1. News
  2. sport
  3. Johnny Herbert: Stewards' Decision to Penalize Hamilton Was Correct
Johnny Herbert: Stewards' Decision to Penalize Hamilton Was Correct
4 days ago7 min read999 comments
post-main
The stewards' decision to slap Lewis Hamilton with a five-second penalty at the Singapore Grand Prix, stripping him of a seventh-place finish after he cut four corners on the final lap with his brakes in a near-total state of failure, was not just correct—it was a necessary affirmation of the sport's foundational principle that the rules apply equally to legends and rookies alike, a verdict that former F1 driver Johnny Herbert rightly endorsed while Fernando Alonso vocally amplified the paddock's collective grievance, framing the incident as a clear-cut case of gaining an unfair advantage despite the extenuating mechanical duress. Herbert's blunt assessment, that Hamilton 'got what he deserved' for not even attempting to brake and essentially taking 'liberties' that bordered on cheating, echoes the unforgiving precision that defines Formula 1, where milliseconds and millimeters separate glory from infamy, and this episode reverberates beyond the Marina Bay Street Circuit, invoking memories of past controversies like Michael Schumacher's deliberate parking at Monaco in 2006 or Sebastian Vettel's 2019 penalty in Canada, which underscore how stewards' consistency remains under perpetual scrutiny.Delving deeper, Hamilton's desperate lunge to the finish line in a crippled Mercedes, shedding carbon fiber and hope in equal measure, exposes the brutal duality of F1: a sport that celebrates human ingenuity and resilience yet mercilessly penalizes any deviation from its rigid code, no matter how instinctual or survival-driven, a tension that Herbert, having raced in an era of visceral danger and mechanical frailty, understands intimately, thus his stance carries the weight of lived experience rather than mere punditry. The broader context here is Mercedes' ongoing struggle with brake instability, a chronic issue that has plagued their W15 chassis throughout the season, turning each braking zone into a high-stakes gamble, and while teams often lobby stewards for clemency in such scenarios—citing force majeure—the regulatory framework, specifically Article 27.3 of the Sporting Regulations mandating that drivers must 'make every reasonable effort to use the track at all times,' offers little wiggle room, a fact Alonso seized upon with theatrical radio outbursts that, while self-serving, highlighted the strategic gamesmanship endemic to F1, where rivals pounce on any whiff of irregularity. Analytically, this penalty underscores a shifting paradigm in F1 governance: stewards are increasingly data-driven, leveraging telemetry to dissect corner-cutting with forensic precision, and in Hamilton's case, the evidence showed no discernible lift or steering correction to rejoin safely, merely a desperate straight-line dash that conferred a tangible time gain, however unintended, thereby forcing the stewards' hand in a verdict that, while unpopular with Mercedes fans, reinforces the sport's integrity.The consequences ripple outward—Hamilton's championship points loss tightens the midfield battle, benefiting rivals like Lando Norris, whose podium in Singapore itself emerged from a separate team controversy at McLaren, illustrating how F1's narrative is often a domino effect of adjudicated moments, and Herbert's commentary, laced with the pragmatic wisdom of a veteran who once battled Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost, serves as a reminder that in this arena, precedent and principle must outweigh sympathy, lest the sport descend into anarchic subjectivity. Ultimately, this incident will fuel debates on whether the regulations should incorporate 'mechanical failure' mitigations, but until then, as Herbert emphatically stated, cheating—or even the perception of it—remains an unforgivable sin in a sport built on the razor's edge of fairness and fortune.
Empty comments
It’s quiet here...Start the conversation by leaving the first comment.