every once in a while i see some people saying arvid is very mature, very smart, seems much older than he actually is.
to that i say you are being racist. fortunately, it's probably not on purpose. unfortunately, it's still not okay.
BIPOC children are too often adultified either because they (dark skinned and especially black children) are perceived as less innocent than white children or becuse they (asian children of all kinds) are a "model minority", perceived as intellectually or emotionally developed beyond what is expected of white children.
if you feel comfortable calling kimi or ollie a "sweet little baby" and "your child" but you don't find yourself perceiving someone like arvid that way, you should take the parasocial goggles off for a moment and question why.
why do you find it so easy to infantilize kimi but not isack, who bore criticism after he frustratedly brushed off kimi's apology for a racing incident? why do you think arvid "looks so mature!" when in fact he looks younger than 18?
why do white people get to be children for longer than people like me?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
So Max Verstappen told a journalist to leave. Hereās why thatās not the story you think it is.
If youāve been on F1 Twitter/Tumblr today, youāve seen the discourse: Max Verstappen told Guardian journalist, Giles Richards, to leave a Red Bull press conference in Japan. Cue the predictable takes about ādisrespect,ā ābullying the media,ā and āwhy canāt he just answer questions.ā
But hereās the thing: the story isnāt that Max told someone to leave.
The story is who he told to leave, why, and why multiple top drivers have had the same problem with the same reporter.
Letās break this down with receipts (this is long so I have it under the keep reading break). TL;DR at the bottom!
Discourse #1) Max told a reporter to leave.
So what? Drivers control their media access all the time.
The only thing thatās ācontroversialā here is that Max did it openly instead of getting Red Bull's PR team to handle it quietly. Max has an 11-year history of telling reporters off directly. This isnāt new.
2018, Daily Mail reporter: asked why heād had so many accidents. Maxās response?
āI get really tired of all the questions so, yeah, I think if I get a few more, Iāll headbutt someone.ā
2022, Sky Sports UK: Max refused to talk to them entirely after Ted Kravitz said Lewis was ārobbedā of the 2021 title and after Sky used footage of Maxās 51g Silverstone crash in a Christmas advert.
2024, Singapore GP: Max gave minimal answers as a protest against the FIA after being penalized for swearing.
2024, post-Qatar (winning his 4th title):
āThe problem in F1 is that 80 to 85% of the media is British. And I did feel that some things which were written about me were not fair.ā
Max still speaks to all FIA-accredited journalists at FIA events. Heās not refusing to do his job, but he is refusing to engage (in a setting he is in control of) with someone he feels has been deliberately provocative. Thatās a ban on one journalist from a non-FIA team event, we arenāt seeing a ban on the press.
And letās not pretend drivers donāt control their media access:
Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, & Max Verstappen (Netflix 2025): all three world champs refused to do interviews for Netflix DTS in 2025.
Lewis Hamilton & Netflix (2019): blocked them from using footage of a bad German GP weekend because he didnāt like how heād be portrayed. Fair enough!
Kimi RƤikkƶnen (entire career): walked out, gave one-word answers, ignored questions. Iconic and GOATed for it.
Sebastian Vettel (2016, 2020): skipped or gave minimal participation in FIA press conferences when unhappy with narratives.
Fernando Alonso (2007): repeatedly refused interviews with British outlets he felt were biased toward Lewis Hamilton.
McLaren under Ron Dennis: journalists were informally frozen out for negative coverage. It was a whole scandal.
Ferrari historically: heavy preference for Italian media; international journalists often struggle for access.
Drivers and teams have always chosen how theyāre perceived where they have control. The only difference is that Max is blunt about it.
But another point to be made is that Max has a low tolerance for what he perceives as disrespect ā not just to himself, but to the people he works with. Heās been known to be protective and:
End interviews when questions target his engineer or team
Call out journalists who try to manufacture intra and inter-team drama (e.g. shutting down the line of questioning to Lewis after Silverstone 2021, or Checoās āpressureā in 2024 to keep his seat the next season)
Defend rivals when he feels the media is being unfair to them (e.g. his defense of Lewis after the 2021 Abu Dhabi fallout, where he repeatedly said the controversy was not Lewisās fault).
Heās also been known to call out disrespect towards female reporters and fans.
This is part of why the Giles Richards situation escalated the way it did. Richardsā Abu Dhabi 2025 question wasnāt just about Max ā it was about opening a wound (that had already been asked and answered multiple times post-Spain), isolating a single incident, and implying Maxās single action cost him (and his team) the title. Max saw it as disrespectful, clearly stating that no one was mentioning all the good things that happened (ābirthday presentsā) and all the good work the team did during the season. He was protective of his team, and months later, he still remembered.
Discourse #2) The real issue: Giles Richards has a pattern of asking provocative questions to drivers at their most vulnerable.
