got penalized. Interesting is that some fans think this is far from objective, but at the meantime when half the paddock is british, media coverage is meanly british and for a while ago the race director was british that’s okey for them. That’s interesting

      3. I don’t care for LH accusations against the stewards.

        However, if stewards are travelling and interacting with the drivers would it not be more likely that these are the “driver stewards”? After all, they are well known to all teams/people in the paddock and have a shared affinity with the drivers.

    6. To be honest, he’s stating the obvious. These things should already been in place but being impartial is like fighting the human condition. Everyone will have their favourites because they are fans. But that’s where professionalism comes in. Plus he does have a point some of the decisions from racing control last year were ridiculous.

    7. F1 Stewarding is not about inclusion….. its about having the most qualified and experienced people suited for the job. Identity politics has no place in sports officiating. I actually think it should go the other way in that it should be the same stewards for every race, travelling around the world as part of the circus. At least then we should start to get some consistency with some of the calls.

      1. Yes. If taken to it’s logical conclusion, there would never be a room large enough to hold a representative for all the branches that identity politics keeps throwing up.

        Choose the stewards on merit, that BTW means taking an exam on the rules and regs, and some hypothetical scenario pressure decisions, those that come out top get to do the job for a whole season.

        1. Yep then make sure you give them a lift home on your private jet?

          I rather think a lot of commentators here have missed the point.

          There should be NO contact between stewards and racers outside of the race.

          None.

          It will end in tears.

          Hold on..?

      2. Nobody said it’s about inclusion. And why would anyone be chosen if they aren’t fit for the job, are you serious? That’s a complete non issue. Someone previously mentioned a female steward from within the FiA, Silvia Bellot. Don’t see why not

    8. So race should be a criteria when picking stewards? We used to have a different word some years ago.

      1. So race should be a criteria when picking stewards

        With the caveat that I did not follow the press conference, and thus only has the information in this article to go on: did he mention race at all? I only see him talking about gender?

        And, as a cis-gendered male, happily married for 30+ years, I do not believe that women are of a different race. A different species, perhaps…

        1. I never comment, but this comment made me laugh hysterically. Thank you.
          And no; I watched the press conference and he never mentioned race.

    9. Race and gender should have nothing to do with selecting a racing steward. They should be chosen based on their qualifications, character and judgement. Not what they look like. I’m sick of identity politics infecting everything like a plague. Every time Hamilton opens his mouth, I seem to dislike him more and more lately.

      1. Race and gender should have nothing to do with selecting a racing steward. They should be chosen based on their qualifications, character and judgement.

        They should, I agree.

        However, I find it difficult to believe that there has only ever been one woman with the requisite skills, yet AFAIK there has only ever been one female F1 steward. Likewise, I struggle to believe that there has never been a black person who was suitable to become a steward, and so on.

        Normally, such a serious lack of diversity in a particular field/area indicates problems. It may not be due to discrimination in the selection for that position, necessarily (although it may), but could also indicate issues at lower levels. Highlighting these problems is a helpful move towards identifying and solving them. It’s not about choosing people based on race/sex/etc, but about ensuring that there is opportunity available and there are not systemic issues preventing a more diverse variety of people from progressing.

        1. Well said. This should be COTD.

        2. Are you sure there has never been a person of color/black as a steward? I understood that a local steward was appointed at each race.

          1. I cannot be certain, no, but I searched and could find no mention of one. But even if there is one, that still wouldn’t be a satisfactory level of diversity, and would be indicative of an issue somewhere.

        3. @drmouse

          However, I find it difficult to believe that there has only ever been one woman with the requisite skills, yet AFAIK there has only ever been one female F1 steward.

          Perhaps few women want to, as women tend to be far more people-oriented on average, and thus less willing to seek conflict with others. BTW, this also means that women can be expected to be more sensitive on average to the very ‘friend-‘bias that Lewis is complaining about.

          Note that we are constantly presented with evidence that women make substantially different choices from men, which science has shown is actually consistent across cultures (and more prevalent in less traditional countries, which completely goes against the narrative that women make different choices due to the patriarchy).

          The power of propaganda to make people explain away facts that are so obvious continuously amazes me.

          1. @aapje

            Perhaps few women want to, as women tend to be far more people-oriented on average, and thus less willing to seek conflict with others.

            This is similar to an excuse often pedalled by people in the discussions around female representation in the board room.

