planetf1.com

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.ph ... ostpopular

Found it interesting to hear that about this. Sounds like Lewis has made a few attempts at talking to Sutill since the courts case, with yet no reply.

Sutill said today on Sky he is yet to speak to Lewis and that they had not spoken in a year, he indicated he would see him on the grid walk in Melbourne.

It was hard to tell if he bared any grudges.

I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

Hamilton actually backed him up,he just couldn't show up...if someone is a friend,he should understand this,am still best friends and business partners despite the fact that during my school years,he failed to show up in court to bail me out,why? because it's not his fault i screwed up so if i ask for a favour and he tries to make it but fails then i have no hard feelings twds him....people need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions and not transfer their anger elsewhere because of their screw up.

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

It's hard to say that you've done nothing wrong with such strong evidence against yourself (cameras dont tend to lie).

Personally I think Lewis made the right decision, if the case wasnt already high profile enough Lewis Hamilton turning up in court road of brought a lot more press. You've then got the question would Lewis feel comfortable in either scenario. I think we can all agree that there was overwhelming evidence of what Sutill did, and Lewis had the option to lie to the court, or give evidence against your friend. Instead he stayed away from the court, avoiding all these scenarios, I think Sutill should be thankfull if anything for Lewis not giving evidence.

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

The evidence was pretty conclusive against Sutil. Hamilton knew nothing he said was likely to change the outcome of the case. He wisely stayed away from a PR nightmare of sticking up for a guy found guilty.

Sutil shouldn't hold a grudge. It's not like Lewis said he was guilty in his original statement after all.

In no way did I say sutil did not do it

All I said is he felt strong enough that he felt Lewis should've backed him

And on the angle that Lewis couldn't make it was he short of cash to fly? Or working 7 days a week and couldn't get time off? Damn McLaren and their excessive PR days!!

I didn't say anything about you and your opinion on Sutil. It was pretty clear I was talking about the case in general and why there wasn't much point in Hamilton testifying in the end.

Jeez do you take everything personally?

You guys have it all wrong. It's not that Lewis should've backed him or not. Hamilton should've talked to Sutil for moral support. Fair-weather friends aren't friends.

'For me, he is not a man. Even his father sent me a (text message) wishing me luck at the trial. I got nothing from Lewis. He changed his mobile number. I couldn't reach him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Sutil.html

He changed his phone number to avoid having a conversation with him. Sutil was going through a tough time and his friend gave him the cold shoulder for what? PR reasons? Come on. Hamilton may be a World Champion and a great F1 driver, but he seems like a douchebag of a friend.

Yay let's all side with the guy convicted of GBH as a way of bashing Lewis. That's original.

Laura23 wrote:I didn't say anything about you and your opinion on Sutil. It was pretty clear I was talking about the case in general and why there wasn't much point in Hamilton testifying in the end.

Jeez do you take everything personally?

Me? Why did you think I was replying to you personally? A few had quoted my post!

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

Then again Sutil shouldn't have tried to glass a guy in the first place. What did he want Hamilton to do, turn up at court and lie for him? "Friends" don't put their friends in those sort of situations.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

Then again Sutil shouldn't have tried to glass a guy in the first place. What did he want Hamilton to do, turn up at court and lie for him? "Friends" don't put their friends in those sort of situations.

I've not argued against that and I'm fully against violence but like a previous poster said why couldn't Lewis support him even if he wouldn't appear as a witness

If Lewis's father could text if say that's the least Lewis could've done

raceman wrote:You guys have it all wrong. It's not that Lewis should've backed him or not. Hamilton should've talked to Sutil for moral support. Fair-weather friends aren't friends.

'For me, he is not a man. Even his father sent me a (text message) wishing me luck at the trial. I got nothing from Lewis. He changed his mobile number. I couldn't reach him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Sutil.html

He changed his phone number to avoid having a conversation with him. Sutil was going through a tough time and his friend gave him the cold shoulder for what? PR reasons? Come on. Hamilton may be a World Champion and a great F1 driver, but he seems like a douchebag of a friend.

I am not aware of all the details of the case like some.

But, is there any proof of the bit I bolded. Maybe Lewis changed his number for other reasons. At least Lewis is now tryng to make amends. I would hazard still Sutil will be frowned upon by some in the F1 fraternity and yet Lewis is wishing him luck in public.

sennafan24 wrote:

raceman wrote:You guys have it all wrong. It's not that Lewis should've backed him or not. Hamilton should've talked to Sutil for moral support. Fair-weather friends aren't friends.

