planetf1.com

I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

I would be guessing that's just a wrong wording?

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

Toward him; in his direction. Not for him, or in his favour.

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

I would be guessing that's just a wrong wording?

No it's called basic English.

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Invade wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

Toward him; in his direction. Not for him, or in his favour.

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I've seen it stated on several forums that Paul di Resta doesn't much like Lewis and that it comes across in bias toward or against him during commentary and punditry. I've gotta say, I've never really noticed this, or that Paul is particularly hard or unkind on Lewis, so where does this stem from? It's a fairly common view around these cyberspace parts.

Why would his dislike of LH lead to bias towards him? Only against surely?

I would be guessing that's just a wrong wording?

No it's called basic English.

I've just looked it up and being biased toward someone means you are favouring them, it also says this is often used wrongly when people actually mean biased against.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Apparently he was full on after qualifying but I didn't watch it myself, I was too busy looking for something to kick.

pokerman wrote: I've just looked it up and being biased toward someone means you are favouring them, it also says this is often used wrongly when people actually mean biased against.

Well I didn't know that. I just took the words as individual entities. Didn't realise I'd accidentally stumbled into established nomenclature.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just looked it up and being biased toward someone means you are favouring them, it also says this is often used wrongly when people actually mean biased against.

Well I didn't know that. I just took the words as individual entities.

Well grammar wouldn't be a strong point for myself, I had to look it up.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote: I've just looked it up and being biased toward someone means you are favouring them, it also says this is often used wrongly when people actually mean biased against.

Well I didn't know that. I just took the words as individual entities. Didn't realise I'd accidentally stumbled into established nomenclature.

Nomenclature, I had to look that up as well.

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Apparently he was full on after qualifying but I didn't watch it myself, I was too busy looking for something to kick.

Well he was excited for sure about the order of the grid and the prospect of Hamilton fighting from further behind, and he wasn't present when Sky were talking about whether Hamilton gets the recognition he deserves in one of the free practice sessions. I'm guessing this is something subtle that I just don't register as some sort of undermining behaviour t̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶ against Hamilton.

Hopefully some folks here will be able to recall some obvious questionable examples other than perhaps a little bit of delight when the dominant force in the sport hasn't taken pole - though he seems pretty cheery to me anyway even when Hamilton nails it.

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I guess so would Ferrari, Vettel, Bottas & maybe even Rosberg.

Got to say i've never really picked up on any anti-Hamilton bias from Di Resta. I've picked up on pro-Hamilton bias but I fully expect that from a British broadcaster, & i've picked up on pro- Vestappen bias, but that might just be a result of my anti-Vestappen bias being overly sensitive, but no anti-Hamilton bias.

Jezza13 wrote:

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I guess so would Ferrari, Vettel, Bottas & maybe even Rosberg.

Got to say i've never really picked up on any anti-Hamilton bias from Di Resta. I've picked up on pro-Hamilton bias but I fully expect that from a British broadcaster, & i've picked up on pro- Vestappen bias, but that might just be a result of my anti-Vestappen bias being overly sensitive, but no anti-Hamilton bias.

The plot thickens.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Apparently he was full on after qualifying but I didn't watch it myself, I was too busy looking for something to kick.

Well he was excited for sure about the order of the grid and the prospect of Hamilton fighting from further behind, and he wasn't present when Sky were talking about whether Hamilton gets the recognition he deserves in one of the free practice sessions. I'm guessing this is something subtle that I just don't register as some sort of undermining behaviour t̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶ against Hamilton.

Hopefully some folks here will be able to recall some obvious questionable examples other than perhaps a little bit of delight when the dominant force in the sport hasn't taken pole - though he seems pretty cheery to me anyway even when Hamilton nails it.

Well it seems to be something that quite a few people have noticed, maybe some are just easily triggered?

Only thing I noticed was him recently blaming Hamilton for the first corner incident with Verstappen in Mexico, failing to notice the first contact came from Verstappen.

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:Anthony Hamilton was his manager at one point and there was a falling out that ended up in court, next thing is that di Resta was apparently one of the drivers considered as a replacement for Schumacher's Mercedes seat in 2013 which ended up going to Hamilton, he perhaps has restless nights thinking that it could have been him in the dominant Mercedes?

I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Apparently he was full on after qualifying but I didn't watch it myself, I was too busy looking for something to kick.

