Publications
Partners
Now that the hullabaloo about Germany has settled down, the time has come to calmly reflect on the (massaged) outcome of the race, and establish whether any form of heinous crime was committed. That task falls, of course, on the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council, and will be, in fact, the first major issue faced by Jean Todt’s WMSC, for all other matters have in some way or other been hangovers from Max Mosley’s tenure.
Already Ferrari have been fined $100 000 (R800 000), but that formed only part of the punishment, for the team was also referred to the WMSC by the three stewards, advised on this occasion by US former grand prix driver (and Indianapolis 500 winner) Danny Sullivan.
Ferrari controversy
It is a fact that race leader Felipe Massa, who has battled on ‘hard’ compound tyres this year, was running just ahead of Fernando Alonso, who, with 98 points to Massa’s 67, was ahead of the championship. With points’ leader Lewis Hamilton (145 points) running fourth at that stage, victory by Alonso would close the delta of 47 points by 13. Plus, Sebastian Vettel (121) was uncomfortably close to the Ferrari duo. Thus Ferrari advised Massa that ‘Alonso is quicker than you’ - apparently Scuderiaspeak for ‘let your team-mate by’.
Predictably they copped a fine, which represents the highest amount the stewards may levy on the day, and the feeling in the Hockenheim paddock on Sunday evening was that the foursome would have thrown the book at the Scuderia, then jailed the entire team and chucked the key into the nearby Neckar River for being in breach of Article 39.1, which states simply Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.
Said clause was introduced in the wake of the same team’s cynical manipulation of the race result in Austria 2002, when Rubens Barrichello was instructed (by Todt, then Ferrari’s Sporting Director...) to move aside for Michael Schumacher. Worldwide outrage followed, and the WMSC, powerless to fine the team for no rule had been broken, fined Ferrari $1m (actually $500 000 plus $500 000 suspended) for bringing the sport into disrepute – for Schumacher’s clumsy disruption reshuffling of the podium ceremony (he ushered the Brazilian on to the stop step after being booed).
The FIA, though, reacted by introducing 39.1, and this article has since been the bane of every one of the sport’s team managers, for all have at some stage been torn between allowing a certain driver to win and the best interests of their teams. Even that statement is inadequate, for, by implication ‘interfere with a race result’ means any ordered result – whether victory or last place – is a breach of 39.1. Obviously, though, events affecting victory or podium contenders are more visible, and thus form the focus of officialdom and fans alike.
Team orders
Therein, however, lies the first flaw in the article, for why should officials show any less interest in proceedings at the back than the front? After all, do they permit backmarkers to run bigger engines or lighter cars than those at the sharp end?
Then there is the definition of the word ‘order’, defined by the Oxford Dictionary as an authoritative command or direction. Therein lies the second flaw, for since Austria 2002 race results have been changed without blatant commands or directions being given by management. One thinks back to Brazil 2007, when runaway leader (on home soil) Felipe Massa was edged aside for Kimi Räikkönen during the pit stop reshuffles to enable the Finn to take the world championship.
Not a word was said either before, during or after the incident, yet, somehow Massa found himself second through clear interference by somebody within Ferrari.
Lest all this make the Scuderia appear the only culpable party, consider that BMW in Canada 2008 mysteriously switched Nick Heidfeld, in the lead at that stage, onto a one-stopper with soft tyres (!), and when he was caught by team-mate Robert Kubica, on the better rubber, the former, despite absolutely esperate for a maiden win, waved the Pole through without hesitation, facilitating his first win. Again, not a word was said as the duo crossed the line in that order to score BMW’s only F1 victory, a one-two at that.
‘Let's just say I didn't make it too difficult,’ said Heidfeld enigmatically afterwards.
In Hockenheim 2008 Heikki Kovalainen found himself well-placed after a crash brought out the Safety Car. This was somewhat inconvenient for McLaren team-mate Lewis Hamilton, who was chasing through the field. When he caught the Finn he, Heikki, suddenly slowed to walking pace in his desperation to wave the Briton through, who later praised Heikki’s generosity.