            This, though, is similar to someone saying “That person in the wheelchair wouldn’t want this job, because there is a flight of stairs to get to the office which would make it really difficult for them, plus they are expected to move around the office all the time”. It is not the job which is necessarily unsuited to them, but there are unnecessary obstacles which they may find it difficult to overcome, and there are unnecessary expectations on the job which are unsuited to them.

            A race director doesn’t need to be in conflict with others. In fact, like any leader they would be much more effective smoothing over conflict, helping everyone work together. Even where a woman has the traits you suggest and doesn’t want to “seek conflict with others”, they can bring other “people-oriented” skills to the table just as effectively if allowed to.

            This is why we need to look at things where there is a lack of diversity. In this case, it may be that the lower tiers of the career which lead to race directorship are very focussed on conflict, which discourages many women from pursuing the career and makes it more difficult for those who keep at it to rise due to the perception that they won’t fit in the role. We should address that, because there is absolutely no reason that women shouldn’t be just as good (or even better, given that it is an incredibly people-focussed role and, by your own words, women “tend to be far more people-oriented on average”) at race directorship, but there is likely to be something which is skewing the selection towards men.

            1. @drmouse

              This is similar to an excuse often pedalled by people in the discussions around female representation in the board room.

              Of course, because this is an issue that is consistent across society and societies. Criticizing the use of the same explanation is like complaining that people in the US and UK give the same explanation for the big yellow thing in the sky.

              It’s merely logical to use the same explanation across society. The people with the weird explanations are people like you, who see the same issue everywhere and then interpret it as a problem that is specific to F1, specific to board rooms, specific to IT, specific to nursing, specific to education, etc.

              The argument is that this is a problem that can just be solved if people want to, yet even the most progressive parts of society can’t solve it, other than by brute forcing it with quotas (which just takes away the freedom of people and merely partially forces the outcome you want). Forcing outcomes ultimately proves nothing more than that you can coerce people to do things, which is not news, but certainly doesn’t show that you’ve created a situation where men and women can and will make the same choices just as often.

              Of course, if men and women are inherently a bit different, then unequal outcomes are expected when you have equal opportunity, so the entire assumption that unequal outcomes show that there is a problem, is based on a near-religious belief in something that has way more evidence against it than in its favor.

              A race director doesn’t need to be in conflict with others.

              Enforcing rule compliance is part of the job, which inherently produces conflict.

              In fact, like any leader they would be much more effective smoothing over conflict, helping everyone work together.

              Masi & the stewards have been trying to do that by ‘letting them race’ and otherwise varying the enforcement along with the opinion of the public and others in the sport. Yet that decision actually increased conflict. You don’t seem to be too happy with it either.

              It’s a classic parenting mistake to not have consistent rules and/or to avoid enforcing them, to minimize short term conflict. It tends to actually increase conflict in the long term.

              given that it is an incredibly people-focused role

              It’s actually not that all that people-oriented, but quite system-oriented. A race is a system of restrictions and the role of the race director is to shape and enforce those restrictions. During the race, the race director doesn’t even get to see the faces of the drivers and the communication is not casual. That’s not very people-oriented.

              The scientific distinction between people- and system-orientation is not merely about whether you interact with people, but the way in which you do. People-orientation is more about enjoying the differences between people (learning those, dealing with those, etc). From what I’ve seen, there is relatively little of that. For example, the meeting between race control and the drivers is a group session, where there is relatively little room for a more personal interaction between a driver and race control, like you might see in a classroom, where a teacher helps an individual student.

              Of course, you could change that by having more individual meetings, but that would then invite questions about unfairness, where not all drivers get the same information.

              Anyway, your idea to change jobs to produce more ‘diversity’ is inherently flawed, because if you change system-oriented jobs to become more people-oriented and vice versa, you will actually be creating less work opportunities for people who are not average. I actually embrace real diversity (rather than expecting everyone to fit in a very restrictive mold) and thus would like for there to be jobs that are suitable for very system-oriented people and for very people-oriented persons.

              This obsession with mixing society perfectly seems completely inconsistent with human nature, as we consistently see people choosing to be with those similar to themselves in significant ways (which doesn’t have to involve race or gender*), even to the point of changing their appearance to signal to which group they (want to) belong. Attempts to go against core needs that people have, tends to not go so well.

              * Pretty sad that I have to even say this…

            2. @aapje

              The people with the weird explanations are people like you, who see the same issue everywhere and then interpret it as a problem that is specific to F1, specific to board rooms, specific to IT, specific to nursing, specific to education, etc.

