Let's put this one to bed: Timo Glock did not hand Lewis Hamilton the title on a silver plate.

Those who believe that, don?t have even the foggiest idea of how a racing driver?s mind works or, for that matter, what Formula 1 is all about. It is also a huge slap in the face for Herr Glock.

Any racing driver worth his salt (I don?t think anyone would argue that Glock does not fall into that category) has only one thing on his mind: to beat those ahead of him and at the same time to keep at bay those behind him.

At the same time, F1 is all about scoring points because every single point means a lot of money for a team. Glock and Toyota had taken a tactical decision not to come in for a change of tyres during those final laps of rain, because potentially it could have elevated him from seventh to a podium. With five laps to go, and with those ahead of him having indeed pitted for wets, that decision elevated the German to fourth. Had he come in, he would have been out of the points. Now all he had to do was bring his car home.

Rejecting conspiracy theories

But conditions deteriorated and Glock was struggling for grip. The gamble was in danger of not paying off. So much so that on the final lap, on worn slicks, he lost about 18 seconds to Hamilton. He was desperate to hold on and only concerned about crossing the line intact. In fact, he said afterwards, he had no idea who was behind him and who the drivers were that passed him in that final corner.

Glock?s tactics did bag his team an additional point, so essentially the plan worked. He didn?t move over, otherwise he would have been out of a job today, having cost his team millions.

And check this out: Glock and Toyota team-mate Jarno Trulli (the only other driver on slicks at the time) set virtually exactly the same time on that final lap — 1m44.731 vs 1m44.800. Was Trulli also bought? Come on?

Hamilton and McLaren certainly made it difficult for themselves, though. Running extremely conservatively to mitigate any possibility of a failure, they put themselves into a position of potentially losing the drivers? title in the final few laps — much like Michael Schumacher and Ferrari did at Suzuka in 2003.

Hindsight is the perfect science, as we all know, but had McLaren run the race more aggressively in terms of fuel and race tactics, Hamilton should have been in the top three and well clear of the attentions of potentially title-deciding rivals on track such as Sebastian Vettel, Glock and — towards the end — a lapped Robert Kubica.

Does Hamilton deserve the title?

So, does Hamilton deserve the title? On balance, yes. Simply put, he scored the most points, which is how the world champion is determined. He was also the most consistent, thanks to some electrifying drives and perfect reliability. Of the two title contenders at the end of the season he is also the one who has had ?world champion? written all over him since the days he began his career in karting.

Which begs the question: Why does F1 not have a mechanism to recognise the champion if he doesn?t finish the clincher on the podium?

Over the last two decades or so, the era of television, to my recollection not once was the champion allowed onto the podium or into the post-race interview room. Viewers, the vast majority of the audience, have been deprived of sharing the emotions of the champion in his realisation of a dream that often had been born decades before.

Bernie Ecclestone has not missed many tricks, but surely this is one that he has.

Losing credibility

And while I?m on the subject of gripes: Despite the dramatic finale — quite appropriate for such a dramatic season — the credibility of Formula 1 2008 hangs by its fingernails.

It has less to do with conspiracies and more with incompetence, but the inconsistency of the FIA?s stewards? decisions this year has tarnished the season and the sport, because no doubt it has had an effect on the eventual outcome.

Just a few examples: In Valencia Felipe Massa receives only a post-race fine for a dangerous release from his pit box, yet in Singapore his penalty for exactly the same offence is a drive-through; in Belgium Lewis Hamilton is penalized for gaining an advantage by going off-track, yet in the same race Raikkonen gets away with it; in Japan Hamilton gets a drive-through for pushing Raikkonen wide, yet in Brazil Jarno Trulli gets away with the same offence against Sebastien Bourdais; Hamilton?s incident in Japan didn?t cause an accident, yet in China neither Jarno Trulli nor Sebastien Bourdais is penalized for causing just that and neither is Nico Rosberg for taking out David Coulthard in Brazil; in Japan Massa is penalised for causing an avoidable accident with Hamilton, yet Bourdais gets the same penalty later in the race while Massa was clearly to blame.

How did this inconsistency affect the title battle? Conservatively estimated, Massa was gifted seven points (six in Belgium and one in Japan) by the stewards, without which the title could have been decided by the penultimate race in China.

While one can argue the merits of each individual penalty, there is no doubt the stewards? inconsistency has done F1 no favours in 2008.

Despite this, however, much credit has to go to the 27-year-old Brazilian. He proved in Japan that he?s a fighter and in Brazil he drove magnificently in very trying circumstances. The disappointment over many of the first 69 laps of knowing that the title was out of his hands, only for it to come back within his grasp in the final two and then to lose it again when Hamilton crossed the line in fifth position 39 seconds after him must have been devastating.

Yet Massa accepted defeat with grace and sportsmanship rarely seen in modern-day Formula 1.

If the FIA has caused the sport to teeter on the credibility brink in 2008, Felipe Massa?s conduct in the aftermath of the Brazilian Grand Prix has gone a long way towards restoring its dignity.