Well he was excited for sure about the order of the grid and the prospect of Hamilton fighting from further behind, and he wasn't present when Sky were talking about whether Hamilton gets the recognition he deserves in one of the free practice sessions. I'm guessing this is something subtle that I just don't register as some sort of undermining behaviour t̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶ against Hamilton.

Hopefully some folks here will be able to recall some obvious questionable examples other than perhaps a little bit of delight when the dominant force in the sport hasn't taken pole - though he seems pretty cheery to me anyway even when Hamilton nails it.

Well it seems to be something that quite a few people have noticed, maybe some are just easily triggered?

Only thing I noticed was him recently blaming Hamilton for the first corner incident with Verstappen in Mexico, failing to notice the first contact came from Verstappen.

Button was all over that as well.

Yes, I picked it up from Missed Apex. Even the guests and the ex team manager guy reference it. I think they keep a score on the slights and were joking its now in the hundreds. I just assumed he was a whinging scot, but have kept a closer eye on it lately and he does take any opportunity to have a slight dig. Silly stuff like praising driver A for going faster on his second hot lap attempt and in the next breath saying Ham needed two attempts to get it right. On the third attempt he praised the same driver for making the tyres last, then a few seconds later dismissed Hams attempt by saying obviously faster because of less fuel. Spent first practice saying how poor Ham was and comparing his times to others; whilst ignoring the fact that Ham was on the test tyres. And then completely out of the blue went on about how has no respect for yellow flags.
I think the clincher for me was that Ive notice Davidson also pulls him up about it. Can't remember the exchange but he seemed to have issues about Ham pounding round on the same tyres and demanded to know what he was up to, Davidson just replied 'I think you'll find that's called dedication.'
Problem is now its been pointed out to me I'll be paying attention to what he says in the future, rather than letting his monotonous tones wash over me.

Gotta agree Di Resta talking is enough to send a cup of coffee to sleep. He does have an obvious bitterness about him, and it was most evident in practice Friday for anyone who watched, but honestly he's so boring it's best generally to ignore him talking. I dunno how he got a gig commentating, I thought it was ridiculous that BT gave Michael Owen a job, but this takes it to another level.

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Invade wrote: I've heard this as motive but are there examples in action during the broadcasts or in interviews?

Apparently he was full on after qualifying but I didn't watch it myself, I was too busy looking for something to kick.

Well he was excited for sure about the order of the grid and the prospect of Hamilton fighting from further behind, and he wasn't present when Sky were talking about whether Hamilton gets the recognition he deserves in one of the free practice sessions. I'm guessing this is something subtle that I just don't register as some sort of undermining behaviour t̶o̶w̶a̶r̶d̶ against Hamilton.

Hopefully some folks here will be able to recall some obvious questionable examples other than perhaps a little bit of delight when the dominant force in the sport hasn't taken pole - though he seems pretty cheery to me anyway even when Hamilton nails it.

Well it seems to be something that quite a few people have noticed, maybe some are just easily triggered?

Only thing I noticed was him recently blaming Hamilton for the first corner incident with Verstappen in Mexico, failing to notice the first contact came from Verstappen.

Button was all over that as well.

...and then as soon as the channel say nice things about Hamilton then that's proof of the bias towards him, go figure.

Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

Flash2k11 wrote:

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

I'd agree with that, JS is pretty, 'old school.'

It's probably an England - Scotland thing. Many Scots will pick anyone over an English person in sport.

'Anyone but England' frequently heard once Scotland get knocked out of any football competitions. Which is usually fairly early on

I don't think Paul could have been much more positive than he just was on the Sky broadcast. He was quite effusive in his sort of straightforward way.

More news at 11.

Invade wrote:I don't think Paul could have been much more positive than he just was on the Sky broadcast. He was quite effusive in his sort of straightforward way.

More news at 11.

Yeah there was no negativity at all.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

I always thought it was at least partly that Jackie was about the last of the "Gentlemen Racers". Champions that came after him were often career drivers who didn't have the British reserve. Certainly Niki Lauda was the first of a whole new kind of driver in F1.

I suspect that the spectacle that is Lewis Hamiltons private life might just grate a bit on Sir Jackie.

We'll sure keep a close eye on how the situation develops. We wouldn't want there to be anything short of admiration out there.

Mort Canard wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

I always thought it was at least partly that Jackie was about the last of the "Gentlemen Racers". Champions that came after him were often career drivers who didn't have the British reserve. Certainly Niki Lauda was the first of a whole new kind of driver in F1.