Letās look at the receipts.
Japan 2024: Lewis Hamilton
Race result: P9. Disappointing weekend. Final season with Mercedes before Ferrari move.
Richardsā question: āAre you a little bit jealous of the Ferraris at the moment? Because they are faster?ā
Lewis responded: āNoā
And Richards dug his heel in more: āNo? Looking forward to being with them, yeah, because they are faster or justā¦ā
Lewis snapped: āDo you have any better questions?ā and after a bit of Richards trying to back track, Lewis walked out.
The word ājealousā is emotionally charged and accusatory. Drivers like Lewis are usually very protective of their team, by attacking not only his performance, but the Mercedes car itself, Richards is implying that the team let Lewis down. Lewis loves Mercedes, and he knew the team was doing their best. Then Richards rubs his lack of results this race in his face MORE. A neutral version would be: āDoes Ferrariās current form make you more eager/excited for the move?ā But that doesnāt generate a viral clip, does it?
Lewis Hamilton has another 20 races of the season to go with Mercedes before heading to Scuderia Ferrari. The 7-time F1 Driversā World Champ
Abu Dhabi 2025: Max Verstappen
Context: Max had just lost the world championship by two points to Lando Norris. Minutes after the race. Maybe the most painful moment of his season. His team is in tears, heās trying to be gracious and happy for Lando, he knows heās about to be attacked in the conference and expected to keep his cool.
Richardsā question: āYou lost out to Lando by just two points. What do you think now about the incident with George Russell in Spain? Do you regret that looking back in hindsight?ā
Maxās response at the time: āYou forget all the other stuff that happened in my season. The only thing you mention is Barcelona. I knew that would come. Youāre giving me a stupid grin now.ā
The question isolates one error from a 24-race season and asks him to own it immediately after the title loss. A neutral version would be: "Looking at the season as a whole, where do you feel the biggest swings in points happened?" Which had already been asked previously that week (something that has been asked repeatedly the second half of the season and Max had answered numerous times, any good journalist would stop asking this question after the first 2-3 times it had been reported).
Notice the pattern?
Both questions came immediately after a difficult/disappointing result.
Both questions were framed to elicit defensiveness or emotional responses rather than substantial analysis or meaningful reflection (jealousy? regret?).
Both drivers reacted negatively.
When two multiple world champions from different teams with different personalities both react the same way to the same journalist in similar emotional contexts, it stops being a coincidence.
Richards himself has admitted heās been called āanti-Lewisā and āanti-Sebastian Vettelā in the past. That suggests this isnāt a one-off misunderstanding. I couldnāt find any explicit examples of Richards and Sebās interactions, but I wouldnāt be surprised if thereās an article out there somewhere.
Discourse 3) Free speech doesnāt mean freedom from consequences.
Thereās this weird discourse that journalists can ask anything and sportspeople just have to take it. No. Thatās not how it works.
In any profession (or even in life), if youāre deliberately provocative or disrespectful, you face consequences:
A store can ban you.
A school can suspend you.
Your spouse can divorce you.
Your job can fire you.
A team can revoke your media access.
Richards is choosing to word questions in ways that provoke negative reactions. After 10 years of being a sports journalist, he DOES know how to word his questions appropriately and is CHOOSING not to. This is rage-baiting disguised as journalism. And when you do that to elite athletes in their most vulnerable moments (just minutes after a performance, when they havenāt spoken to their teams or had the chance to reflect or analyze their performances, to let the emotions settle), youāre welcoming criticism and consequences.
Some things people might not know: F1 media operates under strict accreditation rules.
The FIA controls media access, and they donāt mess around.
Accreditation requirements include:
Permanent accreditation requires attending 14+ events in the preceding season.
Race-by-race requires commissioning letters and proof of publication.
Applications require professional insurance, press cards, and media coverage samples.
All applications are subject to approval with no guarantee.
If a journalist repeatedly causes issues, teams can push for restrictions. Weāve seen it before.
Some examples of recent FIA enforcement: Johnny Herbert & Derek Warwick
The FIA has shown they will act when someone crosses a line:
Johnny Herbert (2025): removed from stewarding duties because his media work was āincompatibleā with impartiality. Herbert had repeatedly criticized Max Verstappen in gambling site interviews. Jos Verstappen and Fernando Alonso have openly accused Herbert of bias (even his fellow pundits have made remarks about it on broadcast). The FIAās statement: āhis duties as an FIA steward and that of a media pundit were incompatible.ā
Derek Warwick (2025): suspended for the Canadian GP after unauthorized media comments criticizing the FIAās choice to penalize Verstappen in Spain. The FIA said his comments were āill-advised.ā He was replaced and only reinstated after apologizing.
If a steward can be sidelined for biased or provocative commentary, why should a journalist be immune from consequences for deliberately provocative questioning?
