Lawson indirectly warned about Verstappen: 'It takes a toll on you'

Bottas only won when it was not possible to let Lewis pass, all other races Bottas had to let Lewis pass.

No Bottas was a driver who challenged Lewis, oh wait he did, but was not allowed to stay ahead, he had to let Lewis pass.
You forgot these ones

Bottas was absolutely allowed to challenge Hamilton, especially at the start of the seasons. In fact, Mercedes gave him a fair shot to compete until it became mathematically or strategically clear that Hamilton was the best chance for the WDC. Take 2019 as an example—Bottas won races early in the season, and the team let him fight Hamilton without interference.

However, once it became evident that Lewis was the stronger contender, team orders came into play to ensure the team maximized their chances for both the Drivers' and Constructors' Championships. This isn’t favoritism; it’s just smart team management.

Unlike at RedBull where Lawson is not allowed to challenge Max at all my friend . Get them facts right or do you need a legend ?

Ah, the “same shit” retort. The ultimate refuge when there’s nothing of substance left to say. Let’s call this what it is: a non-response to an argument you clearly can’t counter.

You’ve completely ignored every point I made—about Bottas’ poles, wins, and opportunities—and instead resorted to the intellectual equivalent of throwing your toys out of the pram. What’s next? Calling me “salty” because facts don’t align with your narrative?

If you can’t bring anything new to the table, maybe it’s time to stop recycling the same empty one-liners. Until then, I’ll happily leave you to bask in the echo chamber of your own making.

Case permanently closed.

Same shit like legend 44, indeed case closed.

Ah, the “same old shit” response. Cute. Let’s unpack this mess, shall we?

First, proof? Sure, let’s talk proof. Bottas was told to move over occasionally, yes—welcome to team orders in F1. But let’s not act like he spent every race being asked to gift wins to Lewis. In fact, Bottas took 20 pole positions and 10 race wins during his time at Mercedes. You don’t get those stats if you’re chained to second place all season. If you’ve got “proof” that every overtake Lewis made was gifted, feel free to present it. Spoiler: you won’t, because it doesn’t exist.

Second, the “Lewis couldn’t overtake on his own” narrative. Sure, because strategy and team tactics don’t exist in F1, right? Let me guess—you think Max Verstappen wins every race without benefiting from superior pit stops, team orders, or sacrificing his teammate’s strategy. Keep dreaming.

And lastly, “there wasn’t really a car that could threaten Mercedes.” Exactly! That’s why Bottas had every opportunity to prove himself in a dominant car and still didn’t. If he couldn’t consistently beat Lewis, who was driving the same car, what does that say about him? Here’s a hint: it’s not a conspiracy.

So unless you’ve got more than tired clichés and baseless claims, maybe take your own advice: look at the old races and actually pay attention this time. Case closed.

all I read is the same old shit, no proof not nothing only your words.
As I say Bottas was told many may times (look the old races and comments) to let Lewis pass, not only in the end of the competition.
And if Lewis was this good why the swapping, he couldn't overtake him on his own.
Further in that period there was not really a car that could threaten Mercedes so again why Bottas had to give up the lead.

Oh, "cut and paste," is it? What an insightful rebuttal. Let’s address your “point” here—if you can call it that.

First, swapping positions in a race doesn’t negate the fact that Bottas had plenty of opportunities to prove himself. He was allowed to race, he had the same car, and he even led the championship at times. If he got asked to swap positions later in the season, it’s because he failed to establish himself as the clear contender by then. That’s on him, not some grand injustice.

Second, “how many times did we hear Bottas swap places with Lewis”? Probably no more than the countless times Red Bull’s second driver has been sacrificed to benefit Max. If swapping positions determines a driver’s worth, then I suppose you’re admitting that every second driver in F1 history has had the same “support role” as Bottas. Guess what? That’s part of the sport when one driver clearly outperforms the other.

So, unless you can actually refute the fact that Bottas was allowed to challenge but didn’t deliver when it mattered, maybe skip the vague accusations and try addressing the argument.

Case closed.

cut and paste!
that's how it works,
keep it short again, how many times whe here, Bottas we swap places with Lewis!
I tell you to many!!

Ah, the classic "how many world championships did he win?" response. Let me keep it equally short: Bottas didn’t win a championship because he wasn’t good enough, not because he wasn’t allowed to try. There’s a difference.

He had equal equipment, the freedom to race Lewis early in the seasons, and even led the championship at times. But when it came down to the crunch, he just didn’t have the consistency or edge to challenge Lewis over a full season. That’s on him, not some grand conspiracy.

Now, let’s flip the question: if Bottas wasn’t allowed to challenge, why did Mercedes even bother giving him the opportunity to lead races, take poles, or fight Lewis? And more importantly, how many drivers on the grid would fare better against a prime Hamilton in the same car? It’s not about being “allowed”; it’s about delivering when it matters.

Case closed.

I will keep it short, how many world championship did win, even he could (was allowed) according to you.

Ah, the old "Bottas was just a support driver" myth. Let me spell this out for you: Bottas wasn’t allowed to challenge Lewis? Really? So those poles, wins, and even leading the championship at times were...what? Accidents? A result of Mercedes flipping a coin and letting him win just for fun? If he was purely a “support driver,” why was he ever given equal machinery, freedom to race, and zero restrictions until it was obvious who was in the title fight? You can’t rewrite history just because it’s inconvenient for your argument.