‘Fair play to Heikki, what a great guy,’ said Hamilton. ‘He knew that I was a lot quicker than him at the time, and he knows where we stand if I'm much quicker than him.
‘He's such a smart and decent guy. I'm going to go and say 'thank you' to him now, because without him I wouldn't have finished where I did,’ added, whose 2008 championship was ultimately won by a single point...
Had Heikki, fighting for his career at that stage suddenly become charitable, or had some unheard message (or previously struck) agreement intervened? Either way, the race result was interfered with, surreptitiously or not, and arguably Hamilton secured his title on the back of that generosity.
More recently, in May this year, the Turkish Grand Prix saw two different sets of instructions: on the one hand Mark Webber was told to save fuel while Red Bull Racing team-mate Sebastian Vettel was told he still had a lap of full blast running left in his tank before he, too, would need to conserve high octane – but, wary of 39.1 (and RBR’s chosen internal policy of not imposing orders on its drivers), the drivers were not instructed in any way on race order. The result? A crash which dropped Webber to third and took Vettel out of the running despite the cars having locked out the front row in qualifying and laying one-two at the time. How daft is that?
The lead was then inherited by McLaren’s Hamilton and reigning champion Jenson Button, and when the latter made life a touch uncomfortable by fighting for position with his title predecessor – and overtaking him at one stage – both were instructed to ‘save fuel’, widely interpreted within the paddock at the time as ‘hold station’. Hamilton went on to win the race from Button...
The list of massaged races is, frankly, endless, yet on Sunday Ferrari was fined for appraising Massa of the situation. Is that any different to any of the previous examples, for if the essence of Art 39.1 is interference with the result of the race, then clearly in all instances detailed above the teams (and/or their drivers) have in some way interfered with the outcome.
And, so what? Since the beginning of the world championship in 1950, F1 has been a team sport, not only by design but by regulation: teams (note the word) are required to enter two cars for their contractually employed drivers with entry forms to be signed by team (note) principals, and the team owners themselves named their ‘trade union’ the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA), while the FIA’s Formula One Commission’s membership includes all team principals, who are referred to as such.
Yet, a team – defined by Oxford as two or more people working together - are not permitted to instruct their employees (drivers) to act in the best interests of the team and its sponsors!
Only in F1, note, for the FIA World Rally Championship’s sporting regulations do not include such a clause, and surely a competition is a competition, whether contested on tarmac or gravel, as a speed event or rally, for team orders can (and have been) equally been applied to rallying. In fact, quick perusal of the WRC regulations shows that the word ‘orders; is not mentioned in this context.
‘Experts’ such as former team boss Eddie Jordan – who of all people, a fortnight ago had the temerity to cross-examine Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner on ethics – suggested on BBC that race fans were robbed of a sporting contest, but so were they in Turkey and races past. Or is ‘robbing’ only present when team orders enable a driver to catch Hamilton (BBC) or Vettel (German media) on the points’ log? Strange that the Spanish and Italian media said hardly a word, while the Brazilians hammered Ferrari on Massa’s behalf. Stranger, too, that the Brazilians praised Massa when he enabled Räikkönen to win on his, Massa’s, home turf in 2008...
Strangest of all, though, is that in 1998, at Spa-Francorchamps, Jordan instructed the faster Ralf Schumacher to not ‘take’ team-mate Damon Hill so as to ensure a one-two victory for his team. Where lay the disgraced team boss’s sympathies, then? With the fans or the team result?
Whatever, there was a time when drivers within the same team swapped cars during a race – but that was before Jordan realised that F1 even existed – while our own Jody Scheckter arguably owes his 1979 title to team-mate Gilles Villeneuve, who dutifully toed the Scuderia line from the halfway point of that season. The previous year Mario Andretti won the title after Ronnie Peterson was forced to play second fiddle to the American.
