MOTORSPORT/Formula 1:Lewis Hamilton's chances of winning the world championship in court faded yesterday at the FIA hearing in London.
The validity of McLaren's appeal against the stewards' decision at last month's Brazilian Grand Prix - when Williams and BMW Sauber cars finished in fourth, fifth and sixth positions ahead of the British driver but were then accused of fuel-temperature infringements - was robustly challenged by the two teams.
The four judges appointed by FIA, the world governing body, are expected to deliver their verdict this afternoon and one senior Formula One insider present at the hearing, which was held at the offices of a firm of City lawyers, said: "I would be utterly amazed if the originally confirmed race results from Brazil were not upheld when the court issues its verdict."
The Williams and BMW Sauber representatives argued McLaren's appeal was inadmissible because Ron Dennis's team had not been an interested party in the stewards' initial inquiry and had not appealed against the race classification immediately after the event. BMW Sauber's lawyer, Ian Meakin, referred during the hearing to what he termed "naked opportunism" on the part of McLaren and suggested that, even if the appeal were to be allowed, a fine should be the maximum penalty.
McLaren's legal team started the day on an awkward note, apparently contradicting what had been said the previous day by Martin Whitmarsh, the company's chief executive officer. Insisting that the stewards at the Brazilian Grand Prix should have disqualified the Williams and BMW Sauber cars, McLaren's barrister, Ian Mill, requested that the rules be applied in a straightforward and consistent manner - implying that Hamilton should be promoted to the fourth place that would give him the championship, which seemed to be at odds with Whitmarsh's earlier stance.
"The principle is clear," said Mill. "If there was a breach, it was performance-enhancing. The sanction, I'm afraid, has to be disqualification. I ask you to address this as though it was any team at any stage of the season. Whenever in the past there has been a disqualification, there has been a reclassification . . . All we ask you to do is what normally happens."
Ferrari's lawyer, Nigel Tozzi, was quick to seize on the apparent contradiction in the McLaren camp, contending that it would be a serious injustice if the Italian team's driver Kimi Raikkonen were to lose the championship in this way.
"It would be highly damaging for the sport if the title were to be won this way, with the fans probably feeling it was more about grubby manoeuvring by the lawyers than by skill behind the wheel," said Tozzi. "As McLaren have always said, the championship should be decided on the racetrack and not in the courtroom."
He added that previous comments by McLaren executives, meaning Whitmarsh, that they were not appealing in order to win the championship on a technicality but to seek clarification of the rules should either be taken at face value or be seen as the words of "shameless hypocrites devoid of any integrity".
Whitmarsh later explained his position outside the court. "As I made clear before the appeal, the team was seeking to clarify the regulatory uncertainty that has arisen from a decision of the FIA stewards at the 2007 Brazilian Grand Prix and not to win the drivers' world championship."
