WHY 'FERRARI INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE'? When Ferrari Has Received 'Biased' Decisions 

Adrian Newey said in his book that the term 'Ferrari International Assistance/Aid' first used around 1993-1994 when active suspension was banned, and some suspected the FIA banned it because Ferrari was struggling with it.

Seeing Montoya being featured in this video got me thinking. Who thinks it's about time he got his own storytime bio 😁

It didn't help that Max Moseley was openly hostile toward Ron Dennis. ON Spygate he said it was "£5m for the offence and £95m, because Ron Dennis is a 'see you next tuesday'.

I remember when Ferrari committed burglary in my house in 2003 and the FIA rewarded us a 10 second penalty three hours afterwards. Don’t tell me the FIA didn’t favor Ferrari

To be fair, Minardi's problem was always money, Senna going there would have seen money pouring into the team simply because, well, it was Senna. While I doubt he would turn them into world champions, he certainty would have (in the short term) helped them survive a lot more than they were.

If I remember correctly, I think Sir Ron Dennis first coined that term at the 1990 Belgian GP (hmmm... coincidence?) when they had numerous starts after a couple of crashes. Ron was being interviewed and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why we had to have a restart again. The car was pretty much out of the way and we could've continued. I guess we'll keep having restarts until there's a Ferrari in the lead." And in print someone asked him to clarify, and I think he said you have to ask the FIA: Ferrari International Assistance, to see what they say".

I'd argue the veto power Ferrari got in the 80's and still hold today is the best example

on their own the incidents aren’t as bad as we all thought they were at the time. but it is worth noting how many of these weird decisions happened in ferrari’s benefit rather than being more spread out as they would be if it was just poor stewarding

I'm a big JPM fan, so back then I was fuming. Now, maybe I am 50/50 on those cases I saw as clear-cut FIA meddling. P.S. In Lithuanian forums the popular term was maFIA:)

Trevor Sports is doing that Senna simulation

I have a few magazines in spanish from the 90's where they actually talk about the "special" relationship between Ferrari and the FIA, specially from 94 and 97. They talked about usind illegal software to design the car in 94 where the FIA did nothing, and in 97 when they dq Villeneuve in Suzuka for not respecting speed during yellow flag, but 14 other drivers did the same and had no penalty for doing the same.

In fact Ferrari International Assistance came up in the early 90s. Sorry to say this but many of your videos seem like those of a McLaren fan of the early 2000s trying not directly but indirectly to continue to feed that very narrative with the half-knowledge that was being spewed out by the British motorsport press at the time and still today. Is that deceptive? I always find it amazing how many F1 fans actually really know. Especially about this time where everything is now known. Best actually. Whereby a little observation and logical thinking would be enough. Short-term rule change in 2003 to make Ferrari slower, in 2005 a very obvious rule change that completely favors Michelin's tire construction and also cuts Ferrari's core competence - the diffuser. So a second rule change within a short time to hurt Ferrari. In 2007 Ferrari's underbody is suddenly banned after four years, in 2012 the 2011 tires are reintroduced during the season "for safety reasons", with which Ferrari did not get along at all in contrast to the 2012 tires, in 2022 a technical directive in the middle of the year ruins Ferrari's vehicle concept and makes Red Bull's the only correct one - and these are just the five cases that come to mind without thinking. And in 2008 they already know about Renault "Crashgate" fraud during the season and do nothing. Although it would have brought Ferrari as one knows the title... sorry but who really believes that a Ferrari International Assistance changes rules to make Ferrari slower, destroys its vehicle concept, bans innovative underbodies (which Newey later copied!) and diffusers, understands under Assistance something wrong. And he doesn't know much about F1 either - because it's part of it to get things of the opponents banned and to create an advantage for your own technology. That is completely normal. And sometimes it hits the one sometimes the other. And the FIA is guided on the one hand by the arguments of the engineers, but also by commercial and sometimes financial interests (depending on the course of the world championship). And Ferrari has been hit more often than most other teams, as the above examples show. When have the rules been changed to restrict British teams? Or their underbodies banned or their core competence where they were far ahead of others (diffusers) reduced in value? There is much less to remember than with Ferrari. Sorry, but Ferrari International Assistance has always been bullshit.

I have a dim and distant memory that Senna had said that the last time he would ever step out of a Formula One car, he would be stepping out of a Ferrari but it was a long time ago now & my mind isn’t what it was. Plus didn’t Eddie Jordan claim in his autobiography that Senna was thinking of buying into his team?

