Without getting too philosophical, I think the particular contractual arrangements and obligations can be distinguished from what makes common sense.

Is your job only to win races, but not pursue the championship? Hamilton did the only thing he could legally do to attempt to win the WDC. He already had the race won, nothing else was within his power.

Vettel might have refused to overtake Rosberg, though it’s impossible to tell for sure.

I think we just disagree on that. If your opponent chooses a very aggressive pit strategy that forces you to cover by pitting early and releasing into traffic, is that unsporting as well?

I agree that Mercedes had an interest, but it was an interest of little substance. Adding a single 1-2 finish to the record books is completely out of proportion in significance to a World Driver’s Championship.

It seems to me that you are suggesting Formula 1 is not a sport. While there are certainly powerful commercial interests, I do not see how the existence of a World Driver’s Championship is consistent with this view. I assure you no racing driver enters the sport with the aspiration of glorifying a manufacturer.…

I don’t understand what makes the tactic dirty. It was fully within the rules, it took tremendous skill to execute (specifically, to slow the pack while staying out of reach on the straights), and it was fully compatible with a sporting spirit because he was already in first place; there were no further racing…

You could be right, and regardless I can’t work out how that instruction was anything other than inappropriate and impossible for any serious competitor to follow in the context of what was at stake.

The importance of the two are so hilariously out of proportion that it beggars belief that a 1-2 finish in this particular race mattered to the team more than letting their drivers fight for the championship.

That is a misrepresentation of the relationship between drivers and teams in a competitive sport. It’s not purely a business in a marketplace; there are clear sporting goals. The team had achieved one of the two paramount sporting goals of Formula 1 and its drivers were competing for the other.

So if Mercedes had ordered Hamilton to retire immediately at the start of the race because they wanted Nico to win, would he have been obligated to obey? And just as importantly, does that decision reflect more poorly on the driver or the team?

I do

Cougar:

Even if it’s true, two prizes are principal among the various awards available in Formula 1: the world drivers’ championship and the world constructors’ championship. The only time one of these should be subordinate is, if ever, to the other. I would be shocked if any participant in or fan of the sport were to…

Firstly, I’ve never seen any evidence this is true.

Here is the difference: how does the team stand to lose substantially by Hamilton slowing the pack? They stand to lose a 1-2 finish, worth little or no money in itself. The constructors’ championship is secure.

Your analogies hinge on a third party intentionally slowing the field, despite having no stake in the outcome. In Hamilton’s case, not only did he have a huge stake in the outcome, but he was leading and had nothing else to race for. In contrast, your analogous scenarios involve a driver forgoing a position just to…

So trying to win is unsporting? He literally had no other path to victory in the championship.

I dunno. Other than Baku, he didn’t have any really bad races. Slightly weak (as in not perfect) ones, sure, but I don’t see anyone else held to the same standard.

It just seems like your opinion is that he should have abandoned the world championship at the start of the race and only competed for the race win (which would not secure the championship). I just don’t understand how that is consistent with the competitive spirit of the sport.