And speaking of support drivers—let’s talk Lawson, you agree that Marko has made it clear that Lawson is not racing Max. Period. Not like Bottas was allowed to race Lewis. Red Bull has built their team entirely around Max, and Lawson will be there to pick up points and avoid tripping over Max. It’s not the same dynamic, and pretending otherwise is just wishful thinking. If you’re going to compare situations, at least do it honestly.

So no, Bottas wasn’t a “support driver” until Mercedes made the call late in the season, and Lawson is from the get go ......do you need a legend my friend .

Nope, Bottas was never gonna be the world champion, he was a support driver for Mercedes.
And winning and leading was if it was not possible to put Lewis on 1.

Do you need a legend my friend . Bottas was allowed to challenge Lewis early in the seasons, and the results prove it. He took poles, race wins, and even led the championship at times. Mercedes only implemented team orders when it became clear who their WDC contender was.

If Bottas was the second driver from the start, why was he given equal equipment, freedom to race, and the opportunity to challenge? Ignoring these facts just because it doesn’t fit your narrative is what’s actually nonsense.

Get your facts together he was aloud to race when there was no option to let Lewis pass, because of other drivers in between.

Bla bla bla, sorry, but your response is nonsense. Bottas was allowed to challenge Lewis early in the seasons, and the results prove it. He took poles, race wins, and even led the championship at times. Mercedes only implemented team orders when it became clear who their WDC contender was.

If Bottas was the second driver from the start, why was he given equal equipment, freedom to race, and the opportunity to challenge? Ignoring these facts just because it doesn’t fit your narrative is what’s actually nonsense.

bla bla bla, sorry but nonsense what you say, Bottas was the second driver and didn't mind he knew Lewis had to win, and anything else you, or the other 2 say is nonsense

Never and never gonna have one, Max is in a other class of driver, no one can keep up with him.

Cause Marko said so that Lawson shouldn't challenge Max ....that's why

So you're saying Liam will be allowed to challenge Max ?

Make up your kind mind or do you need a legend?

Where I say this.

So you agree that Liam will not allowed to challenge Max ? thanks for the agreement legend .

Marco will know what Liam can or cannot do.
you and me don't know what is going on.

Marko has been clear and said that Liam will not be challenging Max ...

Vegan, Liam should do his thing and not try to compete with Max, specially not in the beginning.

Ah, the "Max is in another class of driver, no one can keep up with him" statement. Sure, let’s go with that narrative—for about two seconds.

Max isn’t in “another class”; he’s in the fastest car. No one’s keeping up because Red Bull’s RB19 and RB20 are untouchable. It’s like saying Usain Bolt is in another class because he’s running against people wearing flip-flops. Dominating in a rocket ship while others are stuck in second-rate machinery doesn’t make you untouchable—it makes your car untouchable.

And let’s talk about the "competition." Who’s even challenging Max? Pérez? Please. Ferrari? McLaren? Mercedes? All of them had issues that Red Bull didn’t. Max didn’t have rivals this season—he had passengers in his rearview mirror. If no one can "keep up," it’s because the fight was over before it began, thanks to Adrian Newey’s engineering brilliance, not some mythical god-tier driving.

You think no one can keep up with Max? Fine, put him in a midfield car and let’s see how "untouchable" he really is. Until then, the "other class" narrative is as empty as a DRS battery after lap 50.

No substance whatsoever ever, just insults that's all you do ? . Do you need a legend mate ?

And you can't understand the difference between doctor or Doctor, something they earned by hard studying.
And people more smart than me already find out you use AI to do your comments so shut up and go play with other people

You’ve got no substance, just empty noise. If you’re going to participate, at least try to match the level of the conversation instead of embarrassing yourself. Keep swinging in the dark, though. It’s amusing how hard you're trying. Do you need a legend?

Actual points I read and comment on, your comments sound like bla bla bla.

"Ah, resorting to 'bla bla' again—truly the battle cry of someone out of their depth. If reading actual points is too much for you, maybe stick to simpler conversations. Meanwhile, I’ll keep making arguments you clearly can’t handle

bla bla is al I read, nothing new or exciting.

Ah, the "bla bla bla" defense—truly the pinnacle of intellectual discourse. I see you've resorted to sarcasm as a last-ditch effort. Don’t worry, admitting you're wrong doesn’t have to be this painful. Case still closed.

bla bla bla discussion Vegan
I am wrong and you are right.

Ah, the “didn’t you reply” tactic—grasping at straws, are we? Yes, I replied, because unlike you, I’m not afraid of actual discussion. But if “case closed” is all you’ve got left, maybe it’s time to admit you didn’t have much of a case to begin with.

Thanks for proving my point. Case actually closed.

Didn't you reply on me, case closed.

Ah, “I don’t read this much text” — what a groundbreaking response. If you can’t be bothered to read, maybe you shouldn’t bother replying either. Saves everyone the trouble, doesn’t it?

But hey, if “not reading” is your strategy for avoiding actual arguments, it’s working brilliantly. Keep it up! Case closed.

I don't read this much not saying anything text.

Ah, the classic "too much, too lazy" non-response. A true masterclass in dodging an argument. Let me guess—when the facts get uncomfortable, the easiest route is to dismiss them outright instead of actually engaging.

Here’s a thought: if taking the time to refute your hollow statements is “too much,” maybe don’t throw out baseless claims to begin with. And if laziness is the excuse for not replying properly, it’s no wonder your points never hold up under scrutiny.

Take all the time you need, but next time, maybe come back with something resembling an actual argument. Until then, I’ll just consider this case closed.

safe your energy, to much to lazy.