From 2014 to 2020 it was Mercedes MaFIA. Example: Hamiltons Pit Entry in Hockenheim 2018, where he drove back to the track after commiting for the pit entry. An endurance driver got a serious penalty for that in the 2016 6h of Mexico for the absolute same pit entry and then not pit entry thing like hamilton. Mercedes never got penalties back in this years for stuff, where other teams and drivers got penalised every time.

People think of F1 as a government, but really it's a private club. Their rules, decisions etc don't have to make sense, if they make dollars.

I'm surprised Malaysia 1999 didn't make the list! Ferrari failed scrutineering and were disqualified due to illegal bargeboards, until the FIA invented a 5mm "tolerance" above the permitted dimensions that meant the cars were legal again. If the DSQ had stood, the championship would've been over with Hakkinen the winner. Instead, Irvine went into the last round 4 points up. That was the first time I read the term Ferrari International Assistance in the motoring press.

An incident that springs to mind was Raikkonen's exhaust at the 2008 French GP. He drove around for several laps with it flapping around the right hand side of his car without receiving a black flag before it finally detatched itself.

I’m fairly certain the term was used much earlier than you suggest. I’m fairly certain that Murray Walker used it in the 90’s. I’d have to rewatch the race but i think it was in the race where the Sauber blocks a Williams (Damon?) and Brundle says something like a big bottle of Champaign going from Sauber to Ferrari.

"It's $1m for the offence and $99m because Ron Dennis is a..." something.

It was a time in F1 though when definitions weren’t explained to what would be a penalty. It was sometime later that they used the “front wing must be alongside…” etc framework, and back then, they’d just look at a replay and say: “yeah, he caused the collision.” They now make sure they have more ex drivers involved too. The Massa/Hamilton incident at Spa was recently mentioned by Brundle on Sky’s coverage of the Monza race. I think it was George Russell/Perez, and he mentioned how you can’t give a position back then go steaming up the inside at the next corner. I think that validates that the FIA still agree that the decision to penalise Hamilton all those years ago was correct, as it’s been defined within the rule book today. You’ve also got to remember that a lot of rivals were sick of Ferrari winning, similar to how Toto/Lewis keep having sly digs at Red Bull. At the time those decisions were harsh on Ferrari’s rivals, but some of those comments would have been frustration.

The one that stood out to me at time time (as a Schumacher fan) was him running into Montoya at the start in Malaysia..but guess it was the 'Stewards'

Aidan, you summed these incidents up very well and fairly (imo). In particular the 2008 Japanese GP - the other incidents in that race are usually forgotted or overlooked. I watched them all at the time at the time and remember them much that way. If one tells the Malaysia incident to people now, they simply cannot believe it. But it happened. Malaysia 1999 was the first incident which screamed 'Ferrari International Assistance' to me. Silverstone 1998 was dismissed by everyone at the time as 'Ross Brawn being smart'. (As I remember it) after the race in Malaysia (in time for ITV's afternoon race replay) Ross Brawn gave a press conference afterwards explaining the issue and accepting they the team made an error. (No nefarious intent, no cheating, just inadvertantly breaking the technical regulations.) Then the FIA decides to rewrite the meaning of the regulations, the tolerance to the reference plane no longer applies in the same way everyone universally understood it to be for years. Very much an 'any no longer means all' moment, except it came from the FIA unilaterally, not Ferrari arguing against the disqualification.

I remember watching an interview from that time with Max Mosley in his office. There was a very nice large model of a Ferrari on the bookcase behind him

In 1999 was the actual start. Then Ferrari car was found illegal but that verdict was overruled later. Suddenly there was ”tolerance” in the rules. Well the Mika won anyway but Mclaren lost constructors title. Some might argue that mr. Mosley hated Ron even then.

In before 'but what about maFIA?

1994, 2003,2019 season come to mind. That 2008 spa race for me too. I remember moanig about FERRARI INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE at the time

I do recall my dad and me having epileptic moments during the late 90s and 00s when it came to the FIA and Ferrari. I admit some of it is biased. I am a McLaren fan and my father was a Williams fan. The only time we even footed for Ferrari was when Nigel was racing, and I would say we hoped Nigel would win, but Ferrari got penalized at the same time lol. Looking back now at some of these incidents, I still believe some were suspect and some were not as bad as it seemed at the time.

