Lauda Interview in Motor Sport

[indigorallye]

I have just been reading 'Reflections with Nigel Roebuck' in September's Motor Sport.
There is an interview with Niki Lauda and the subject of Hamilton leaving McLaren comes up.
In the interview it mentions that when Hamilton's McLaren broke down at Singapore, whilst leading was the point his 'patience snapped.'
Lauda's response:
"No, no, that had nothing to do with it. There was something else that influenced him at that moment- which you know about and can't write, and I know about and can't say.........'

Have I missed something?
What was he on about?

[tenpenceshort]

His girlfriend had probably put too few kisses on her last text message.

[DanielSan]

Martin Whitmarsh seemed to get on better with Jenson?

[slipstream 1985]

Does anyone actually know because I thought that was the final straw?

[Housey]

I wondered about this too when I read the article. It would be interesting to get inside some of this mention but not discussed bks.

[gaz1234]

Um, misses Ron?

[Housey]

gaz1234 said:

Um, misses Ron?

[entropy]

Housey said:

I wondered about this too when I read the article. It would be interesting to get inside some of this mention but not discussed bks.

Something that is likely to cause slander/libel.

I seem to remember Roebuck mentioning Flavio Briatore as someone to dish the dirt on if it wasn't for libel laws.

[carinaman]

I've started reading that article but yet to get to that point. I read the Lunch With Stig 1 and the piece on Lunger that pulled Lauda from his burning Ferrari before getting to Roebuck.

[Jasandjules]

entropy said:

I seem to remember Roebuck mentioning Flavio Briatore as someone to dish the dirt on if it wasn't for libel laws.

Always amuses me this kind of statement, as TRUTH is a defence to libel. I.e. you can say what you like about someone if it is true...

[anonymous-user]

Jasandjules said:

entropy said:

I seem to remember Roebuck mentioning Flavio Briatore as someone to dish the dirt on if it wasn't for libel laws.

Always amuses me this kind of statement, as TRUTH is a defence to libel. I.e. you can say what you like about someone if it is true...

Not quite. You can say what you like about someone as long as YOU CAN PROVE THAT it is true.

[Redlake27]

If my memory is correct, It was around this time that McLaren had put several restrictions on Lewis in the public arena, and he made it fairly obvious he was being restricted.

For example, there was some comment in the media about McLaren being unhappy with his tattoos, but rather than just wearing long sleeved clothing, Lewis chose to roll up his sleeves in one TV interview to reveal he'd covered them up with armbands! It was as if he was making a point on how constrained he felt.

Also, there was a gagging order preventing Lewis from commenting on the Sutil nightclub brawl.

I had the impression Lewis was a bit tired with being so restricted.

But frankly the reason for the jump was on performance grounds. Mercedes were in year three of a five year investment plan and McLaren (transitioning from works Merc to customer Merc to Honda) were at a different point in their lifecycle. Therefore, it was a smart move to jump ship.

It would have been a very grumpy Lewis in the 2013/14 McLarens....

[slipstream 1985]

REALIST123 said:

Jasandjules said:

entropy said:

I seem to remember Roebuck mentioning Flavio Briatore as someone to dish the dirt on if it wasn't for libel laws.

Always amuses me this kind of statement, as TRUTH is a defence to libel. I.e. you can say what you like about someone if it is true...

Not quite. You can say what you like about someone as long as YOU CAN PROVE THAT it is true.

You are a wker

[IanHg]

slipstream 1985 said:

You are a wker

Are you saying you can prove it

[Agent Orange]

slipstream 1985 said:

REALIST123 said:

Not quite. You can say what you like about someone as long as YOU CAN PROVE THAT it is true.

You are a wker

Don't think that is quite true. I thought it more that you can be accused of libel or defamation if what you say lowers the general public's view of that person.

So in the case of your comment about REALIST123 I would argue that a reasonable statement as it's highly likely that he has in the past.

I guess that also means I can say what the hell I like about say, Piers Morgan for example, because it would be almost impossible to lower the general public's view of him.

[johnfm]

Anything to do with putting from the rough, riding the other bus etc...I can't imagine him leaving MCLaren over that though.

[Kaiser_Wull]

Agent Orange said:

Don't think that is quite true. I thought it more that you can be accused of libel or defamation if what you say lowers the general public's view of that person.

So in the case of your comment about REALIST123 I would argue that a reasonable statement as it's highly likely that he has in the past.

I guess that also means I can say what the hell I like about say, Piers Morgan for example, because it would be almost impossible to lower the general public's view of him.

There are a number of defences to a libel action, one of which is veritas: i.e. the allegedly libellous statement is, in fact, true.

[Kaiser_Wull]

Agent Orange said:

Don't think that is quite true. I thought it more that you can be accused of libel or defamation if what you say lowers the general public's view of that person.

So in the case of your comment about REALIST123 I would argue that a reasonable statement as it's highly likely that he has in the past.

I guess that also means I can say what the hell I like about say, Piers Morgan for example, because it would be almost impossible to lower the general public's view of him.

There are a number of defences to a libel action, one of which is veritas: i.e. the allegedly libellous statement is, in fact, true.