              I’m not saying this is specific to anything, I was just making a parallel between your argument applied here and elsewhere.

              As a good case in point, take a look at IT. I’m a software developer, and have seen an explosion of female developers and IT personnel over the past decade or so. This has been through efforts to include women and girls at a younger age. Many of the best I know in these fields are female, and while there isn’t a 50/50 split, it is much closer than it was a couple of decades ago. Women also often bring a slightly different perspective, too, which helps the teams which include them to be more effective.

              I’m certainly not expecting there to be completely equal representation, but there is no good reason there shouldn’t be more women in such positions. Trying to justify the lack by saying “Oh, women are just different” is just an excuse, pure and simple.

              This obsession with mixing society perfectly seems completely inconsistent with human nature, as we consistently see people choosing to be with those similar to themselves in significant ways (which doesn’t have to involve race or gender*), even to the point of changing their appearance to signal to which group they (want to) belong. Attempts to go against core needs that people have, tends to not go so well.

              Yes, people often form groups with people who are similar to themselves in some way or another. That’s perfectly natural, though not always healthy.

              However, this kind of thinking leads to people being excluded from things, which is a very bad thing.

              I’ll take the issue of females in IT, again, as it’s one of those I know the most about. 20 years ago, when I first entered the profession, the vast, overwhelming majority of IT departments were exclusively male. This led to them behaving in ways which they wouldn’t, generally, around females: Making sexist jokes, using language which women generally disliked, etc. In doing so, they were making it even less likely that a woman would want to work with them, putting off those who may have made excellent IT techs. The environment was actively hostile for a woman.

              Then, as efforts were made to encourage women into IT, the culture of these departments was forced to change. Now, most are welcoming places, and the profession is far better for it. We are not excluding 50% of the population anymore, so those who want to and have the requisite skill can thrive, and they enhance our teams far more than the ability to make a few off-colour jokes or pin up posters of half naked women ever did.

              In short, tearing down barriers is a good thing*. Increasing inclusivity is a good thing*. Supporting old fashioned stereotypes and using them as an excuse to exclude people is a bad thing*.

              * Pretty sad that I have to even say this…

            3. @drmouse

              I definitely see a lot of bias in favor of hiring female developers, but I see way more women do jobs involving IT that are less technical, like project managers and such. And many of the programmers are from more traditional countries were women have fewer opportunities (India, Eastern Europe). This perfectly matches the science I referred to, that shows that women in traditional countries are more likely to choose STEM.

              As for some of the best programmers being women, I’ve not seen that at the big programmer conference I used to regularly go to (before Covid), where they really push for female presenters, but they then tend to be lower quality and often present less technical topics. Nor have I seen any top tier advancements being made by women. I have no idea what your standard is for ‘the best,’ anyway. It’s fairly typical that other people’s ‘the best’ is closer to ‘above average’ in my book. In any case, I never argued that women are incapable given the same amount of investment on their part, so I’m not sure what you were trying to prove. I do find it interesting/suggestive that your argument is so similar to the ‘women are better at everything’ part of the media narrative.

              Women also often bring a slightly different perspective, too, which helps the teams which include them to be more effective.

              This is just the general ‘diversity makes teams work better’ narrative that is being pushed hard, based on bad science (that mistakes correlation with causation). The only real evidence that ever seems to be presented is that companies that are more diverse do actually better, but not if you compensate for the fact that big companies do better, and are more diverse on average. So the proper conclusion is that bigger companies have more profit on average, regardless of their level of diversity.

              Proper research on team diversity gives way more sensible outcomes than the propaganda: sometimes it hurts, sometimes it helps, often it makes no difference.

              I’ve certainly never seen any noticeable differences whether there are women on my team and the explanations that people give of how this should be beneficial often seem extremely forced. One sign of bad science is that people can’t actually explain the working mechanism in a sensible way.

              This led to them behaving in ways which they wouldn’t, generally, around females: Making sexist jokes, using language which women generally disliked, etc.

              This seems to just be a rationalization, as way more sexist professions like law and medicine have quickly feminized over the years. This entire belief that the fairly meek geeks in IT have or had this immense ‘bro culture’ that kept out women, seems to just be another one of the beliefs that go against the facts, but have to be true for the ideology to not fall apart.

              I’ve never experienced any of this across many workplaces.

              In short, tearing down barriers is a good thing*. Increasing inclusivity is a good thing*.