I guess the last time Ferrari International Assistance was used a couple or three years ago when the team were caught using an illegal 'work around' the fuel regulator. It seems that the modification they used allowed the engines to use more fuel than officially meant to. After a long and deep investigation into the mods used, the FiA said that, yes an illegal system had been used but that it would make Ferrari revert to the official monitoring unit. No fine, no loss of points and the modification has been kept secret ever since. The only outcome was that the Ferraris were never the same again for the rest of the season.

Damn, I wish I could find the article again - I think it appeared on the Guardian's web site/app 2-3 years ago. It cited an interview someone senior (can't remember their name) who used to work in F1 for the FIA (closely with Max & Bernie) and an interview he gave to a well respected motorsport journalist (Mark Hughes?). In the interview he confirmed what we all suspected (well knew), that Max & Bernie did manipulate the F1 championships. For Bernie's commercial interests - to prevent the championsip being decided before the final race, or to aid Ferrari. (Ferrari winning was considered good for business.) He mentioned an incident one year (in the 2000s - iirc) where Bernie or both of the pair wanted to do something to prevent the championship being decided before the last race, but was advised (by Max or someone else) that that time was going too far and they wouldn't get away with it. They also gave examples of when the championship had successfully been manipulated - '98 &/or '99, and 2008 were mentioned (again iirc). I think it was the same article which also cited an interview Lewis gave to another journalist in 2013(??). He asked Lewis about the car problem he experinced in the 2007 Brazilian GP. Lewis responded by saying things happened which he still couldn't talk about, that it wasn't simply a technical issue (or driver error).

The FIA are scared of how much support Ferrari have. This was really well highlighted in Monza last week.

Man I was gutted when JPM left F1. As you said he was a maniac but in a good way. You'd be watching going there is no way he is going to try and pass there, and then he'd just go full send😅 😅😅

Michael never got punished at the race following Malaysia 2002 either (where JPM had a drive through). At Interlagos he moved violenty at JPM at the start to take off his front wing and never got penalised. I bet there was some serious Colombian road rage that day and quite justifiably so! I was actually sort of half-expecting JPM to just drive around till he was a lap behind Michael and whoops - oh well your mate Jos did that to me last year. :-)

JPM was my favorite driver as a young F1 fan. I was ecstatic watching JPM pass Schumacher at the old bus stop chicane at Spa in 2004.

I was furious at all of these ones back then. Now I tend to see what happened back then as the way big teams get treated in football. Things that are 50/50 seem to always go for them which leaves to many fans the impression that they owe a part of their success due to ref bias while when you take every incident separately, that doesn't look nearly as bad. If anything the fact we got so many people talk about "FIAMG" in 2010s or "FIA Bull" right now tends to confirm that's not a Ferrari issue but a dominant team nearly always getting benefit of doubt from sanctioning body issue.

the barge boards thing wasn't assistance, it was 3 dimensional objects having thickness. However, it frequently felt like Brawn, Schumacher, etc, got sick of getting caught cheating too often at Bennetton, and they went to Ferrari so they could get away with it more. How legal were the cars? Lewis' 25 second penalty for overtaking Kimi, remember that? Bernie's admitted that he & Mosley did things to help Ferrari.

Barrichello should’ve given more room, JPM was far enough up to earn the space before they reached the start of the kerbing on the left. JPM should’ve left more margin and room in Malaysia. Very likely that a car on cold tyres well off line would run too deep in that one. Racing incident.

I remember I saw that Malaysia GP live on tv and even as a young Schumacher Fan I was like why jpm did nothing wrong there

Alonso getting his qualifying laps deleted for impeding Massa, who was so far behind he was in the previous race. The banning of the F-Duct because Ferrari couldn't make it work. Although on the flip side, banning the only engine that got close to the "been developed for umpteen years beforehand" Merc.

Massa had a habit of turning in when he knew another car was there. I’ve no idea why because why risk the damage?

Your new decor is looking sharp mate! And you seem in good shape too! Keep up the amazing content!

Another great vid. What intro music do you use?

I mean the "veto" power is something that NO other team has so it could probably go back to that

All of us watched this era and most people I know who follow F1 agreed, and Jpm was my favorite as well , didn’t back down to Michael at all

Funny that you happened to bring up Ferrari International Assistance at this point in time, considering the investigation of the too slow out laps suddenly disappeared after Sainz' pole 😅 Would love to get som facts on that one! At the time I was a massive die hard Schumacher/Ferrari fangirl who saw no issue with anything which could ensure Ferraris success. Looking back with a bit more knowledge and a lot more maturity it's clear to see there have been dodgy dealings throughout the years, where sportsmanship and fair competition have not always been spearheading desicions. I would like to point out though, that it's not only Ferrari who've had some 'assistance' on the way to glory in recent years.

