#TJ13 #F1 Courtroom Podcast: Episode 8 – Waiting for the Window Cleaner


Just behind The Judge towers, hidden amongst the undergrowth and permanently in the shade, is a draughty wooden shed. Inside gargling can be heard and the faint smell of honey. Stepping forward and pressing the record button Spanners welcomes the crew to the latest edition of Podcast heaven, sorry, heathen..

Matt Matt has returned once more from the septic streets of New York after a morning spent busking as he has been promised an ally from Murica land and then launches into a tirade about soothing savage breasts.

Adam returns from educating his female co-students in the mysteries of Eff Wun and has become attached to an Alice band they all wear. Alice Adam has joined the crew and just be grateful you cannot see his shocking taste in lingerie.

The esteemed Sir Huntley-Jabobs joins the rabble in a vain attempt at control, but is side tracked by the warm memories of Mrs Huntley-Jacobs the third with dutiful melons stretching the western alphabet.

Finally but by no means least, in support of his fellow Murican is the one, the only, ex-F1 Doc, Gary Harstein. He wouldn’t divulge any secrets of the Judge but the panel decided he was a worthy opponent and Matt played on..

This week’s song is Blackberries by Mickey Georgeson and the Civilised Scene.

You can follow Mickey Georgeson on Twitter or just listen to his music here.

To access the Podcast player Click Here (you can also download the file from here)

To find TheJudge13 F1 Courtroom Podcast on iTunes store Click Here

To manually subscribe copy the address to your podcatcher or aggregator: http://thejudge13.podbean.com/feed/

For iPhone users follow the steps below
Step 1: Navigate to http://thejudge13.podbean.com/mobile/ on your mobile

Step 2: You will be prompted to click the “Quick Launch” icon.

Once you’ve done this it will add the podcast to your home screen where it will appear as an App.

For Android users follow the four steps below
Step 1: Navigate to http://thejudge13.podbean.com/mobile/ in Chrome on your mobile device.

Step 2: Bookmark the site URL in Chrome.

Step 3: Go to your Chrome bookmark and find your podcast icon, long-press it, then tap the “Add to Home Screen” from the pop up menu.

Step 4: Now go to the home screen of your Android phone and you should find your app installed there.

59 responses to “#TJ13 #F1 Courtroom Podcast: Episode 8 – Waiting for the Window Cleaner

  1. Really was the best yet guys, thought getting Dt Gary was a real coup. I’ve never been a podcast listener as I tend to lose interest after about 10 seconds, so I take my hat off to you all for holding my attention for so long.

    All your efforts are greatly appreciated,

    PS @spanners the accents are awful but they cheered up my day, keep up the terrible work lol

      • Lols…. You’ve since posted about penii or phallic statues on at least one occasion… maybe it inspired you subconsciously or released some inner angst 😉

        • Both, I guess. 🙂 Must go find meself a Freudian disciple, for a full checkup… Oh, just checked the plural form of penis and the Wiktionary has a rather… descriptive explanation:

          But I guess the point was that if you expect non-TJ13 users to check out the podcast on F1, and hear an interminable tirade of penii jokes, you may as well not bother. And as I mentioned, not in the issue where you would ultimately switch to discussing Jules’ predicament.

          • ….the PC is a combination of serious debate set against a backdrop of banter and satirical humour…

            The Jules Bianchi debate was handled with respect – and might I say, unlike the rest of the F1 podcasts/reporting … There was a call for a proper investigation into why Jules is where he is… and we do not accept the whitewash of – “let’s learn from this” only…. as being respectful to Jules or appropriate…

            Hushed voices and well meaning sack cloth and ashes will deliver nothing except the usual pious F1 – “we’ve got it all under control”…

          • “The Jules Bianchi debate was handled with respect – and might I say, unlike the rest of the F1 podcasts/reporting …”

            Yeah, good points.

    • I agree. Also, after telling friends about the podcast, everyone was swearing. Don’t mean to be a prude, but I don’t remember any real volume of swearing in the other podcasts.
      Matt is still a second slow to every other joke. I know he’s a ‘Merican, but wow. Just because he learns how to properly use ‘maths’, doesn’t mean you increase the average IQ by a hundred points.
      Can we retouch proposed yellow flags? If everyone becomes throttle limited, this will almost put an end to safety cars. The Indy 500 used to have a similar rule up to the early 70’s. When a yellow was thrown, everyone was to maintain distances between each other. The biggest downside to the new rule will be that the field will no longer be bunched up on restarts.