I suspect that the spectacle that is Lewis Hamiltons private life might just grate a bit on Sir Jackie.

I think there's some truth to that. I don't think Sir Jackie can quite comprehend Hamilton having so many interests outside of racing whilst being an active driver.

Sir Jackie has also come across as quite scathing about James Hunt at times saying he was better in the nightclub than on the racetrack.

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote:

j man wrote:Not something I've ever noticed, I would guess that the impression of bias probably comes mostly from di Resta's generally negative demeanour.

The only figure within the sport who I notice really does seem to have it in for Lewis is Jackie Stewart.

I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

I always thought it was at least partly that Jackie was about the last of the "Gentlemen Racers". Champions that came after him were often career drivers who didn't have the British reserve. Certainly Niki Lauda was the first of a whole new kind of driver in F1.

I suspect that the spectacle that is Lewis Hamiltons private life might just grate a bit on Sir Jackie.

I think there's some truth to that. I don't think Sir Jackie can quite comprehend Hamilton having so many interests outside of racing whilst being an active driver.

Sir Jackie has also come across as quite scathing about James Hunt at times saying he was better in the nightclub than on the racetrack.

Not sure I buy into that. Jackie was the first with the 'dolly bird' wife; surrounding himself with rock and film stars in the paddock and doing the chat shows and celebrity circus with a few royal mates thrown into the mix. So very much like Hamilton.

I think Jackies attitude is one shared by many of the BRDC. Ham was pretty much derided and insulted by the motoring establishment as he rose up the ranks, so when he got to the top he basically told them all; with a few exceptions, to go swivel. I don't think Ham has any particular beef with Jackie, he was just part of the establishment at the time.

shoot999 wrote:

BMWSauber84 wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Flash2k11 wrote: I hadn't really noticed it till recently, but to be honest its nothing compared to say, Hunt and his disdain for Patrese. Stewart is an odd one, perhaps the threat of no longer being the best British F1 driver has something to do with it, though for me Jackie has far bigger acheivements to hang his hat on that Hamilton, due to those achievements, wont ever get the chance to match.

Maybe the pair of them really are just miserable Scots

I think it's largely because Hamilton doesn't really fit the mould of what a racing driver should do in JYS' opinion. Derek Warwick is another.

I always thought it was at least partly that Jackie was about the last of the "Gentlemen Racers". Champions that came after him were often career drivers who didn't have the British reserve. Certainly Niki Lauda was the first of a whole new kind of driver in F1.

I suspect that the spectacle that is Lewis Hamiltons private life might just grate a bit on Sir Jackie.

I think there's some truth to that. I don't think Sir Jackie can quite comprehend Hamilton having so many interests outside of racing whilst being an active driver.

Sir Jackie has also come across as quite scathing about James Hunt at times saying he was better in the nightclub than on the racetrack.

Not sure I buy into that. Jackie was the first with the 'dolly bird' wife; surrounding himself with rock and film stars in the paddock and doing the chat shows and celebrity circus with a few royal mates thrown into the mix. So very much like Hamilton.

I think Jackies attitude is one shared by many of the BRDC. Ham was pretty much derided and insulted by the motoring establishment as he rose up the ranks, so when he got to the top he basically told them all; with a few exceptions, to go swivel. I don't think Ham has any particular beef with Jackie, he was just part of the establishment at the time.

It's interesting that Stewart wasn't around to be interviewed this time, it saved all the awkwardness.

Invade wrote:I don't think Paul could have been much more positive than he just was on the Sky broadcast. He was quite effusive in his sort of straightforward way.

More news at 11.

He may have seen this thread and tried to change his act to throw people off the scent, so anything he says after November 2nd does not count and we can only get to the truth by looking at his comments prior to this reveal.

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I don't think Paul could have been much more positive than he just was on the Sky broadcast. He was quite effusive in his sort of straightforward way.

More news at 11.

He may have seen this thread and tried to change his act to throw people off the scent, so anything he says after November 2nd does not count and we can only get to the truth by looking at his comments prior to this reveal.

Was it? I thought it was possibly because Hamilton had just won his sixth title and clearly Sky wanted to blow smoke up Hams behind, therefore de Resta would have looked a bit stupid taking the opportunity to criticise Ham at that point.
But I like your thinking. Maybe if Croft reads the forums he would stop talking complete b0llocks.

shoot999 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Invade wrote:I don't think Paul could have been much more positive than he just was on the Sky broadcast. He was quite effusive in his sort of straightforward way.