I always thought the whole "FIA biased towards Ferrari" thing was more about off-track decisions (e.g. turning a blind eye to dodgy car features such as flexible front wings), but then you look at the bizarre lack of action against Benetton (traction control etc.) and it was likely far more widespread. Interestingly; given the animosity between Max Mosley and Ron Denis, were there ever any scandals involving *positive* treatment of McLaren during that era (I can't immediately recall anything)?

I'm a bit older than you and i felt it happened quite a lot at the time. Technical upgrades that Ferrari didn't have frequently were quickly banned, even if they had been cleared beforehand. However, I also felt that the stewards often took againt certain drivers. i certainly remember some stewarding decisions against, for example, Hamilton, that I can not rationally explain. I agree. It wasn't as consistent as it was rumoured to be. But when it did raise it's head it could be quite blatant. Hunt, tyre width for example. It might also be said that Balestre was an unusual thinker. But I loved it. The rawness and the unpredictability of it.

Montoya part of the "if you no longer go for a gap..." club :)

I remember those days along with the whole FIAMG days. Wild stuff.

For me the alternate FIA definition had more to do with the technical and rule changes they pushed through way more than any on track call. The mass dampener being a prime example of Ferrari saying, "we can't get this to work, France do something please."

I never understood the Assistance thing either.. In the Michael Schumacher days, the FIA actually made rule changes to fuck up Ferrari, and eventually succeeded...

JPM in the Williams was indeed the only driver to dare demand his share of the track from Ferrari at that time...what always made me question Frank and Patrick was putting Michael's brother in the other car...

And after the Ferrari International Assistance, we got MaFIA, when the FIA is helping Mercedes and mostly Lewis Hamilton in fans POV, I know that because I was among those fans. And now we have the FIA Bull, same thing but with Red Bull and Max Verstappen *cough* Max pushing Gasly outside of the track in turn 3 at Zandvoort and wasn't penalized

I was so angry about the bourdais thing. This was in part because it was clearly massa’s fault in my view at the time, also partly because I was a bourdais fan having watched f3000 and champ car, he was having a bad year and one decent result a Ferrari drives into him then he gets penalised for it. So main thoughts weren’t actually of championship implications.

The worst racing decision judgements were 1999 Malaysia and the US 2005. Max Mosley later admitted that the FIA were giving Ferrari preferential treatment.

Well.. hard to say really. As a german I was heavily biased towards Schumi, "the Michael" as you call him, which by association made me a Ferrari fan. But to quote Seb Vettel "everyone is a Ferrari fan, even if they say they arent, they are Ferrari fans" or something among those lines :D Probably not helping, that I was barely 10 years old for most of the examples given. You could say the first season I can actively remember was 2003, the year I did turn 10. I remember calling JPM quite rude, and was appalled that he had the nerve to punt of the great Schumi :D After that, Räikkönen had taken Michaels seat, so obviously, he was the one we would cheer for. Since Seb wasnt quite in a race winning car yet. tl;dr the bias towards Ferrari came from the drivers, which couldnt do any wrong, even if they tried. So the perception was, that all was good in their decisions or it wasnt talked about all too much, since it rather benefited the favoured driver.

I was sitting across from turn 1-3 at Indy’03, we couldn’t understand the call against Montoya honestly. After the Michelin tire ruling a few races previously, I was sour and felt that the FIA was making rulings in favor of Ferrari. I was certainly a passionate Montoya fan at the time, and I was pissed. That stewards ruling felt really ticky-tac, but what do I know?

Excelent video, my view on this is that it's poor FIA decioins that create these kind of conspracy theories, because there is a pattern of poor stewarding decions by the FIA which has led to people comming up with theories that Mercedes and Red Bull get special favours as well as two examples, further back there where probably people who convinced themsleves that Mclaren and Williams also got special treatment, realistically the FIA need to do better and be more open about the choices made in my view

The montoya indy 2003 incident was one of those sitting in front of the tv "aw come on" moments for me. I didn't agree with it and I thought the decision ruined the competitiveness of that year's championship.