      • LOL slow American here. The actual line was drag the average IQ of this (2 person) conversation into triple digits.

        Have another listen if you don’t believe me.

  2. Fun podcast guys. Really agreed with the Bianchi stuff, great to hear from FormerF1Doc.

    Re: Button, I always felt that the main reason he got the title of great rain tactician was because he’s usually so far back that he’s got nothing to lose by making a tyre gamble.

    I’ve never met Perez, yet somehow I’ve always felt he’s a bit of a dick too.

  3. Hi all, I thought for a while about whether I should express this view, especially after Jules Bianchi’ horrendous crash with resulted in all the pious bullsh|t about withholding footage, respecting crash images and discussing things “only when other feel appropriate” coming from the peanut gallery…

    But listening to Gary Harstein, I wanted to echo his words…

    I won’t be watching the Russian GP either. It will be the first GP, either on two or four wheels, that I have missed in many, many years. And it’s not for reasons on their social stance on homosexuality, which if it were, we should not watch quite a few other races and sporting events. It’s purely because Putin is overtly going to be using this, like the Winter Olympics, as a political tool to show himself, Russia, and his regime, in a light that is not accurate.

    He will subsequently do harm to a sport that I love and convince some less-than-discerning minds that it’s all ok. But more than that, the plane crash, for me, is still quite raw. I will spend just a small time, deliberately during the race, going over some more names and what their lives were before being blown out of the sky just so Putin could ensure his ‘non official army’ could successfully annex land that is not Russia’s.

    Now by all means, tear this down and me down, if you like. I don’t mind. In fact, I welcome it as it’s the cost to freedom of speech. I would however like to point out a few things before you do.

    1) I understand that there are other places in the world suffering atrocities.

    2) I am not, in any way, shape of form, criticising anyone who watches it. I honestly hope anyone who does watch it enjoys it. How one feels towards Putin, rightly or wrongly, and how any mental protest manifests for them, is up to them entirely.

    3) I am aware all Russians are do not agree with Putin’s actions. I am also not critical if they do agree. That is up to them. But I will not allow the propaganda and choreographed pictures from one of the most capable and destructive men of my lifetime enter my home. I’ll catch up here for the results, on Monday.

    Thanks for reading, if you have, and if this has offended anyone, I don’t apologise for my sentiments but acknowledge I may be misguided in some specific semantic. Like I said, I was not sure whether to post this… but all I can do is take one viewership away from FOM and perhaps put back in some minds, on a site I like, the issue that F1 is facing this weekend.

    Beyond that, do as you please and see you on Monday…



    • @SiS although I will be watching, I wholly respect your stance, I agree with most of your sentiments but I just can’t bring myself to miss the race, I like F1 more than I dislike Putin and his cronies, I will switch off at the point if he does the podium interviews, as that will be pure politics.

      • You do whatever you feel CV. No judgement from me.

        I thought hard about posting that original opinion. But after listening to the podcast I want to simply echo Gary Harsteins words, but equally ensure that my boycott is my only my personal approach and I respect others who choose to do other things, or nothing at all. It’s an issue for F1, it may be worth thinking about… That would be good enough for me.

        Enjoy it and like I said, I’ll catch up Monday with you.

    • I didn’t say that their homophobic stance was a reason to not watch the race… I was just saying it’s dickish.

      • That’s fine Richard… You can think, and say, whatever you like. I didn’t single you out, but the topic itself, which you raised…

        For me, in my post, it was very important to decouple the issue of homosexuality in Russia and the reason why I personally am boycotting the race, which may be in contravention of the FiA’s statutes on using the race for overt political purposes ala Istanbul in 2006.

        You raised the point of homosexuality in Russia on the podcast. And then alluded to the “rest of the world” taking a step forward while Russia was moving backward. I paraphrase of course, and incidentally this is patently untrue, which is unfortunate in my opinion.

