15/02/2012
FEATURE BY MIKE LAWRENCE
 |
Lewis Hamilton did not stand as a witness at Adrian Sutil's trial and Sutil has branded his former friend as a 'coward' and I think that is bloody unfair. Adrian attacked someone and was found guilty of GBH, but the court suspended the sentence and some would say that showed leniency.
On the day of Adrian's trial, Lewis was in Woking at the launch of the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes MP4-27 and I cannot see how he could be anywhere else. Sutil's attack was recorded on camera.
Vodafone McLaren Mercedes pay Lewis handsomely and every employee owes loyalty to his employer. When I was a teacher, I had to miss the funeral of friends. I could have had time off for the funerals of close relatives, even if I didn't much like them. That was the rule and I accepted it.
Lewis's first loyalty is to his team. McLaren employs 500 people just to put he and Jenson on a Formula One grid. There seems to me to be little doubt that McLaren played a part in insisting that he was at a launch and not at his friend's trial. It is McLaren who has said that Lewis has no comment. He even has a PR minder in the paddock and the excuse is that since Sutil has appealed against his conviction, Lewis has to keep quiet.
This, of course, is tosh. The case is no longer sub judice and it is insulting to the German legal system to suggest that the appeal judges would be influenced by anything that Lewis would say to a journalist, even if they read the comments. The excuse given by Lewis's PR minders is nonsense, but nobody forced Lewis to become a World Champion, he might have found employment in some menial job. He has no really serious educational qualifications.
One can argue that McLaren is being over-sensitive and that it is taking corporate image-building a stage too far, but McLaren has every right to do that. Every few weeks McLaren makes Lewis a Sterling millionaire. In the windows of my local branches of Santander and Vodafone, there are pictures of Lewis and Jenson. They enjoy an enviable lifestyle because they have also have obligations to McLaren's sponsoring partners.
We no longer live in an age when a driver simply raced and I, for one, regret the passing of such innocence. Short of a world-wide cataclysm, such days are gone forever.
If McLaren offered you the sort of deal that Lewis has, would you turn it down on the grounds that you could not speak to the press on certain issues? Do you suppose that if Adrian Sutil had landed a drive with McLaren that he would rebel? I think that we all know the answer.
Sutil's lapse was recorded on CCTV. His lawyers claim that the judge did not take other circumstances into account. Adrian and his father seem to suggest that Lewis could have been a key witness, as in the Perry Mason TV series where seemingly hopeless cases were won every week by a surprise witness appearing in the 55th minute of a one hour show.
Even Perry Mason would have been pressed to argue against CCTV footage.
Adrian's outburst smacks of desperation. On his day he has been an outstanding driver, particularly at Monaco and in wet conditions. He has come across as a personable man, when not attacking people. His driving at the top level has not been consistent and I doubt whether he will ever again land a Formula One seat.
I have called his behaviour a lapse and, Heaven knows, we have all done silly things in situations where alcohol is freely available, though I have no idea whether booze played a part.
I am sure that Adrian Sutil has a long career ahead of him in other forms of racing. It would be cruel were that not the case because he is a shining talent.
Sir Jackie Stewart was engaged as a brand ambassador for RBS. The former CEO of RBS, Fred Goodwin, has been stripped of his knighthood, Jackie has defended him and I think that Jackie was right to do so.
Celebrity endorsement of products began in the 19th Century, being a brand ambassador is just a fancy way to express the fact. There were cigarette brands named du Maurier and Olivier after the distinguished actor/managers, Gerald du Maurier (Daphne's dad) and Laurence Olivier.
Under Fred Goodwin, RBS employed Sir Jackie, Jack Nicklaus, Zara Phillips (daughter of Princess Anne) and Andy Murray, who is British when he wins at tennis, Scottish when he loses. Nicklaus and Stewart were two of Goodwin's boyhood heroes so, using shareholders' money, he could hang out with them.
As far as I understand the deal, Sir Jackie was paid a million pounds a year, basic retainer, and for that he had to hang out with RBS executives and their guests a few times a year, at dinners, on the golf course and when clay pigeon shooting. Sir Jackie was a European Champion clay pigeon shot. He also attended Grands Prix when RBS picked up the tab for the first class flight and the top hotel.