'For me, he is not a man. Even his father sent me a (text message) wishing me luck at the trial. I got nothing from Lewis. He changed his mobile number. I couldn't reach him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Sutil.html

He changed his phone number to avoid having a conversation with him. Sutil was going through a tough time and his friend gave him the cold shoulder for what? PR reasons? Come on. Hamilton may be a World Champion and a great F1 driver, but he seems like a douchebag of a friend.

I am not aware of all the details of the case like some.

But, is there any proof of the bit I bolded. Maybe Lewis changed his number for other reasons. At least Lewis is now tryng to make amends. I would hazard still Sutil will be frowned upon by some in the F1 fraternity and yet Lewis is wishing him luck in public.

It is a bit convenient to try to make up when the other guy gets back into F1 and means you'll be seeing him around a lot

Maybe he should've tried a lot sooner and it may have been responded to by Sutil

SilverstoneRegular wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

SilverstoneRegular wrote:I think of you honestly feel you did nothing wrong and your friend who was with you wouldn't back you up you'd find it hard to forgive them

Then again Sutil shouldn't have tried to glass a guy in the first place. What did he want Hamilton to do, turn up at court and lie for him? "Friends" don't put their friends in those sort of situations.

I've not argued against that and I'm fully against violence but like a previous poster said why couldn't Lewis support him even if he wouldn't appear as a witness

If Lewis's father could text if say that's the least Lewis could've done

Yeah he could have done that but I can't hold it against him for not doing it. If I knew somebody who was on trial for GBH and it was very obvious they were guilty, I might feel inclined to put some distance between myself and them.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:Yeah he could have done that but I can't hold it against him for not doing it. If I knew somebody who was on trial for GBH and it was very obvious they were guilty, I might feel inclined to put some distance between myself and them.

Then you'd make an absolutely great friend. A friend in need....

That's sarcasm, btw.

raceman wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:Yeah he could have done that but I can't hold it against him for not doing it. If I knew somebody who was on trial for GBH and it was very obvious they were guilty, I might feel inclined to put some distance between myself and them.

Then you'd make an absolutely great friend. A friend in need....

That's sarcasm, btw.

I trust MY friends not to act like complete donkey openings, do something horrendously stupid in a club and get a GBH conviction. I wouldn't really want to be friends with someone prone to that sort of behaviour.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

raceman wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:Yeah he could have done that but I can't hold it against him for not doing it. If I knew somebody who was on trial for GBH and it was very obvious they were guilty, I might feel inclined to put some distance between myself and them.

Then you'd make an absolutely great friend. A friend in need....

That's sarcasm, btw.

I trust MY friends not to act like complete donkey openings, do something horrendously stupid in a club and get a GBH conviction. I wouldn't really want to be friends with someone prone to that sort of behaviour.

Maybe I would make an exception for some of my close friends but if somebody who I considered a casual friend glass somebody I'm not sure I would wan't to have a lot to do with them.

Tbh if one of my friends was up for GBH and I knew they were guilty I'd hope they would get punished for it. Morally they would deserve the punishment. I wouldn't wish them luck and I would distance myself from them until it blew over a bit. It may seem selfish but in life sometimes people have to be. I think Lewis was fully justified in what he did frankly. Sutil didn't have a leg to stand on really and he seemed bitter because he knew he was guilty and he was tiddled off his friend didn't lie for him which makes him a pretty fairy cakes mate himself.

'I have emailed him a couple of times,' said the 2008 world champion. 'I emailed him a while ago because I heard there was a chance he could get the seat and said I had said a prayer for him, that I really hoped he got the seat because he deserved it and that I really hoped to see him back in Formula One.

'And I emailed him on the way here as soon as I found out and congratulated him. I haven't heard back from him but I am sure at some stage we will get to talk. I have really been looking forward to seeing him because I haven't for a while.

'It is a great opportunity for him. I really, really wish him all the best for the year and in the message I said I hoped he goes out there and proves to everyone that they made the right decision.

Daily Mail

Really Ham...?

Great bossom buddies are they?

One thing is for sure - I think Mallya sticks to his favorites contrary to latter reports we've read, Bianchi actually brought more money than Sutil but they still chose Sutil.

"Actually, Germany's Auto Motor und Sport claims Bianchi does actually have a budget - EUR 4 million - and a higher one than that offered by Sutil's backers." Link

Unless of course they know Paul is out of the door by end 2013 (unless he pulls something really impressive) and that gives a Sutil/Bianchi combination - both great talents with Mercedes & Ferrari backups which can be a brilliant business strategy.

Now that makes more sense.

This sport sounds more and more like a Woman's Day magazine every day.

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:

raceman wrote:

Pedrosa_4_Ever wrote:Yeah he could have done that but I can't hold it against him for not doing it. If I knew somebody who was on trial for GBH and it was very obvious they were guilty, I might feel inclined to put some distance between myself and them.