        There are many issues LGBT communities face in many countries, some worse than Russia, and some on the F1 calendar. In fact, the very worst one may well be the stance the UAE have on homosexuality…

        In the UAE same-sex sexual activity is illegal under Islamic Sharia Law, the penalty of which ranges from Capital punishment to 1 month-life imprisonment prison time; to small prison sentences fines and deportation for foreigners. So far, although the law allows it, there have been no instances (reported and confirmed) of any being sentenced to death. There are no familial rights or relationship recognitions there either or any discrimination laws in place. It is measurably more draconian on this issue than Russia. It’s simply accepted by the West and those there that “it’s just the way it is” and forced under ground.

        So I ask you Richard, will you as host of the TJ13 podcast lambast the UAE prior to the finale in Abu Dhabi? My educated guess would be no, because you didn’t do that prior to the Singapore GP.

        Whilst In Singapore it’s less draconian than the UAE it is still illegal for males to have same-sex, though very liberally it is legal for females… Go figure. Penalties for males can be up to 2 years. There are no familial or relationship rights there either…

        Now the podcast wasn’t established in the earlier rounds of Bahrain or China (which also have unique and varying travesties) so we can’t know what you might have said then, but as per Singapore, I doubt the issue would have been mentioned on those podcasts prior to those races too. I suppose there isn’t a “pussy riot” in those countries to be beaten by Cossack pricks and uploaded to YouTube.

        But that brings me to my point… Instead of being defensive and thinking the post, or any part of it, was cryptically about singling you out, and saying, “I was just saying it’s dickish” try to understand the point of my post and/or understand and apply the same stance you took for other countries, if indeed that issue is close to your heart…

        It’s in vogue to lambast Russia, but it’s a red herring (though real social issue) to use homosexuality which undermines the real reason to protest or boycott the race. In terms of F1 and Russia, the issue isn’t homosexuality, which in Russia is not even the most draconian. You mentioning it, whilst true, takes away from the geopolitical propaganda that the world will see from Putin and his regime, which is unlike any other country on the calendar that just a GP. That is the point of my post… That, and that alone, was the reason I wanted to decouple the issues.

        If you want to fight for LGBT right, do so, per applicable country. I don’t know if the podcast is the right forum, the Judge can decide that.

        I don’t know if some people can truly grasp the not insignificant possibilities of the geopolitical landscape over the next 10 years with a confident and unaccountable Putin.

        • I clearly said the western world . . I strongly object to you trying to make me out to a hypocrite and you were obviously referring to me because I was the only one to mention it apart from AJ segwaying from my point to his.

          • I played the topic you raised, yet again with your special brand of indignation…

            I did not play the man… But you did, as you felt the need to provide a disingenuous reply…

            And it surprises me not one iota that you’ve missed the point (and avoided the questions), again. The only thing I can’t quite decide is whether it’s by design or ignorance…

            Either way, it matters not, as you’ve successfully hijacked a crucial point. Sad really, as the strength for your distaste for me means you just can’t see the message.

            Enjoy the race and have a super day fighting the good fight.

          • I don’t know why you’re upset with me. I said something that is true and not controversial. It’s twaty to be mean to gay people.

            To say that doesn’t mean that I have to then go through every case of homophobic behaviour in world politics. Russia and the major of Sochi made a point of coming out and attacking homosexuals. He said there where no gays in Sochi. I had quick pop at at. They made snide remarks connecting gays to child molesters.

            There were other attacks in the podcast but this is the one you focused on. Like I say. Interesting.

            Interesting that you felt the need to highlight it. Perhaps telling in itself.

          • No Richard… Try to open your ears. The point of mentioning it in my op was entirely to decouple the red herring issues that were raised with the actual underlying issues of protest… I posted a very difficult topic… I therefore wanted to make why I boycotting was crystal clear, among other things. Had anyone raised that point you did, and I mean anyone, I’d have said exactly the same thing in my op and played the topic and not the man to clarify my point. To think otherwise is self gratifying to say the least. Your defensive posts are telling, not my responses. I actually sad for this topic having been bastardised by your insecurity. I am not responding further…

  4. Matt, you proposed that the *real* issue in Suzuka’s accident was a badly designed, with excessive ride-hight, unprotected JCB vehicle present on the track. Speed of the cars, etc., etc. were red herrings. And this seemed to be the consensus throughout the panelists.