              Yes, and we’ve always been at war with Eurasia. No offense, but you have just been parroting the party line. You have completely failed to address my argument that it is much more important that there is room in our society for diverse character traits, than that each and every profession has to have close to a 50/50 gender distribution.

              I get it, my argument is not addressed by the propaganda, so you can’t simply regurgitate the stuff fed to you by the media. However, in my view it makes you the one who is non-inclusive in a way that is way more important.

              Supporting old fashioned stereotypes and using them as an excuse to exclude people is a bad thing*.

              It’s a stereotype that is supported by science. In my view, dismissing scientific truths in favor of falsehoods is a bad thing.

              Ironically, there are old fashioned stereotypes that I do dismiss and then also get attacked for by people with your ideology, as you are not supposed to disbelieve those. Interesting how that works.

            4. @aapje

              I have never argued that it is important for there to be close to 50/50 gender distribution in everything, only that not having a reasonably diverse membership can, and often does, indicate fundamental problems which are preventing it. If you have a group of 1000 people and all members are white, middle-aged males, it is reasonable to suspect that there is something significant in the selection process for that group which is restricting the diversity of the group.

              It doesn’t actually matter that you have women involved, or different races, or a mixture of economic backgrounds or character traits, but it does matter that you don’t have artificial restrictions in place which stop such mixtures forming. If you look at most homogenous groups, you will find significant reasons which have prevented people from joining who would be suitable but don’t “fit”.

              Remember that all the “stereotypes”, even those you believe are “based on science”, are based upon “averages”. However, you only need to look at me to see how flawed these can be. Stereotypically, men are stronger than women, yet I cannot remember meeting a woman of near my own age who was not physically stronger than me.

              Most traits conform to a bell curve, and most are much flatter than your typical “stereotype” would suggest. Just because women may, on average, be less inclined to seek conflict or to take on a technical career, that difference is small. Heck, some of the most confrontational people I have ever met have been women, and some of the mildest and least confrontational have been men. Remove the artificial obstacles which stand in the way, and you see a broader and healthier group of people working together.

              However, I feel that arguing further is a waste of time, especially when you seem to be arguing that having barriers and excluding people is a good thing. You have made up your mind, and it’s obvious that you aren’t even listening to me if you are accusing me of just “parroting the party line”. I will leave you to your views, as much as I disagree with them (in fact, find them distasteful in the extreme), and do something productive with the rest of my day. TTFN

            5. not having a reasonably diverse membership can, and often does, indicate fundamental problems which are preventing it.

              You already start off by assuming it is a problem, showing your bias. A pretty large lack of diversity is extremely common and not a priori evidence of a problem.

              If you have a group of 1000 people and all members are white, middle-aged males, it is reasonable to suspect that there is something significant in the selection process for that group which is restricting the diversity of the group.

              And I’m perfectly fine with figuring out what that is based on objective research. What I’m not fine with is making all kinds of assumptions based on stereotypes.

              After all, the claims that white men are racist and sexist, which is commonly pointed to as the cause, is itself a stereotype. And you were against stereotypes, right?

              If you look at most homogenous groups

              We aren’t actually looking at homogenous groups though, but at groups that are not similar in composition to another subjectively chosen group. Debating a abstraction that favors your argument, but is not actually representative of reality is a rhetorical trick.

              However, you only need to look at me to see how flawed these can be. Stereotypically, men are stronger than women, yet I cannot remember meeting a woman of near my own age who was not physically stronger than me.

              That many people have difficulty with the concept of different distributions of traits and with probabilities, is not a flaw in my argument or reasoning. I argue correctly.

              If one group is more likely than another to have a trait or more likely to have more of a trait, then you can only draw relatively weak conclusions about individuals, but the larger the group is that you look at, the stronger the conclusions get. And we were talking about groups, not individuals.

              Just because women may, on average, be less inclined to seek conflict or to take on a technical career, that difference is small.

              The difference in people- vs system-orientation between men and women is actually fairly large, much larger than most of the differences that social sciences find.

              Also, if you have two bell curves for different groups that have a different average, you will see a much bigger difference for the outliers (the ‘long tails’), than close to the average. So any selection process that selects for exceptional people on a certain trait, will tend pick a person much more often from the group who scores higher on that trait on average.