I once accepted a modest fee and a night in a Hilton hotel in return for giving a party of guests a run-down on the Goodwood Festival of Speed. Murray Walker was a popular guest speaker on cruise ships and he is a superb speaker.
Sir Jackie has done what many people have done. Pierce Brosnan was a brand ambassador for Omega watches and he wore an Omega Seamaster watch in each of the four James Bond films in which he appeared. BMW paid to have its cars featured in those films (the baddies drove Mercedes-Benz). Was anyone offended by the blatant product placement? I think not. It is the way of the world.
Goodwin was knighted for services to banking as he tried to make RBS a major international player. He was reckless and he gambled, which is why he generated the excitement that caused him to be knighted. The very things that got him his gong caused RBS to go belly up.
Normally you have to be convicted of a criminal offence to be stripped of a knighthood. Goodwin has not been convicted of any crime, but he has become a figure of hate and there was a media campaign against him.
Some overseas readers may not understand how big a deal this is. Being knighted makes the missus Lady so-and-so. Soon after plain God became Sir God, I raised my hat to Susie Moss and said, 'Good morning, Lady Moss.' She kissed me.
By all accounts, Goodwin and Sir Jackie became good friends and Sir Jackie defended his friend. It is true that Stewart was a brand ambassador for RBS, so he had a duty, but I believe that that Sir Jackie was motivated by friendship. His arguments on Goodwin's behalf are cogent and make sense to me. What Goodwin's accolade, and he being stripped of it, really brings into question is the British system of honours.
It is a scandal that John Surtees has never been touched on the shoulder by a regal sword.
I have no problem with Sir Jackie's knighthood. He was not only one of the best drivers ever but he has also worked on behalf of road safety, of racing mechanics in straitened circumstances and he done more than anyone to highlight the problems of dyslexia, a condition from which he suffers. He also played a pivotal role in bringing common sense safety to motor racing and was criticised for it.
When the Autocourse Top Ten meant something, Stewart headed the list for six consecutive years. Michael Schumacher topped it seven times, but only five were consecutive. Stewart was mighty.
I do not think that Lewis should have abandoned his commitment to his employers in order to tell a court what a fine fellow is Adrian Sutil, when not attacking people on camera. I was at the launch of the Vodafone McLaren Mercedes MP4-27 and the preparation was extensive. Two World Champions were present, but Lewis is the one who took the title with McLaren.
Lewis could not simply swan off to be a bit-part player at the trial of someone who was plainly guilty.
Sir Jackie is right to defend his friend and as much as I loathe Fred Goodwin, he did not commit a criminal offence.
Now I come to a reservation. It is widely believed that Sir Jackie is paid by Bahrain in order to speak on its behalf and I would be glad to learn that this is not the case.
I cannot otherwise understand how Stewart can speak in favour of the Grand Prix against all the evidence. Like it or not, the race has become politicised and it is a declared target for the increasingly militant opposition.
In one of Tom Clancy's novels, Bahrain is described as serving a function for Saudi Arabia what Las Vegas does for California. It is a place where you can drink, whore, and gamble and damn the precepts of your religion. What happens in Vegas. stays in Vegas. What happens in Bahrain, stays in Bahrain.
Damon Hill has spoken in favour of Bahrain and Damon is one of the Good Guys. I detect, however, a tartan hand in his stance. Unlike you or I, Damon grew up knowing Jackie Stewart as not just an amazing racing driver, but also as a family friend. Damon might even have called him Uncle Jackie.
Sir Jackie's relationship with RBS is a matter of record and we can judge his defence of Goodwin in that light, though I believe that there is genuine friendship there. I also believe that while Goodwin should never have received the accolade in the first place, he should not have been stripped of it because he has never been tried, let alone convicted, of a criminal offence. Every misguided decision he made was approved by a board of directors and even by agencies of the British government.
What is not a matter of record is Stewart's relationship with Bahrain and I think it is time that we knew whether the rumours are true.
That it is widely believed that he is a retained by Bahrain does not make the accusation true. If it is true, then we have a yardstick by which to judge his statements which seem, to me, to border on the eccentric. If it is not true, then I'd say that his defence of Bahrain is plain daft.
Mike Lawrence
mike.lawrence@pitpass.com
To check out previous features from Mike, click here