    I _strongly_ disagree. The design of the recovery vehicles, although important to address, is just one side of the issue. The other side of the *real* issue is the presence on track of *unprotected human marshals*.

    IF the debate is about saving human lives, as opposed to saving F1 driver lives, then we cannot just gloss over the fact that at each and every recovery operation that involves a racetrack-side JCB, you have at least one (but often two, three or more) human marshals assisting the JCB and physically present in its immediate vicinity.

    If you argue that all that matters is designing properly shaped recovery vehicles to save human lives in (copy-cat) F1 crashes, then you’re falling into a logical inconsistency. If you’re genuinely worried about a car submarining under a JCB, then you MUST logically also worry for a car skidding into the marshal(s) accompanying the said JCB. You can’t argue one without the other!

    So the ***real*** issue (for real this time) isn’t simply the design of the JCB, but as @Paul eloquently put it ( http://thejudge13.com/2014/10/08/f1-features-respect-for-life-requires-fia-action/#comment-97412 ):

    “The issue isn’t hitting a recovery vehicle, it’s hitting something that isn’t a safety barrier – and that could mean another car, a person or a recovery vehicle.”

    Unprotected human marshals arise on track much, much, immensely more often than we care to think of. And often they carry blunt objects like fire extinguishers (wink wink Kyalami). Only this year, I can think of Germany, Hungary (in Q3), Singapore and Suzuka, but doubtless in half a dozen other races, too. In each of these cases a car skidding or spinning would have meant near-certain human fatalities (if, of course, we’re interested in more than merely driver lives with sexy sounding names). In Suzuka, the marshals were miraculously spared from death: Jules’ trajectory was only ~2m off from or ~5sec earlier than one marshal fatality, while the marshal behind the JCB must have shat himself lividly when the JCB failed to land on top of him after Binachi’s ferocious impact.


    Moreover, there is another safety aspect that seems to have been drowned in the recent debates:
    Jules’ car was ostensibly skidding on top of *tarmac runoff*, and only just barely collecting the gravel traps.

    The ferocity of the impact would have certainly been blunted if Bianchi had collected a properly set up gravel trap, and even possibly he would have simply gently stopped immediately prior to the JCB. Just as Hamilton’s biggish shunt in practice at Degner was partly attributed to insufficient gravel area to stop him down before hitting the barrier, so too Binachi’s serious accident is partly a result of missing gravel traps.

    Charlie keeps parroting that tarmac runoffs are safer than gravel and I hear many (including in the TJ13 community) getting on the bandwagon that somehow tarmac runoffs are miraculously safer than gravel traps. I say bollocks! Each runoff type, be it natural grass, artificial grass, armco, tarmac or gravel, has its own safety risks. However from a risk tradeoff perspective, I reckon that gravel comes on top in most instances for the simple reason that gravel is *the only* type of runoff that actually *slows down* F1 cars gone haywire.

    If that white-haired idiot had properly weighed the pros and cons of gravel traps and tarmac runoffs (instead of simply doing what his commercial overlords are telling him), then he would have never embarked on effectively phasing out gravel from F1 circuits for—the nerve!!—safety reasons…

    • “The ferocity of the impact would have certainly been blunted if Bianchi had collected a properly set up gravel trap”

      Actually I’m wondering if this isn’t the real reason for the FIA insisting on withholding the video footage, so as not to implicate itself in the decrease of safety because of the shrinking and disappearing gravel traps..

    • Wanted to get back to you sooner but busy weekend. This was actually a topic I wanted to get into, but we just plain ran out of time. Plus, I’m fairly sure that the topic of professional marshals was covered, either on the site or on a previous podcast.

      At any rate, you are correct, as Brundle’s 94 incident demonstrates, as well as many since then. The marshal’s are at greater risk than the drivers, if you look at fatalities post-Senna.

      • “The marshal’s are at greater risk than the drivers, if you look at fatalities post-Senna.”

        Yeah, indeed so.

        I also liked your “And the marshals. Please don’t forget them.” in the FIA Documents post. The point, exactly. Even today Prost—the nerve!!—went berserk once more, this time on safety:

        But he too seems to be having selective vision and not notice the dangers that the marshals are being exposed to weekend in weekend out. It seems only driver lives are of utmost importance.