In the final analysis the WMSC will first need to decide whether there is a case to answer, and, if so, decide whether Ferrari’s message to Massa was an advisory or an order as generally defined, for the FIA regulations themselves provide no definition. Then the body will rule accordingly on a date still be advised, but unlikely to be before end-August on account of F1’s pending four-week summer shutdown.
The WMSC would arguably be better served if it considered whether Art 39.1 actually has a place in 21st Century F1. Various luminaries think not, with Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn – who led Ferrari to every one of its ten world championships between 2000 and 2004 - and seven-time champion Michael Schumacher leading the charge.
‘I understand how F1 fans might be disappointed by what they have seen on Sunday,’ Brawn said post-Hockenheim. ‘(But) The rule that bans team orders is not realistic anymore. The teams and the FIA must find together a transparent solution that maintains the integrity of the competition and safeguards the sport.’
Schumacher, too agrees: ‘In the last race (Silverstone) for example, there were clear team orders, and everyone accepts those,’ he said. ‘So whether it's the last race or the second to last race or even earlier, what's the point? I can see in the years that we did it, because we were leading so much, people thought it was unnecessary. I can agree on that in a way.’
“You have to do it in a way that's maybe nice and not too obvious”
Cynics would say ‘well they would say that, wouldn’t that’ for they were co-conspirators in Austria 2002, but neither man achieved (vast) successes in F1 without some element of nous, so their opinions are worth considering, plus both have the ear of Todt on account of their employment histories. Plus, Todt’s son Nicolas manages Massa...
Adds Schumacher: ‘But in principal I fully cannot (with Art 39.1). I agree with what's going on, you have to do it in a way that's maybe nice and not too obvious, but there's only one target and that's winning the championship.’
That is what Schumacher achieved seven times and what Ferrari aims to do this year, with Hockenheim having made up just 5% of that plan. That 39.1 is outdated is encapsulated in Schumacher’s words above, for needing to do something in F1 ‘in a way that’s nice and not too obvious’ is absolutely farcical and has no place in F1. That, rather than Ferrari’s guilt, is what the WMSC should be ruling on.
Already Ferrari have been fined $100 000 (R800 000), but that formed only part of the punishment, for the team was also referred to the WMSC by the three stewards, advised on this occasion by US former grand prix driver (and Indianapolis 500 winner) Danny Sullivan.
Ferrari controversy
It is a fact that race leader Felipe Massa, who has battled on ‘hard’ compound tyres this year, was running just ahead of Fernando Alonso, who, with 98 points to Massa’s 67, was ahead of the championship. With points’ leader Lewis Hamilton (145 points) running fourth at that stage, victory by Alonso would close the delta of 47 points by 13. Plus, Sebastian Vettel (121) was uncomfortably close to the Ferrari duo. Thus Ferrari advised Massa that ‘Alonso is quicker than you’ - apparently Scuderiaspeak for ‘let your team-mate by’.
Predictably they copped a fine, which represents the highest amount the stewards may levy on the day, and the feeling in the Hockenheim paddock on Sunday evening was that the foursome would have thrown the book at the Scuderia, then jailed the entire team and chucked the key into the nearby Neckar River for being in breach of Article 39.1, which states simply Team orders which interfere with a race result are prohibited.
Said clause was introduced in the wake of the same team’s cynical manipulation of the race result in Austria 2002, when Rubens Barrichello was instructed (by Todt, then Ferrari’s Sporting Director...) to move aside for Michael Schumacher. Worldwide outrage followed, and the WMSC, powerless to fine the team for no rule had been broken, fined Ferrari $1m (actually $500 000 plus $500 000 suspended) for bringing the sport into disrepute – for Schumacher’s clumsy disruption reshuffling of the podium ceremony (he ushered the Brazilian on to the stop step after being booed).