I think Montoya called it "Ferrari Internal Affairs"

When the Renault front end damper was banned for me was the the best FIA incident for me

I do always chuckle when I see this. Sometimes in sports these sorts of things just happen. See Owen Farrell’s shoulder charge on André Esterhuizen to win the match at Twickenham in like 2018. Sometimes refs and stewards just make bizarre calls that make no sense in the moment and in hindsight

also Tom Brady in the NFL, always getting calls that extended his drives, gived him a new down, saved him from interceptions, 20 years of that

Let's put it this way: there weren't many decisions that went against Ferrari in the late 90s and early 00s. As mentioned, 1998 Silverstone "penalty", 1999 Malaysia and the barge boards and FIA coming up with a 10mm tolerance, the 2003 changing of the Michelin tyres etc., are all examples of Ferrari gaining some kind of advantage.

had no idea Aidan is a Black Country resident, what a legend gwon mush

Without seeing the Monza GP data, I'm wondering how Ferrari got away with, what sounded like a slam dunk penalty for a qualy infringement. And I'll never be able to square the circle in regard to their favourable financial agreement and their ability to hissy-fit their way to preferencial treatment.

I remember all of this, watching avidly as a teen from early 90’s. It definitely felt like Ferrari got a leg up, or their rivals were punished severely for similar offences, that’s just how it felt. Montoya seemed to get absolutely smashed in 2001 or 2002, I can’t remember exactly, but they had it in for him in particular. In hindsight, it may honestly have been that Ferrari were just a bit more savvy when it came to lobbying the stewards, something I wouldn’t be surprised about considering who was running the show. That was the Schumacher years, onto Massa, and it seemed new kid Lewis was handed several 'lessons' from the FIA anytime those two got together.

I heard that it was either Patrick Head or Frank Williams that coined the phrase.

The 2020 Engine secret Agreement is still weird to me.

The one moment in modern days that makes me go "...really?" (and that comes from a Leclerc fan) was B&W flag given for Leclerc's defense on Hamilton in 2019 Italy GP in Monza (you know, the one after Curva Grande into della Rogia). There are a couple of others not relating to Ferrari, but most of those vibes come from a mess that was the end of the '21 Hamilton-Verstappen fight which frankly is such a mess where I feel like FIA was making so many dumb decisions starting a bit prior to Brazil and all the way through the mess that was AD21 I am really not sure whether to ascribe them to malice, incompetence, or just plain greed full conspiracy-theory-grade of "it was for the show".

Can certainly remember Ferrari international assistance being so vocal in 2008. Thing I can remember is Australia where Massa took out Coulthard and got no penalty, leading to him saying he was “going to kick three colours of shit out the little bastard” Monaco Räikkönen, getting a drive-through penalty for tyres, not being fitted at the three minute signal when in the regulations It was a 10 second stop and go penalty. Later in that race, when Räikkönen crashed into Sutil, people were expecting a grid drop, but got no punishment. France, where Räikkönen was allowed to continue with an exhaust hanging off, people were expecting a black and orange flag. But when it became clear, that Massa was the main Ferrari challenge. Valencia, where he had a slam dunk unsafe release in front of Sutil and people were expecting a 25 second penalty, but instead it was a €10,000 fine. Japan, as you mentioned, but also in that same race, he overtook Mark Webber off track. Although on that one, there was clearly no advantage as it was on a straight

In all fairness, there is nothing FIA could do to negate the advantage McLaren had gotten the previous year from reading and studying Ferrari's operational and sometimes technical secrets. So while there are some instances in the past Ferrari have benefitted from FIA's leniency towards them 2008 is not it. Also, the newer Mercedes themed "MaFIA" is equally sus, just look at what a season we are having thanks to their commingling.

That Sebastian Bourdais crash with Massa defines Ferrari International Assistance for me. That and the Belgium GP penalty for Hamilton just seemed like they were trying to get Ferrari to win the championship.

I'm sure I read that Ferrari convinced the FIA to ban beryllium in F1 because it was carcinogenic. However Williams had been working on a gearbox (I think) that had beryllium components, so had to bin the work they had been doing. (I also seem to recall one of the engine suppliers used beryllium alloys in engine components, so they had to redevelop those parts)

JPM said it in an interview F1 in those years was basically whatever Ferrari wanted to do with 0 penalties

Even today in f1 there are way to many bad decisions been made, one rule for one, I think because of gambling people with power are interfering with the sport, it’s all about money now

As a Ferrari fan there should be protection of Ferrari interests that's what happens when your there every year and have the most fans.