  5. “It’s like a conspiracy bullshit. There is no mistakes! Except that that car shouldn’t be aquaplaning. We need to do something about that. But… there is no mistakes!”

    Dr Harstein, respectfully, please do not popularize Charlie’s drivel in TJ13 lands. What do you mean that you, so indignantly call “no mistakes”?

    Let me outline several *systemic* mistakes in the Suzuka incident:

    1. All cars were traveling at near-racing speeds (which you pointed out yourself previously), instead of following a clear FIA mandated delta or speed limit
    2. An unsafely designed recovery vehicle was parked on the racetrack-side of the barriers *
    3. Three unprotected human marshals were parked alongside the recovery vehicle, on the racetrack-side of the barriers *
    4. Tarmac runoff (or escape road in this instance) and symbolically designed gravel traps. Jules’ car ostensibly skid on top of the tarmac runoff, instead of collecting head-on the gravel traps (which might have slowed down the car or even stopped it)

    * Points 2 and 3 are the more so obvious and tragic mistakes by the FIA given Point 1, and given the worsening light and rain conditions

    All these factors have contributed directly to this weekend’s tragedy, and all are under current FIA protocols and rule enforcement practices, hence:

    If you desire people to stop coming up with conspiracies wrt to the FIA withholding evidence from the public (footage and telemetry), then please wield your influence and plead for Charlie, Bernie and Todt to make all relevant evidence public. Instead, of course, of sneakily accusing Bianchi of speeding while he is still comatose in intensive care.

    • Oh, not to forget the glaring contravention to F1’s protocols, namely that the race proceeded even if the medical helicopter couldn’t lift off… So still clinging to your “no mistakes” theory, eh Dr Harstein?

        • Yeah, I re-read the Judge’s piece from yesterday and it’s slightly moot. Initially I remember it was reported that the helicopter couldn’t lift. Yesterday the Judge wrote:

          “[..] the plan for such an incident was enacted within all the protocols set out by the FIA. The helicopter was not used due to landing difficulties at the hospital. The road ambulance took 7 minutes longer than had the helicopter been used.”

          This was a tad too cryptic to parse, not being sure to which degree it was sarcasm..

          • The rule is if there is a hospital within 25 minutes drive, the helicopter is not required.

            Charlie said it took 32 minutes to get their by road BUT this was all “within protocols and plan”

          • “within protocols and plan”

            Hmm, if the rule is 25min? But of course this is being a tad pedantic, although they can’t simply declare it all “within protocols and plan” and being a tad apologetic would do them some good..

  6. It was very interesting to hear the doctor. However, he could have been a much more useful guest in conveying info about this accident and others, had his time not been wasted by a lot of the peripheral twaddle.

  7. @Spanners
    You expressed surprise that Fortis comment would rack up 50+ upvotes. I would read this event differently: it was actually 50+ downvotes directed at the Hippo. Just to show how this guy’s popularity skyrockets from time to time..

    • I seem to see a tendency of yours to provoke me lately. You are the one, who constantly accused me of bullying people while being yourself one of the people, who waste their time on ridiculing me, even if I have nothing to do with the topic. At least you are in good company on that one. That rabid mob of Hamilton fans, which poisoned the atmosphere of the site ever since their favorite driver found his way into a car that allows him to win the title on auto-pilot, is quite prolific when it comes to attacking other people. Those things have happened before and I’m guilty myself of losing my temper often enough, but before you lot overran us it was the exception, not the rule.

      • “I seem to see a tendency of yours to provoke me lately. ”

        Oh, that’s very much acquired taste, Hippo, don’t worry. After seeing and getting abuse time and time round, at one point you decide that maybe it’s worth fighting for restoring some balance in the affair.

        “rabid mob of Hamilton fans, which poisoned the atmosphere of the site”

        Well, if you asked me, although I don’t believe you put much weight on my opinion, Hamilton fans’ impassioned support for their idol is to a degree inoffensive and can safely be ignored/skipped (of course, all the cursing and obvious insults can and perhaps should be moderated away). But, as noted before, the golden standard is, as the Russians say: “The doctor doesn’t get mad on the [mentally] ill.”.

