What the Press and Forums Had to Say About the Canada "Red Light" Episode

Been busy last few days reading different articles and forums about the Canadian Grand Prix.

And tried to find technician who can fix my TV...

But back to business. What has been in the forums and press about Montreal?

1. Robert Kubica. He won Montreal and did it in a great manner. Has been said that he would not win it without THAT crash in pit lane. Well we don't know it, do we?

Kubica was side by side with Kimi at the end of the pit lane and Hamilton was behind them. Unfortunately something happened, like all of us know, so we REALLY don't know if Kubica would win or not.

What is sad is that Kubica did not have big headlines about his great victory because all the press was full of the accident. Kubica has done a great job this season and at last Kimi has said that he knows that Kubica is good.

10 points to Kubica

2. Kimi Raikkonen. I agree with many people that if there would have been somebody else in that red car during that red light episode, Hamilton may have suffered more than just a broken car.

Can you imagine Schumacher getting out from Ferrari in that situation? Just remember when he run to the garage of McLaren when Coulthard crashed into him :)

Or, what do you think would happen if there would be Massa? So I am proud about Kimi's behaviour. He wasn't too happy and called Hamilton "wood eye" which is not too bad, I think. Kimi's comment that "there was red light and I stopped but then some 'wood eye' chose not to stop and broke my car"  could be much worse.

What do you think Hamilton would say if Kimi would crash into his car? Oh, my, I don't even want think about it. Most people agree that Kimi's behave was very mature and i have to agree. 10 points for that to Kimi.

3. Hamilton. Well...what to say? I was angry, I almost broke my TV but I still tried to be neutral. But when I saw his behaviour after the crash and even more after his comment in the press later on my blood-pressure was going very high.

"They can threw what ever they want to me, I will back stronger than ever." Sure, you should, you are an F1 driver.

"I am sorry IF I ruined Kimi's race." IF??? Well that seems to make people upset, and I can understand it.

"IF" is not exactly the right word in this case. And then it was getting worse and worse. "Nothing can stop me in future".

Honestly I have to say that Hamilton may need a new PR-person. Even British newspapers are not very happy about his comments. How about saying that "I am sorry and it was my fault?" He said that pit lane rules are silly, his team did not warn him early enough etc. Sigh... Sorry Lewis but one point to you.

4. Penalty too harsh. Well that has been most common topic in the forums and newspapers. Which is a surprise because its only thing that is not unclear.

There are rules that you have to follow and there is a penalty you get when you don't follow those rules; reason for penalty was not about red lights, it was about "causing accident which would be avoidable."

And penalty from that is: 1. Drive threw penalty, 2. 10 sec penalty or 3. 10 grid penalty.  Obviously first twp penalties can't be used when Hamilton did not continue the race. So I really have problem understand what is all this talk about "too harsh a penalty"

5. Monaco vs Montreal. Yes this been a really hot potato. Even Hamilton picked this one up, and there is no need for it. Kimi did NOT cause accident which would be avoidable in Monaco when he crashed into Sutil.

So that's why there was not a penalty in that situation. Otherwise every driver who loses control of their car in a race would have a penalty and we would see many of those in every race , especially when there is no traction control.

And Hamilton did not receive a penalty when he crashed into Alonso either so....

But best of all is this one: "Kimi should have penalty because he was in the wrong place at the end of the pit lane and both Kubica and Kimi took over Hamilton in the pit lane when safety car was still in track."

GEESH.

There has to be two lines in pit lane says FIA rule book, and there are NO rules about how take over somebody in a pit lane no matter what the situation in a race track!

I try to understand people who are fans of some drivers or teams but there should be still some sense, right?

What made me a little bit upset was that people said things without having any idea what they was talking about. Of course everybody has their rights to free speech but some kind of sense would be good.

Reading F1 rules maybe would help?

So this few days has been interesting and it has been surprising how many different points of view I have seen about that crash. Formula 1 seems to bring all emotions to the surface and normally mature people start behaving like five year olds.

Sorry to say that but it has been like that. But that I can understand, it happens in every sport. But what I can NOT understand is that professional journalists goes the same way.

How come sport journalist or TV commentator can be narrow minded and write articles about that crash without staying neutral? How come they stir pot by asking "Is Hamilton's penalty too harsh?"

They should know better, they should know rules about the sport they are writing about.

So my 0 points goes to F1 journalists and TV commentators.

Psst. Sorry for all my grammar and spelling mistakes in this article. English is not my first language.