More news at 11.

He may have seen this thread and tried to change his act to throw people off the scent, so anything he says after November 2nd does not count and we can only get to the truth by looking at his comments prior to this reveal.

Was it? I thought it was possibly because Hamilton had just won his sixth title and clearly Sky wanted to blow smoke up Hams behind, therefore de Resta would have looked a bit stupid taking the opportunity to criticise Ham at that point.
But I like your thinking. Maybe if Croft reads the forums he would stop talking complete b0llocks.

It's hard for someone like Crofty to change what he is saying, even if he knows he is unpopular, because this is just his natural personality and it is inherent in him.

With Paul though, if he is deliberately against someone like Hamilton, well it is easy for him to feign support of Hamilton for a bit because he just needs to say the kind of positive remarks that he would say about other drivers that he does actually support, so it's an easier behavioural switch if you see what I mean.

Also, even if Paul hasn't read the thread himself, so long as someone he knows has seen it, then they could have informed him, so it's not such an unrealistic proposition for those in the sport to find out what is posted on forums, because there aren't actually that many F1 related forums are there?

If you pay attention and have some capacity to read between the lines, there are several people around F1 who do not like Hamilton and basically try to take subversive shots at him when they get the chance. Di Resta, Button, Brundle, Stewart, Irvine, the list goes on and on. He also has his supporters without question but the OP is correct. Di Resta doesn't like him and his commentary gives that away. You can tell by the way that both him and Brundle still talk about the "dominant Mercedes PU" years after Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes in engine performance. It's never going to be a blatant shot at Lewis; rather they try to take away from him by suggesting that his success is down to the car (pretty similar to people in the forum who dislike him).

sandman1347 wrote:If you pay attention and have some capacity to read between the lines, there are several people around F1 who do not like Hamilton and basically try to take subversive shots at him when they get the chance. Di Resta, Button, Brundle, Stewart, Irvine, the list goes on and on. He also has his supporters without question but the OP is correct. Di Resta doesn't like him and his commentary gives that away. You can tell by the way that both him and Brundle still talk about the "dominant Mercedes PU" years after Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes in engine performance. It's never going to be a blatant shot at Lewis; rather they try to take away from him by suggesting that his success is down to the car (pretty similar to people in the forum who dislike him).

Bundle heaps praise on Hamilton as well.... This isn't a dig at you at all but please remember you are a fan of Lewis. It is possible than a neutral opinion might look biased against him from your perspective.

And yet race threads get locked within a week or so

Asphalt_World wrote:And yet race threads get locked within a week or so

So whats that go to do with this thread?

mikeyg123 wrote:

sandman1347 wrote:If you pay attention and have some capacity to read between the lines, there are several people around F1 who do not like Hamilton and basically try to take subversive shots at him when they get the chance. Di Resta, Button, Brundle, Stewart, Irvine, the list goes on and on. He also has his supporters without question but the OP is correct. Di Resta doesn't like him and his commentary gives that away. You can tell by the way that both him and Brundle still talk about the "dominant Mercedes PU" years after Ferrari has surpassed Mercedes in engine performance. It's never going to be a blatant shot at Lewis; rather they try to take away from him by suggesting that his success is down to the car (pretty similar to people in the forum who dislike him).

Bundle heaps praise on Hamilton as well.... This isn't a dig at you at all but please remember you are a fan of Lewis. It is possible than a neutral opinion might look biased against him from your perspective.

Heaping generic praise while suggesting it's really down to the car is not an overly-intricate way to take shots at him. You only need to realize that he won't want to be seen as blatantly biased to understand that. Hamilton's success is undeniable so his detractors are left with only the option of putting a dampener on that success. They cannot go full Donald Trump and pretend that he is actually failing.

I can't help but notice that as well as the way that Martin and a few others have rushed to try to prop Max up to Hamilton's level despite Max not having yet actually reached that level. Of course, you are welcome to your own view on the subject.

shoot999 wrote:

Asphalt_World wrote:And yet race threads get locked within a week or so

So whats that go to do with this thread?

Not a lot. I just find it odd that threads about the races, the entire reason everyone watches F1, get locked within a week, whereas a thread discussing the various bias of people nobody knows, but infer from the tiny amount of time we see and hear them on TV, is still going strong.

I think there was around 6 posts during the entire hour of quali, probably the second reason we all watch F1, which is perhaps a sad reflection of the forum at present.