              It is a common misconception that a 20% difference in the average for two groups, is the same as a 20% difference in chance to have a high level of that trait. In reality, if it follows a bell curve, the difference at the extremes will then be enormous. For example, in a strength based sport like running, the 33% or so difference in lower body strength between men and women doesn’t mean that it is 33% less likely that a women will win an Olympic sprint match if you were to have a mixed competition. In reality that chance is so close to zero percent that it’s best to round it down to that.

              Heck, some of the most confrontational people I have ever met have been women, and some of the mildest and least confrontational have been men.

              Yes, but there is no solid scientific evidence that women are inherently less confrontational in the first place. For example, women are a bit more prone to engage in domestic violence than men and substantially more often violent against children (although men hit harder).

              However, I feel that arguing further is a waste of time, especially when you seem to be arguing that having barriers and excluding people is a good thing.

              Nice straw man.

              I am in fact arguing in favor of accepting that jobs have different benefits and that needs differ between men and women on average. And that we accept that those groups thus won’t be equally represented if you let people choose what to do. After all, if people get to different places (on average) based on their own desires, then there is no barrier other than their own desires. And I indeed don’t think that it is a problem if people make different choices, if they are free to do so.

              I understand that you have to vilify me, by implying that I’m a sexist/racist/etc. Again, it is all so very predictable, matching the playbook that I see people with your ideology use time and again.

    10. “I just want to add, we need to make sure we get non-biased stewards too,”

      So on day one of testing LH states that the FIA appointed stewards are biased. How will the new FIA President respond? Surely this brings the sport into disrepute. Or are MB running the FIA?

      1. If you can explain how the fia stewards appeal ended up with CH and RB being invited not just to the meeting but being invited to argue on and provide a Defense on Massis behalf (and being given 40m to do so outside of the meeting)

        And suggest there is no bias ever, really, there isn’t promise.

        The system stinks and hopefully the new guy is having none of it.

        1. Noframingplease (@)
          23rd February 2022, 18:19

          …. Or a Toto Wolff who interrupted a stewards meeting after Lewis put his opponent into the wall (and got a 10 sec penalty)

          1. Lewis didnt put anyone in the wall, Max did this by himself.

            1. @Roman: Keep telling yourself that. It’s fine. Most people know better.
              https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xGgpdb2WhRE

    11. The stewards not even wanting to review the video evidence of Max running Hamilton wide in Brazil… wondering which steward that Traveled with Max in the RedBull plane decides that.

      1. Max doesn’t fly the RedBUll plane he has his own one….

    12. Hes right though. There is a bias and its not as objective as it should be. Alonso alluded to it last year. People like Grosjean in the past have gotten harsher decisions than others. Stewarding is a major issue that needs to be fixed.

    13. I too hope things change for good.

    14. Took him one day to start whining. Pathetic.

      1. Took him four months longer to say exactly the same thing as Alonso did. I wonder how many posters have a different view of the subject matter this time around? I would imagine a few pathetic individuals have.

    15. I wonder what, LH has said that has triggered so many negative responses.

      Dont football refs have to declare the teams they support? he has made no allusions to race (as far as i can tell).

      Or is it simply a case of “LH said it, so its crap”?

      1. @bogolo – If you’re referring to the negative comments here (on the forum), it’s the usual dislike for him. If you take his name out of the equation and analyse if it’s a valid point, then I think it is.

    16. Less bias indeed, & especially towards championship contenders over the rest, as this has been evident occasionally, especially in the last race.

    17. That’s the LeWhine we’ve been missing since he LeFlopped last season
      It’s great he’s stated we haven’t seen him at his whining best yet

    18. Hamilton is right, even if it’s disappointing that he is tarnishing all stewards by refusing to name names. It’s bringing the whole sport down.

      Stewards, one of which is always appointed by the host club, have tended to go easy on home race drivers. They are also more willing to warn or penalize the (lower)midfield than the sharp end of the grid.

      The FIA needs to empower stewards and help them become more consistent and independent, so they can always put the regulations and FIA Code above the wishes of the drivers, teams and even the race director. That last one is especially important. In return, they should be accountable for their choices – and removed if they fail to do their job in line with the regulations they are there to uphold.

      1. Well the guy who speaks openly about Max being the next ‘great white hope’ must be on the list I would think.

    19. I don’t necessarily see much “bias” from the stewards but just a lack of consistency across the board enforcing driving standards. The goal posts seem to change from race to race depending on who makes up the stewards board. As far as “diversity”… this topic is starting to get old. The folks that are qualified should be the folks taking on the roles regardless of their sex, color, or creed. I do think F1 needs to open up the stewards board to those from outside the F1 arena. It feels that F1 is like a VIP club and is very much closed off to the rest of the world of motorsports.