McLaren being punished with no constructors points and Alonso demoted 5 places for the Hungary pit lane “block” is my left field entry. What a ridiculous punishment, the team had already harmed themselves!

The whole maximum time in qualifying thing at Monza this yeah had me a bit suspicious and weirded out tbh. You're either slower or faster than it

I did root for Ferrari at the time, but looking at it as objectively as I can, the only time that really seemed fishy to me was the 1999 Malaysian GP where it simply looked like the FIA tried to keep the championship alive, so the title would be decided between Irvine and Häkkinen in the last race.

Dont forget 2006, when Ferrari used rim covers when they were suposed not to allowed...

Spa 2008 stunk of Ferrari International Assistance.

The extra prize money did add fuel to the fire of the Ferrari International Assistance

Prime example of Ferrari International Assistance: 2005 US Grand Prix, that utter farce. The F2005 was a terrible car and that race was the only one it won all season, due to the Michelin-running teams all withdrawing, leaving 6 cars on the grid. The Michelin-running teams tried to reach a compromise with the FIA but the FIA refused so all the Michelin runners withdrew after the formation lap.

another example is 2023, when Alonso waves on the stright (for example Miami 2023) he gets warning and in Mozna 2023 Sainz was waving on the stright and did not get warning

Spot on about JPM. When he got behind von Cobblers at Interlagos and the SC came out.....I have it on good authority that the press room basically started a drumroll and collective "oooooooooooOOOOOO"...... Italian contingent excepted. Personally I was chanting "My name is Juan Pablo Montoya, you overtake me, prepare to die". And of course it played out exactly as I (and presumably you) knew it would....."take that brattwurst breath!" "International Motorsport" on ITV the weekends the F1 wasn't........ 1998 F3k season, how could ANYONE come out of that not worshipping Montoya (or hating his very DNA).

This might be a subconcious Ferrari bias, but watching the Japan '08 part of this video made me wonder if Bourdais' post-race penalty was less Ferrari International Assistance and more an attempt to make the title fight as close and exciting as possible? 🤷‍♂️

One thing that gets forgotten is how determined the fia seemed to be to help ferrari win the 2008 championship for massa

I think that Montoya/Barrichello tangle was Rubens' fault in my opinion. Montoya was well alongside and the move was on but Barrichello squeezed him when surely he must have known Montoya was there? Considering that penalty for Montoya basically ended his championship challenge that season I can see why some people might think of that penalty as being iffy. To be fair though I was more of a Kimi fan when I was a kid so I was gutted when Schumacher just pipped him to the championship that year. Made me hate Ferrari and Schumacher even more 😂

British Bias ?

Actually the one for me is Schumi getting pushed back to track from sand trap by marshals at Nürburgring

It's not each call on its own, it's the fact that all of these calls together made a pattern. I'm kind of surprised that you ignored SpyGate here; no matter the facts of the case (which I still only know the broad strokes about), the clear beneficiary was Ferrari, and as a teenager watching it unfold live, it was my outsider opinion that the FIA "clearly" framed the dominant team of the year to gift Ferrari an undeserved constructor's championship--Mosley's opinion of Dennis only making the case even clearer. Whether or not that's actually true, the suspicion exists because it's exactly the kind of thing the FIA would have done at the time, and truth be told I'm still suspicious all these years later.

Im sure I remember James Hunt using the term

GIGACHAD MICHAEL MOVE!!!

An alternate search would be "Ferrari's Interests, Always"; try that to see if anything changes...

On several occasions in his time at Ferrari Schumacher should have received actual bans for his driving

Wasn't it also around this period that the FIA banned the mass damper on aerodynamic reasons despite the fact that it was inside the car and it was part of the suspension?

I remember this being a thing in the 90s but always seemed a healthy dose of sour grapes were included.

Oh and in the hopefully unlikely event anything happens with Massa's legal action into 2008 then Hamilton just needs to mention all the other the dodgy stuff, the fact that one of the stewards at Spa had a conflict of interest, the ridiculous Bourdais penalty etc etc. Surely he will have his comeback on the matter yes?

In 99 also happened that thing in Malaysia when both Ferraris where dq for those external wings on the front wing because the were larger than allowed, and then the result was back to Ferrrari and Irvine was given back the win to still having a chance to win the championship.

Massa doesn't have a leg to stand on concernnign his stolen championship, he had many things gifted to him and still couldn't win. All this nonsense now is quite sad, maybe he forgot about all the help he had and focused on 1 incident that had nothing to do with hamilton or mclaren.