Then you'd make an absolutely great friend. A friend in need....

That's sarcasm, btw.

I trust MY friends not to act like complete donkey openings, do something horrendously stupid in a club and get a GBH conviction. I wouldn't really want to be friends with someone prone to that sort of behaviour.

Right. So hypothetically, if you were Hamilton, you wouldn't even deign to call your close friend of many years to tell him that you cannot be his friend anymore because you can't accept his behavior?

Laura23 wrote:Tbh if one of my friends was up for GBH and I knew they were guilty I'd hope they would get punished for it. Morally they would deserve the punishment. I wouldn't wish them luck and I would distance myself from them until it blew over a bit. It may seem selfish but in life sometimes people have to be. I think Lewis was fully justified in what he did frankly. Sutil didn't have a leg to stand on really and he seemed bitter because he knew he was guilty and he was tiddled off his friend didn't lie for him which makes him a pretty fairy cakes mate himself.

And now he wants to reconnect with Sutil? Where's the moral consistency?

As far as anyone knows, Sutil never asked Hamilton to do anything dishonest. He commented publicly that Hamilton refused to talk to him and changed his phone number without informing him. If Hamilton had talked to Sutil and said "hey you almost killed someone; I can't be friends with someone like that", this would be a completely different story. To cut a close friend off without any explanation is pretty low.

You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

.

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

No I have morals. I don't appreciate the personal attack either just because you don't like Hamilton.

I like that Sutil is back, but he acted like a baby when. Hamilton didnt show up to his trial. I'm sure it was a total PR move on Hamiltons part, but what does Sutil expect. If there video evidence, why do you want to drag your friends into it. He should've as friend had enough consideration to not drag anybody else's rep down with him especially given the level these guys are at. He should humble himself and let his feelings be water under the bridge.

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

Sorry but your being ridiculous. Over time friends can fall out for many reasons and reconcile some time latter. I don't think its unreasonable to put distance between your self and somebody who has made a pretty big mistake and done something pretty reprehensible. We have no idea if Sutil asked Hamilton to lie for him but IF he did then that is reason alone to cut all contact. Personally I think Lewis new there was nothing to be gained by testifying and did not want to get caught up in what could potentially be another Lie-gate scandal. Something that was very embarrassing for him.

Lastly we don't even know how close they were as friends.

Laura23 wrote:

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

No I have morals. I don't appreciate the personal attack either just because you don't like Hamilton.

Lol, on the contrary, I've rooted for him since his debut in 2007. I was gutted that year and again this year when he had the pace but not the car to win. Just because I support him in the driver's championship doesn't mean I think he's faultless.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... her+friend
Does the Sutil-Hamilton scenario not fit the definition? It's a fair classification, not a personal attack.

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

No I have morals. I don't appreciate the personal attack either just because you don't like Hamilton.

Lol, on the contrary, I've rooted for him since his debut in 2007. I was gutted that year and again this year when he had the pace but not the car to win. Just because I support him in the driver's championship doesn't mean I think he's faultless.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... her+friend
Does the Sutil-Hamilton scenario not fit the definition? It's a fair classification, not a personal attack.

No. It doesn't since we don't actually know how Hamilton felt about the situation. He couldn't make the court date because of PR commitments. McLaren told him he was not allowed the time off. I'd imagine he didn't fight them too hard since there wasn't much he could do for Sutil anyway.

Laura23 wrote:

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

No I have morals. I don't appreciate the personal attack either just because you don't like Hamilton.

Lol, on the contrary, I've rooted for him since his debut in 2007. I was gutted that year and again this year when he had the pace but not the car to win. Just because I support him in the driver's championship doesn't mean I think he's faultless.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... her+friend
Does the Sutil-Hamilton scenario not fit the definition? It's a fair classification, not a personal attack.

No. It doesn't since we don't actually know how Hamilton felt about the situation. He couldn't make the court date because of PR commitments. McLaren told him he was not allowed the time off. I'd imagine he didn't fight them too hard since there wasn't much he could do for Sutil anyway.

It wasn't just making it to court though. He showed no support for Sutil at all. Even Hamilton's own father called him to wish him all the best. Was that a PR nightmare? No of course not. Hamilton even went as far as to change his number. Now obviously this could have been for other reasons, but Sutil's number hadn't changed. Giving Sutil the number wasn't exactly the hardest thing in the world. The McLaren PR line is just an excuse so he didn't have to own up to being a disreputable person.