The FIA, though, reacted by introducing 39.1, and this article has since been the bane of every one of the sport’s team managers, for all have at some stage been torn between allowing a certain driver to win and the best interests of their teams. Even that statement is inadequate, for, by implication ‘interfere with a race result’ means any ordered result – whether victory or last place – is a breach of 39.1. Obviously, though, events affecting victory or podium contenders are more visible, and thus form the focus of officialdom and fans alike.
Team orders
Therein, however, lies the first flaw in the article, for why should officials show any less interest in proceedings at the back than the front? After all, do they permit backmarkers to run bigger engines or lighter cars than those at the sharp end?
Then there is the definition of the word ‘order’, defined by the Oxford Dictionary as an authoritative command or direction. Therein lies the second flaw, for since Austria 2002 race results have been changed without blatant commands or directions being given by management. One thinks back to Brazil 2007, when runaway leader (on home soil) Felipe Massa was edged aside for Kimi Räikkönen during the pit stop reshuffles to enable the Finn to take the world championship.
Not a word was said either before, during or after the incident, yet, somehow Massa found himself second through clear interference by somebody within Ferrari.
Lest all this make the Scuderia appear the only culpable party, consider that BMW in Canada 2008 mysteriously switched Nick Heidfeld, in the lead at that stage, onto a one-stopper with soft tyres (!), and when he was caught by team-mate Robert Kubica, on the better rubber, the former, despite absolutely esperate for a maiden win, waved the Pole through without hesitation, facilitating his first win. Again, not a word was said as the duo crossed the line in that order to score BMW’s only F1 victory, a one-two at that.
‘Let's just say I didn't make it too difficult,’ said Heidfeld enigmatically afterwards.
In Hockenheim 2008 Heikki Kovalainen found himself well-placed after a crash brought out the Safety Car. This was somewhat inconvenient for McLaren team-mate Lewis Hamilton, who was chasing through the field. When he caught the Finn he, Heikki, suddenly slowed to walking pace in his desperation to wave the Briton through, who later praised Heikki’s generosity.
‘Fair play to Heikki, what a great guy,’ said Hamilton. ‘He knew that I was a lot quicker than him at the time, and he knows where we stand if I'm much quicker than him.
‘He's such a smart and decent guy. I'm going to go and say 'thank you' to him now, because without him I wouldn't have finished where I did,’ added, whose 2008 championship was ultimately won by a single point...
Had Heikki, fighting for his career at that stage suddenly become charitable, or had some unheard message (or previously struck) agreement intervened? Either way, the race result was interfered with, surreptitiously or not, and arguably Hamilton secured his title on the back of that generosity.
More recently, in May this year, the Turkish Grand Prix saw two different sets of instructions: on the one hand Mark Webber was told to save fuel while Red Bull Racing team-mate Sebastian Vettel was told he still had a lap of full blast running left in his tank before he, too, would need to conserve high octane – but, wary of 39.1 (and RBR’s chosen internal policy of not imposing orders on its drivers), the drivers were not instructed in any way on race order. The result? A crash which dropped Webber to third and took Vettel out of the running despite the cars having locked out the front row in qualifying and laying one-two at the time. How daft is that?
The lead was then inherited by McLaren’s Hamilton and reigning champion Jenson Button, and when the latter made life a touch uncomfortable by fighting for position with his title predecessor – and overtaking him at one stage – both were instructed to ‘save fuel’, widely interpreted within the paddock at the time as ‘hold station’. Hamilton went on to win the race from Button...
The list of massaged races is, frankly, endless, yet on Sunday Ferrari was fined for appraising Massa of the situation. Is that any different to any of the previous examples, for if the essence of Art 39.1 is interference with the result of the race, then clearly in all instances detailed above the teams (and/or their drivers) have in some way interfered with the outcome.
And, so what? Since the beginning of the world championship in 1950, F1 has been a team sport, not only by design but by regulation: teams (note the word) are required to enter two cars for their contractually employed drivers with entry forms to be signed by team (note) principals, and the team owners themselves named their ‘trade union’ the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA), while the FIA’s Formula One Commission’s membership includes all team principals, who are referred to as such.