Discourse #4) The difference: āsoft bansā vs. āhard bansā
What Max did is a āhard banā it is direct, public, explicit. This is a world-wide sport with fans and personnel from a vast variety of cultures. Maxās way of dealing with this may have come off as disrespectful or harsh to the fans of cultures that are more soft-spoken. Max himself comes from a background that is stern, direct, and merciless. He gave Richards multiple chances to leave without extending the interaction, Richards chose to argue to get more press from it.
What makes this ānewsā worthy is that what usually happens is āsoft bansā:
Ignoring specific journalists but not overtly
Giving access only to preferred outlets
Quietly excluding critics
Giving one-word answers until the journalist moves on
Max doesnāt do subtle. Heās been this way since his Toro Rosso days. But letās not pretend soft bans donāt happen constantly.
The bottom line
Max Verstappen has a long history of being direct with reporters. Heās not banning all journalists. Heās banning one ā from a non-FIA team event ā after a pattern of provocative questioning that he, Lewis Hamilton, and probably others have reacted negatively to.
Giles Richards has now had two publicized incidents with top drivers (Lewis 2024, Max 2025) where he asked emotionally charged questions at vulnerable moments. The pattern suggests either a lack of training in paddock etiquette or a deliberate editorial strategy of rage-baiting. Neither is a good look.
Free speech means Richards can ask what he wants. It also means teams and drivers can decide who gets access to their events. And if the FIA can remove stewards for being āincompatibleā with impartiality, they can certainly review whether certain journalists are maintaining professional standards or acting like paparazzi antagonizing drivers for a big story.
The only thing that was unusual here is that Max said it out loud. But thatās always the āproblemā with him, isnāt it?
TL;DR:
Max Verstappen told Guardian journalist Giles Richards to leave a Red Bull hospitality session. The discourse is acting like this is unprecedented "bullying" of the press. It's not.
Drivers control media access all the time. The only difference is Max is blunt about it. Lewis blocked Netflix. Kimi gave one-word answers. Vettel skipped FIA pressers. Alonso refused British outlets. Soft bans happen constantly.
Richards has a pattern. In 2024, he asked Lewis Hamilton if he was "jealous" of Ferrari right after a bad race. Lewis snapped and walked out. In 2025, he asked Max if he regretted the Spain collision minutes after losing the championship by two points. Both questions were emotionally charged, asked at vulnerable moments, and designed to provoke.
Free speech isn't consequence-free. If a journalist repeatedly rage-baits athletes, teams can revoke access. The FIA has sidelined stewards (Herbert, Warwick) for biased commentary. This is the same principle.
"Soft bans" are normal. "Hard bans" are just honest. Max didn't ban all journalists. He banned one ā from a non-FIA team event ā after a pattern of disrespect he'd had enough of.
The only thing unusual here is that Max said it out loud. But that's always been his style.
let's try a new challenge in 2026: stop being weird about wags, and women in the driver's circles, in general. stop being petty and jealous and bitter, stop with the internalised misogyny.
i'm not saying to not call someone out if needed - but when i see the numbers of fake rumours about magui, pietra or alexandra that people still believe to this day... literally, be careful about what you say.
and omg, please, stop being so pathetic. the drivers won't date you, they don't know you, they don't care about you, you're no one to them. stop being so utterly rancid about all the women in their lives, while you prop up the men constantly.
if you have nothing nice to say, which is a weird thing but okay, just learn to leave these damn women alone istg.
honestly, the regs are annoying, the teams are annoying, sports journalists are annoying, f1 in general is annoying right nowā¦i say, put the tax-evading millionaires in jail for the rest of the season and let kimi antonelli, arvid lindblad and doriane pin drive for the wdc
Prefacing this by saying that I'm a Max fan first and a human second, just so we are clear.
Not to engage in discourse or stir the pot because it's simply not worth it but I have seen an astonishing number of people upset that George's true crime monologue in Abu Dhabi last year was premeditated, which, um, duh? How is this news to anybody?
He had an entire week where he'd been declared public enemy number one over a one-place grid penalty, where not only Max fans but people professionally involved in F1 were saying truly hateful things about him, where his PR team was having the worst week of their LIVES because of Max, where he took a hit to his reputation he still hasn't quite recovered from, and you expected him to... have come up with his speech on the spot? To not be upset about the situation? To just sit pretty and wait for the shitstorm to be over because giving Max back the same energy is only okay when you do it impulsively?
