PROVING MANY PEOPLE WRONG

Carlos Sainz’s words after the race sounded like the perfect snapshot of Lando Norris’s journey. He essentially said: I’m happy for him — for the person first, even more than for the driver — because he carried an enormous weight: social media criticism, rushed judgments from the press, all without ever hiding. He’s not the “poster boy” champion, the impenetrable one made of steel and zero emotion. He’s someone who has shown his limits without fear. And precisely for that reason, according to Carlos, he represents the kind of champion we desperately need today: one who isn’t afraid to show what he feels.

And then came the final point: you can be considered “soft,” sensitive, human… and still become world champion.

That’s really the heart of it. Lando has often been treated like an outsider, as if his only fault were growing up in a wealthy family and maintaining a light, spontaneous, normal personality. In a sport where the “came from nothing” narrative is always convenient, a privileged kid is bound to irritate people regardless. And so social media and parts of the press have never cut him any slack.

And this is coming from someone who grew up with Schumacher, Alonso, and Raikkonen in his heart — personalities miles away from Norris’s. Precisely for that reason, I find the amount of hostility thrown his way incomprehensible. There are different ways to be a champion, and Lando’s way is just as legitimate as any other. Refusing to accept that is simply short-sighted.

Since I began working closely within the world of Grand Prix racing, I no longer root for anyone (not that I ever truly “rooted” in the strict sense). And perhaps that’s exactly why what I’ve seen directed at Norris over the past two years has struck me so strongly: inconsistent criticism, flawed comparisons, one-sided judgments. A toxic narrative that followed him every race weekend.

Why was Verstappen’s mistake in the Qatar Sprint never framed as “pressure,” while Norris’s — similar but less severe — immediately was?

Why is it that if Piastri loses three or four tenths to Lando, “something must be wrong,” but if it happens the other way around, Oscar suddenly becomes the ice-cold assassin?

Why was Piastri proclaimed a phenomenon from day one, while Norris is still treated like the “connected” billionaire’s son?

Why is a resurgent Red Bull from Monza onward always described as an average car rescued by Max’s talent, while McLaren — no longer holding the same advantage — continues to be labeled a spaceship?

And above all: why in 2024 was Verstappen praised as icy and dominant for fending off Norris’s comeback, while today Lando closing out a championship is reduced to “benefiting from the car”?

I’m not saying Norris is on Max’s level — that’s obvious to everyone — but that doesn’t justify the way he’s been treated. Not ever. It’s the same pattern we saw with Valentino Rossi: when he won, it was race craft; when others won, it was the tires, the bike, or some mysterious technical trick. And Casey Stoner was portrayed for years as fragile, weak — when in reality he was genuinely unwell. Only much later did perspective finally return.

That’s exactly what has happened with Norris. And today, watching many people scramble to adjust their stance, reposition themselves, soften their tone… it’s almost laughable. No — it’s too late. You spent a year tearing him down. Applauding now doesn’t erase that.

At least I can say I never stepped into that mud.

Those who follow me know it well: certain things were said here when they needed to be said.

So yes: well done, Lando.

And whether people like it or not, they can all enjoy it now.

© Simone Marchetti Cavalieri