Yet, a team – defined by Oxford as two or more people working together - are not permitted to instruct their employees (drivers) to act in the best interests of the team and its sponsors!
Only in F1, note, for the FIA World Rally Championship’s sporting regulations do not include such a clause, and surely a competition is a competition, whether contested on tarmac or gravel, as a speed event or rally, for team orders can (and have been) equally been applied to rallying. In fact, quick perusal of the WRC regulations shows that the word ‘orders; is not mentioned in this context.
‘Experts’ such as former team boss Eddie Jordan – who of all people, a fortnight ago had the temerity to cross-examine Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner on ethics – suggested on BBC that race fans were robbed of a sporting contest, but so were they in Turkey and races past. Or is ‘robbing’ only present when team orders enable a driver to catch Hamilton (BBC) or Vettel (German media) on the points’ log? Strange that the Spanish and Italian media said hardly a word, while the Brazilians hammered Ferrari on Massa’s behalf. Stranger, too, that the Brazilians praised Massa when he enabled Räikkönen to win on his, Massa’s, home turf in 2008...
Strangest of all, though, is that in 1998, at Spa-Francorchamps, Jordan instructed the faster Ralf Schumacher to not ‘take’ team-mate Damon Hill so as to ensure a one-two victory for his team. Where lay the disgraced team boss’s sympathies, then? With the fans or the team result?
Whatever, there was a time when drivers within the same team swapped cars during a race – but that was before Jordan realised that F1 even existed – while our own Jody Scheckter arguably owes his 1979 title to team-mate Gilles Villeneuve, who dutifully toed the Scuderia line from the halfway point of that season. The previous year Mario Andretti won the title after Ronnie Peterson was forced to play second fiddle to the American.
In the final analysis the WMSC will first need to decide whether there is a case to answer, and, if so, decide whether Ferrari’s message to Massa was an advisory or an order as generally defined, for the FIA regulations themselves provide no definition. Then the body will rule accordingly on a date still be advised, but unlikely to be before end-August on account of F1’s pending four-week summer shutdown.
The WMSC would arguably be better served if it considered whether Art 39.1 actually has a place in 21st Century F1. Various luminaries think not, with Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn – who led Ferrari to every one of its ten world championships between 2000 and 2004 - and seven-time champion Michael Schumacher leading the charge.
‘I understand how F1 fans might be disappointed by what they have seen on Sunday,’ Brawn said post-Hockenheim. ‘(But) The rule that bans team orders is not realistic anymore. The teams and the FIA must find together a transparent solution that maintains the integrity of the competition and safeguards the sport.’
Schumacher, too agrees: ‘In the last race (Silverstone) for example, there were clear team orders, and everyone accepts those,’ he said. ‘So whether it's the last race or the second to last race or even earlier, what's the point? I can see in the years that we did it, because we were leading so much, people thought it was unnecessary. I can agree on that in a way.’
“You have to do it in a way that's maybe nice and not too obvious”
Cynics would say ‘well they would say that, wouldn’t that’ for they were co-conspirators in Austria 2002, but neither man achieved (vast) successes in F1 without some element of nous, so their opinions are worth considering, plus both have the ear of Todt on account of their employment histories. Plus, Todt’s son Nicolas manages Massa...
Adds Schumacher: ‘But in principal I fully cannot (with Art 39.1). I agree with what's going on, you have to do it in a way that's maybe nice and not too obvious, but there's only one target and that's winning the championship.’
That is what Schumacher achieved seven times and what Ferrari aims to do this year, with Hockenheim having made up just 5% of that plan. That 39.1 is outdated is encapsulated in Schumacher’s words above, for needing to do something in F1 ‘in a way that’s nice and not too obvious’ is absolutely farcical and has no place in F1. That, rather than Ferrari’s guilt, is what the WMSC should be ruling on.