Mind you, if this was George going to the press over a private argument of Max and his I would understand the reaction but no, it's baffling how you manage to so shamelessly omit the fact that it was MAX who in Qatar threw a tantrum to any press outlet who would listen while never actually alluding to what it was that George did wrong. "He's a loser" "He's a two-faced snake" "He screwed me over" all of which are middle-school level ad-hominems and all of which lack any sort of substancial explanation for what, exactly, George should be punished for... except for the fact that he should, because Max said so, and he's angry at him. Which only worked because Max has a lot more fans and a lot more social leverage in F1, and people have a raging hate boner for George Russell and are eagerly waiting to jump on any opportunity to wank it; but it's a purely emotional argument, it's just tugging on the heartstrings of masses who are already predisposed to like Max and assume anything he says is the Undisputed Truth, because he brands himself as sincere and somehow your EQ is deficient enough that you buy it and take all of what he says at face value.
Now do I think Max was thinking about all of this when he went on his press rants? No, again, he was angry, he was being emotional, he was upset with George over a perceived slight (which, by the way, George was ready to forgive him for until Max WENT TO THE PRESS ABOUT IT) and it was insanely idiotic from him and he acted out, because, again, he was being emotional. Which is fine and dandy until you see people praising Max for what was basically a tantrum and calling George emotional and two-faced for being upset that he got slandered in public by someone who he did not consider an enemy. Was his monologue over the top and dramatic? For sure. But if you think that him premeditating it is somehow a worse offence than Max letting his anger get the best of him and being over the top and dramatic about it, at least grow a fucking spine and admit you just want a reason to dislike George, that this is what this is, stop trying to hide behind righteousness because George was already graceful enough to be willing to forgive Max for threatening to kill him the day before a race, you also wanted him to shut up and take it when Max somehow found his lack of resentment a worse offence than his own threats of physical violence in a sport that has gotten dozens of people killed over the years?
And the sheer fucking gall of people to say that George tried to ruin Max's reputation right as he announced that he was becoming a father AS IF it was not the most telegraphed PR stunt of all time to divert attention away from his fight with George and make it more uncomfortable for people to talk smack about him, Jesus Christ, AS IF George is a snake for premeditating his speech but Max isn't for announcing his girlfriend's pregnancy right in the midst of a PR disaster. Right.
Genuinely do you even listen to the man you are supposedly a fan of? Have you ever stopped to pay attention to anything he says or do you just know how he looks because you have a poster of him on your wall? Of course I will not pretend to somehow know Max better than anybody here because at the end of the say he is a celebrity and he has a PR team behind him carefully crafting the image of him they want us to have. Let's not be the blind leading the blind because we are all at best cataracted apes when it comes to knowing the true character of celebrities but I think we can all agree to use our sound reasoning skills, piece the order of events together, and see that Max acted anything but mature in this situation and if you have qualms with George's actions which of course there are to have, you cannot with a straight fucking face say that the way Max acted was somehow better.
I don't know why I bother because if you are reading this then it means you know how to read which I doubt is commonplace amongst people who truly and sincerely believe every single word that comes out of Max Verstappen's mouth.
And I don't give a shit if I sound like a Max hater because I know where I stand which is that if I love this man more I will probably start throwing up violently until I die a horrible and slow max-on-brain induced death and if I had to cut off one of my hands for him to win the championship I very honestly would but I love him because he is a lying little bitch who cannot control his emotions, and not despite it; if you need him to be a fucking saint to be okay with the thought of liking him then you should find somebody else to like I don't even know what to say anymore.
Anyway I am not engaging in discourse again, that's it for the irrationaly angry rant of the year.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
ā Live Streamingā Interactive Chatā Private Showsā HD Qualityā Free Actions
Free to watch ā¢ No registration required ā¢ HD streaming
Not at all mad at Nico for his podium; he held those last laps together beautifully and deserves all the adulation for his perseverance.
However, I will be mad at the blatant hypocrisy of fans and media outlets, who dog-piled on Daniel last season for being "too old" and "not consistent enough anymore" despite pulling off AT/VCARB's highest grid and qualifying positions both seasons.
Nico took 239 races before he got his first podium, but he still has a seat in F1 without question. Daniel's last WIN was only 88 races ago (15 of which he was not even on the gird for), but he was subjected to so much vitriol and outright revisionism.
hey so iām seeing some incredibly privileged takes from people who presumably speak english as their first (and only) language. what's up with that!
your reality when learning a language is exactly that ā your reality. you can't assert that onto someone else to conclude that they're intentionally using language that reveals their misogyny. thatās insane. and if youāve never had to learn another language then i donāt want to hear your opinion on translating words. shut up.
now idk if the woman/female word choice was a translation issue in carlos' situation - i can't speak for the man. but please check your own privilege when speaking about language and how much someone "should" know.
came back to life just to say the Kelly hate is justified and always has beenā¦sheās a werido. max was groomed. has been since 16. and the kelly supporters and max stans who be attacking people when they question their weird ass relationship, you hoes is weird too. now you little weirdos copy the link to this post and send it to those fuck ass stan accounts and put āanother oneā like that does somethingā¦.she weird. and that whole ass family is evil and weird.