It doesn't matter whether you like Hamilton the driver or even Hamilton the person. But I find very little to like in his actions regarding this matter. Still people make mistakes, and Hamilton's mistake was far less of an error in judgement than Sutil's.

nutyo understands my argument, 100%. It's not that Hamilton didn't go to court and testify on his behalf - it's the failure to talk to a close friend going through a tough time, especially since that friend is reaching out for you for support. If he found Sutil's actions morally reprehensible, he still should've talked to him and told him that, at the very least. Years of close friendship deserves more than a cold shoulder.

Sutil shouldn't even be back on the track, and as for being friends it works both ways, if you have a great friend , yes you expect them to support you when your in the right but you dont ask them to stick up for you and possibly lie for you to cover up you being an donkey,well you dont if you are a decent guy, especially when Lewis had so much to lose from doing that, seems to me sutil is a total donkey and Lewis is better off without him.

I don't understand what the issue is. If good friend of mine was accused of attacking another person with a bottle, resulting in stitches being required on the victim's neck, i'd distance myself for a while. It wouldn't make me a fairy cakes friend, it'd just show the person that you're not willing to stand by them and tell them they did nothing wrong when you are well aware they did.

Hamilton may well have been disgusted by Sutil's actions. I wouldn't blame him. GBH is a serious offense and if Lewis didn't want to associate himself with a person who had shown they were very capable of causing severe harm to another, then he has every right to. Throw alcohol into the mix (we can assume it was involved as they were at a nightclub) and you start to wonder when your friend is trustworthy and how long until they turn.

I dont see the point in being judgemental about the issue. We really dont know the whole story at all. What if Eric Lux assaulted him first? What is he said something personal that caused Sutil to do what he did? Any sane person will not cause GBH unless he was provoked, and Sutil doesnt have a history of such incidents. What if Sutil wanted Lewis to just testify regarding what actually happened, but Lewis with all that was happening in his life (breakup and bad performance) didnt want to get involved. And there are some people talking like he is a serial killer. Do you even know what were the extent of the wounds on Eric Lux. All the paper got wind of the story only when the charges were filed. That is what we read and we are judging him based on that?? Very mature.

SilverstoneRegular wrote:

sennafan24 wrote:

raceman wrote:You guys have it all wrong. It's not that Lewis should've backed him or not. Hamilton should've talked to Sutil for moral support. Fair-weather friends aren't friends.

'For me, he is not a man. Even his father sent me a (text message) wishing me luck at the trial. I got nothing from Lewis. He changed his mobile number. I couldn't reach him.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/formul ... Sutil.html

He changed his phone number to avoid having a conversation with him. Sutil was going through a tough time and his friend gave him the cold shoulder for what? PR reasons? Come on. Hamilton may be a World Champion and a great F1 driver, but he seems like a douchebag of a friend.

I am not aware of all the details of the case like some.

But, is there any proof of the bit I bolded. Maybe Lewis changed his number for other reasons. At least Lewis is now tryng to make amends. I would hazard still Sutil will be frowned upon by some in the F1 fraternity and yet Lewis is wishing him luck in public.

It is a bit convenient to try to make up when the other guy gets back into F1 and means you'll be seeing him around a lot

Maybe he should've tried a lot sooner and it may have been responded to by Sutil

you seem to know what Lewis must have done or didn't do....or maybe with anything Lewis,you just have to be critical or you won't be happy.

raceman wrote:

Laura23 wrote:You seem to have missed the but where I mentioned I'd distance myself from said friend until it blew over. It appears Hamilton ash down just that. Now his friend has been given his second chance by the sport so he feels able to give him a second chance himself. That seems morally consistent to me.

Got it. You are a fair-weather friend.

people need to take responsibility for their actions,like i stated before,i've gotten in a lot of trouble especially during my schooling days,i once relied on my best friend to come bail me out and he failed to show up in court...do i think he is a fair weather friend? hell no because he has done alot for me than alot of friends would do,i can't get mad at him because he failed to get me out of trouble that i caused for myself....Sutil getting mad at Lewis shows exactly the kind of person he is,a childish person who doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions.

raceman wrote:nutyo understands my argument, 100%. It's not that Hamilton didn't go to court and testify on his behalf - it's the failure to talk to a close friend going through a tough time, especially since that friend is reaching out for you for support. If he found Sutil's actions morally reprehensible, he still should've talked to him and told him that, at the very least. Years of close friendship deserves more than a cold shoulder.

and how exactly do people know he didn't try talking to him? because Sutil said so? excuse me for not believing someone who may or may not have an agenda....if roles were reversed the only thing people would be talking about is how Lewis is an donkey for glassing someone not if Sutil showed up or talked to him or not,what next does he want Lewis to cradle him and put him to bed to show what a lovely friend he really is? and how close were they really? at the end of the day it depends on how you value that friendship,there are friends that i would stick my neck out for and there are those that i won't.