You can always tell when an argument has been lost. The goalposts are simply uprooted and we see the debating equivalent of playing the man but not the ball.
And so we come to the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix where, almost 24 hours after the most outrageously manufactured ending imaginable, most of those in favour of Max Verstappenās world title win are still not attempting to explain or defend the decisive intervention of race director Michael Masi.
Refuge has instead been taken in a series of utterly irrelevant observations. Like how Verstappen had lit up this yearās Formula One world championship. Or how he had won more races earlier in the season. Or how it was just about time that someone ended Lewis Hamiltonās dominance of his sport. Or, indeed, Red Bullās repeated claim that they had somehow ādeservedā some luck.
Some of this might be true but it has absolutely nothing to do with how, from Hamilton leading by a comfortable 12 seconds with six laps remaining (even after being disadvantaged by one earlier safety car), he was suddenly presented with a rival directly in his wing-mirror on a third set of newer, faster tyres.
It was like interrupting the Olympic marathon just as Eliud Kipchoge was entering the stadium with a two-minute lead and telling him with a straight face to wait for his nearest competitor, let that rival change into some track spikes and then have the gold medal decided by a 100m sprint.
Good television? Maybe. But fair? Just? Even remotely defensible? Not in the slightest.
And that is why, even those who want to hail Verstappen as the rightful world champion, are doing so not with reference to the logic of what actually happened in the final minutes of the race but an entirely subjective perception of the two drivers.
Theirs is instead a woolly narrative about Verstappen deserving it because he had a decent season and the even more feeble reference to āletting them raceā as if Hamilton had somehow accrued his lead with wheelspins in the nearby desert.
The relevant facts are only these: Hamilton had driven himself into a virtually unassailable position. The race was then interrupted through no fault of his own. He could not leave the track for new tyres because he would have given up first place to Verstappen (who was already on a newer set of tyres). Verstappen could stop, however, because he did not have the lead to lose and, with the safety car out, could soon make up any lost time. Hamilton had also already had his lead cut by working through five additional lapped drivers. These five drivers were removed so that Verstappen could start the final lap directly behind Hamilton. But the other three lapped drivers behind Verstappen were not given the chance to pass the safety car, presumably because this would not have left enough time for the final-lap shootout.
So, in one stroke, we saw three huge advantages handed to Verstappen and one enormous great unfathomable inconsistency. The race had been condensed and all the gaps were reduced. Verstappen was given another brand new set of tyres while Hamilton was left on rubber that he had last changed 44 laps earlier. And, just for good measure, five cars that Hamilton had lost time passing were removed for Verstappen. Oh, and there was also the totally illogical situation of letting some lapped drivers overtake the safety car but not others.
What happened was an affront that was either the consequence of the pressure Masi was being placed under by Red Bull or simply a desire to create a spectacular finale to the season.
The implications, however, have not been thought through. The casual fan is not stupid. They know right from wrong and the idea that such drama will naturally result in a more loyal fanbase is flawed. While some might have enjoyed the stage-managed show, it is a good bet that rather more will have questioned why they invested two hours in watching an event that might as well have been staged over two minutes. There is a reason that Arsenalās 1989 league-title win over Liverpool has lived so long in folklore. It was because it was a freak, once-in-a-lifetime event, that occurred quite naturally. It was not artificially created thanks to a ruling - that the race director has āoverriding authorityā - which can effectively mean that anything goes.
Wider questions also arise. If a race lead, and every other advantage can be wiped out so easily, what is to stop teams being tempted into instructing drivers to tactically create incidents? What suspicions would be going through peopleās minds this morning if it had not been Nicholas Latifi who crashed, but Verstappenās team-mate Sergio Perez?
It all leaves a horrible situation. Nobody wants to see a sporting event dragged through courts and further appeals. And the impulse is indeed to just accept that injustice is part of sport. But should that really apply in a situation so manifestly unfair? Mercedes are right to be carefully weighing up their options. To simply accept that āthe showā should take precedence over natural justice would set sport on a dangerous path.