        However in my personal, biased and subjective opinion you yourself tend to poison very much the atmosphere on the site. You have a distinct punch in your writings and in the comments—which is unique and hard to replicate, and which I suspect you don’t always really notice—, and this tends to unnerve thin-skinned people like meself. As the Judge recently put it, “Never one to mitigate your position eh Hippo?”. When you call people’s arguments idiotic, pejoratively address the likes of Fortis as Hamilfosi, or engage in overt cursing and name calling (these do happen!); well, then it shouldn’t come as a shock when you’re becoming from time to time the public’s preferred target for fun practice.

        Make what you will of all this, and I don’t hope I’d sway your opinion one way or the other. However I don’t think you’d enjoy my calling you:
        “you and your type” of “rabid lunatic Vettel fanboy” who keeps talking “trash” and whose arguments, “nothing against you personally”, are “completely idiotic” and “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard”, in other words “bullcrap”. (Notice the slightly paraphrased, but mostly exact quotes from Hippo scribblings.)

        If you wouldn’t like being talked to this way, and it seems obvious to me that you don’t, then maybe it’s high-time you avoided talking to others in this manner.

        • I’ve been around a lot longer than most of you guys and since you’ve used Fortis as an example – be invited to read his comments and you’ll find that even I have some catching up to do to reach the same level of offensiveness.
          I specifically use the term “rabid Hamfosi” for people, who come here trying to blackmail people into supporting Hamilton, calling everyone a racist who doesn’t cave in to their demands.
          (I appologize for the term ‘black’ in blackmail. Not meant as a racist slur)
          May I give you the other end of the scale? McLaren78 – a McLaren and Hamilton supporter, who I had my fair share of disagreements with. As far as I remember, he never felt the need to go on a rampage ridiculing me, but he more than once took my arguments apart with well-argued facts. How about trying that?

        • “Oh, that’s very much acquired taste, Hippo, don’t worry. After seeing and getting abuse time and time round, at one point you decide that maybe it’s worth fighting for restoring some balance in the affair.”

          That’s what I only recently said to you, when you asked me the universal question… why?

          To which my very similar response was labelled as that of a 6-yr old, to which you agreed.

          Pot – kettle – black – glass houses – stones and all that Jazz.

          • “That’s what I only recently said to you, when you asked me the universal question… why?”


            “To which my very similar response was labelled as that of a 6-yr old, to which you agreed.”

            Not sure where you got that from..

          • “ad hominem provocation and insults; absolutely unnecessary. For this reason I often do not bother to read you posts…”

            “What I mean is, I firmly dislike ad hominem insults in civilized, argument-based debates. (Hence my interminable hustles with one specific hippine specimen.) To put differently, you can simply point to a guy why he’s an idiot; there is no need call him that. Why be provocative?”

            You just said such things to me, in essence agreeing that such provocation was not your thing…

            And yet… When you provoke, it’s somehow different? Again, pot, kettle… Blah blah, it really doesn’t matter. You and hippo can sort it out… Just pointing out a touch of the H word…

          • “Why be provocative?”

            OK, let’s rephrase things a bit, with now explicitly stated disclaimers:

            Why be provocative more often than necessary? And for some, quasi-systematically?

            As you pointed out, in your case with Fortis it was a targeted move on your side. I haven’t followed your spats, so I’ll just take that explanation. In my case with Hippo it’s also very much targeted and for specific reasons which I try to present as well as I can…

          • Giving the Hippo a taste of his own medicine (that he clearly doesn’t appreciate) is not quite the same as going ad hominem every other post or more often than not provoking when unprovoked.

            As for “the online world filled with shades if grey…”, I hear there are 50 of them, and they related pretty much to the real world.

          • I guess your right… Your attacks are justified, mine are not… There, it’s nice and black and white.

            I will still read your posts, because they are usually good. Like Hippo’s are.

  8. @Spanners

    Funny to see you taking the piss RE my comment on the last podcast about the website nice, shows you have a good sense of humour, which I like (I presume the www …. w DOT was aimed at me 🙂 ) Nice to see you made up the extra “w” for previous weeks 🙂

    Keep up the good work as always.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.