      1. The problem is that a lack of consistency will often lead to perceptions of bias. I lost count of the number of times MV and CH accused the officials of bias against them, but it was just a complete lack of consistency throughout the season to the point where nobody knew what was allowed and what wasn’t, what they could get away with and what would be punished.

        1. @drmouse
          its exactly that… “perception”. To be fair, both (emphasis on both) Lewis and Max get a fair amount of leniency compared to the rest of the grid. Part of that is that the Stewards are afraid to get too involved with the front guys. But the lack of consistency isn’t bias. It’s a lack of consistent interpretation of the rules for ever changing stewards from race to race. Drivers are going to be drivers and complain when they get penalized for being in the wrong.

          1. @flyingferrarim

            I’m not sure we can categorically state there is no bias, because there isn’t enough consistency to compare.

            I believe it highly unlikely that there is any real bias, especially any intentional bias, but there is no way to be sure. Many decisions last year felt like they had been decided by a coin toss.

            1. @drmouse
              as much a sloppy operation F1/FIA can be at times. I truly do not think they play favorites to teams or drivers. Especially in which what I think is meant by the use of the term “bias”. Yes, we are human and we do have individual biases but I do not think, as a whole, is a problem in how its being presented by Sir Hamilton towards F1/FIA as an organization. Sir Hamilton needs to provide more context behind his claims in why he feels bias/favoritism is present. From my point of view the calls over the last few years have been kinda all over the place and if true bias/favoritism was present I think we would have seen obvious trends by now. I just don’t see it! I understand that last year was tough to take that loss but calling out bias is a heavy term to toss around without much evidence to back it up.

              Technically a coin toss would remove all bias, wouldn’t it? So if that is how you felt, then therefor you could arguably state there is no real bias.

            2. As I said, I doubt there is either, but with such massive inconsistency, it is very difficult to tell.

              My point about the coin toss was more an indication that many decisions seemed completely disconnected from the events they were deciding upon rather than being true random decisions. Even so, humans see things as random in many situations where they are actually controlled. Shuffle mode is a good example: many devices do not just play songs in a random order, they have complex algorithms to make the order “feel more random” (like trying to avoid playing the same artist twice in a row).

    20. The fateful call was the only call that genuinely went against Hamilton. Masi is responsible for a lot of mistakes but that mistake was a leveler
      Introducing Formula Ham1lton.

    21. I would be curious to understand the path to becoming a steward / race official, not just in F1 but in motorsport generally. I know that you have volunteer marshals, and ex-drivers are chosen as stewards, but outside that I don’t know how people get into their positions. Where do these people come from? Are they paid at lower levels? How are they appointed/recruited?

      I have no idea whether we are in fact getting highly qualified people, or just dedicated volunteers, or just people who are friendly with the blazers than run sporting associations.

    22. “A male and female”
      Did Lewis just disregard all the other gender options?

      1. there are no other ones …… androids aren’t so far they can think sentient.

    23. Remember when Alonso hitted out at stewards being biased toward certain nationalities? everyone lost their minds…

      Stewards ARE biased. The sanctions imposed to say, Mazepin, in certain situations will never be the same as, say, Hamilton or Verstappen… it happened a lot over the years, it’s like certain “calibre” of drivers get away with some of the stuff the guys at the back of the grid do…

    24. Yep, clean up the stewarding. And clean up the FIA in general.

      They should begin by giving Hamilton the trophy he won last year. Just take it from the Braketester and give it to the true champ.

      Anyway hope Hamilton gets his 9th World FIA F1 Rules Championship this year.

      1. Yes! Drain the swamp! Make F1 great again!

    25. The second part of Hamilton’s statement was unnecessary. It’s not as if him and his Mercedes team are some innocent bystanders when it comes to controversial decisions.

    26. Disagree on different stewards appointed from race-to-race. That will not have the consistency. Will more women appointed better? I don’t know.

    27. Yet again, I ask why we continue with the driver’s “steward”. Clearly with the inconsistency and the lack of understanding of drivers’ perspective by the stewards panel, unless I am missing something, is not working.
      Am mindful that the driver’s “steward” is not a full steward, there is a panel of 3 + driver, so if there are biased stewards, who are human beings after all, they must be bl00dy good debaters!!

    Comments are closed.