The debacle known as 'Lie-gate' could have been avoided if Lewis Hamilton and Jarno Trulli had bothered to learn the rules about conduct under a safety car.

Even if Hamilton had tried to sucker Trulli, then Trulli should have known better than to fall for it. Jarno said he thought Lewis had problems with his car, but it is often sensible to err on the side of caution. As it was, Lewis was seeking advice, which is like a footballer calling to the bench to clarify the offside rule.

It would have helped had there been an official to speak to McLaren. Charlie Whiting was busy with the Vettel/Kubica incident and there was no deputy. The employment of the safety car is often because there has been an incident, so no surprise there. It's like running a football match without a referee.

That overtaking move initially cost Jarno a 25 second penalty and his team was not inclined to appeal the decision. Toyota believed that their man had goofed. All Lewis had to do was to say, "I had no guidance, but I gave Jarno the opportunity to pass. It was his decision." Sorted.

At the very worst, Hamilton would have been fourth, he would have lost just one Championship point. It would also have been a fair result; Trulli had started from the pitlane because Toyota's rear wings had been deemed illegal. He had done well to get to fifth before Vettel and Kubica had their moment.

The wording of the FIA's invitation for McLaren to attend a hearing of the WMSC in Paris stresses the team's involvement in procuring its driver to give false testimony. This makes Lewis appear to be the fall guy. Perhaps it is a way of preparing to administer a lesser punishment because Lewis is that rare thing, a star, and motor sport can ill afford to lose him.

The fact is, however, that Hamilton went along with a deception. Had he stuck to the moral high ground that he claims is his normal stance, his name would not have been besmirched and Dave Ryan would still have a job.

There was nearly an hour between the ending of the Australian GP and the meeting with the stewards, nothing was done in the heat of the moment. Lewis had already told the media that he had let Jarno through, neither of them knowing the rules, but Hamilton and Ryan had a different story for the stewards.

This begs the question as to whether McLaren had decided on a line to take. If a line was decided on, one must then ask who was party to the decision.

Dave Ryan was a senior member of the team, more important than many of us realised, but he did not have the clout of Martin Whitmarsh or Ron Dennis. Ryan has shouldered all blame and one thing the WMSC must determine is whether he acted alone.

It is also odd that the stewards called in two people with something to gain. There were impartial officials around the circuit who could have been consulted. Like there being nobody to take McLaren's query, it is another instance of bungling, not that it absolves Hamilton and Ryan.

What is bizarre is that Hamilton and Ryan stuck to their story three days later in Malaysia when confronted with conclusive evidence. When that happens, most people do not plough on, they look for the best possible way out. In a court of law, you usually get a lighter sentence if you plead guilty.