If you want to learn about the stewarding in Formula One…
Discussion
If you want to learn about the stewarding in Formula One...
then don’t bother reading the puff-piece in the latest issue of F1 Racing magazine.
In the article, Bradley Lord describes some of the F1 stewards’ tools and processes for doing the job.
Lord allows that some of the stewards’ actions have been controversial, but the tenor of his article plainly is meant not to scrutinise them, but to justify them.
The author interviews Graham Stoker, F1 steward from the MSA, and Alan Donnelly, Mosley buddy who is referred to as the “permanent steward”.
Amongst the nonsense in the article:
- In reply to the criticism that the stewards are amateurs, Donnelly claims that “all (our) stewards have enormous experience”. If so, why only this month, of this year, did the FIA need to commence the policy that any national stewards operating at an F1 race for the first time must have observed at least one GP before obtaining their steward’s “super-licence”?
- Addressing the same issue, Stoker claimed that, if stewards were professional, that would compromise their independence. The logic of that is entirely opaque, just as it is entirely opaque why amateur stewards, to whom GP assignments handed to them by the FIA would be the highlights of their stewarding career, are necessarily independent. Pray tell, why?
- Donnelly claims that to have a former driver as a steward would not help, because “being an expert on motor racing rules and regulations is not the same thing as driving a car”. Precisely, Donnelly – which is why a former F1 driver has got to be part of the stewards’ team.
- Donnelly then tries to argue against having former drivers as stewards on the basis that Michael Schumacher might have a bias against former rival Fernando Alonso, and thus might not be reliably unbiased. Is one expected to believe that Schumey is the one and only former driver available to be a steward?
- Donnelly justified the delay at Singapore in giving penalties to Rosberg and Kubica for having pitted too early under the safety car because, he said, the stewards first had to study the Massa incident (which had happened later), and also had to wait for the pit-lane observers to confirm that Rosberg and Kubica had taken on fuel, before they could assign what were otherwise “open-and-shut” penalties.
It took them 20 minutes to confirm that the drivers had taken on fuel? Furthermore, Massa’s incident took him out of the competition, whilst Rosberg and Kubica were still very much in it. Why didn’t their easy-to-resolve issues take priority over Massa's irrelevancy?
- Regarding why the stewards stole Hamilton’s Spa victory and gave it to Massa, Donnelly claimed that they had relied on the precedent from Suzuka ’05, in which Alonso cut a chicane and overtook Klien, gave back the position insufficiently before overtaking a second time, and was then required by the stewards to concede the position again and start over.
This might be superficially persuasive (although the two situations were actually different in several ways) to anyone who did not recall or bother to look back at what actually happened.
The problem with Donnelly’s explanation is that at Suzuka, shortly after having forced Alonso to make the second concession, the stewards – too late – sent a new instruction to Renault – that Alonso should ignore the previous instruction, and that he did not have to concede again! Small detail, eh Donnelly?
- It was also interesting that Donnelly, in his search for the right precedent for Hamilton’s penalty, somehow neglected the incident that took place a year after Alonso/Klien's, in Hungary ’06, when Schumacher blatantly cut a chicane to prevent his being overtaken by de la Rosa. Perhaps the reason that Donnelly neglected to cite this incident was that, not only had the stewards failed to require Schumacher to re-concede, but Schumacher had never conceded in the first place. The stewards had done nothing about that, either. Another small detail. Funny how these small details seem to add up after a while.
The article had three glaring omissions staring the reader in the face. They were the questions that Bradley Lord didn’t bother to raise (let alone investigate) with the “permanent steward”:
- "What qualifications for the job of 'permanent steward' do you, Alan Donnelly, have?",
- “On what basis can you justify what many consider to be the most illogical and unfair stewards' decision in a decade, a penalty that nearly decided the World Drivers’ Championship – gifting an extra point to Massa in Japan after he had crashed into Bourdais?”, and,
- “What are the details and the extent of your firm’s historical business relationship with Ferrari SpA, when did you and it last do business with Ferrari, and will you make a binding undertaking that in no future circumstances will your firm or you personally do business with them?”
One supposes that it would have been too much to expect “The world’s best-selling GP magazine” to have asked Donnelly and Stoker truly probing questions, or to make an independent assessment of the validity of their assertions. So much easier meekly to accept them, and to pave the way for paddock access and more obsequious articles in future..
Then again, this is the august journal that loftily announced in its May ’08 issue, after the revelations of the Chelsea Embankment Affair, that they would “give it all a miss”, and instead “concentrate on what really matters: the sport” and, in the same issue, ran a six-page article on “Inside QPR with Flavio”.
The world’s “best-selling” GP magazine? Perhaps, and perhaps also the world’s least-respected.
then don’t bother reading the puff-piece in the latest issue of F1 Racing magazine.
In the article, Bradley Lord describes some of the F1 stewards’ tools and processes for doing the job.
Lord allows that some of the stewards’ actions have been controversial, but the tenor of his article plainly is meant not to scrutinise them, but to justify them.
The author interviews Graham Stoker, F1 steward from the MSA, and Alan Donnelly, Mosley buddy who is referred to as the “permanent steward”.
Amongst the nonsense in the article:
- In reply to the criticism that the stewards are amateurs, Donnelly claims that “all (our) stewards have enormous experience”. If so, why only this month, of this year, did the FIA need to commence the policy that any national stewards operating at an F1 race for the first time must have observed at least one GP before obtaining their steward’s “super-licence”?
- Addressing the same issue, Stoker claimed that, if stewards were professional, that would compromise their independence. The logic of that is entirely opaque, just as it is entirely opaque why amateur stewards, to whom GP assignments handed to them by the FIA would be the highlights of their stewarding career, are necessarily independent. Pray tell, why?
- Donnelly claims that to have a former driver as a steward would not help, because “being an expert on motor racing rules and regulations is not the same thing as driving a car”. Precisely, Donnelly – which is why a former F1 driver has got to be part of the stewards’ team.
- Donnelly then tries to argue against having former drivers as stewards on the basis that Michael Schumacher might have a bias against former rival Fernando Alonso, and thus might not be reliably unbiased. Is one expected to believe that Schumey is the one and only former driver available to be a steward?
- Donnelly justified the delay at Singapore in giving penalties to Rosberg and Kubica for having pitted too early under the safety car because, he said, the stewards first had to study the Massa incident (which had happened later), and also had to wait for the pit-lane observers to confirm that Rosberg and Kubica had taken on fuel, before they could assign what were otherwise “open-and-shut” penalties.
It took them 20 minutes to confirm that the drivers had taken on fuel? Furthermore, Massa’s incident took him out of the competition, whilst Rosberg and Kubica were still very much in it. Why didn’t their easy-to-resolve issues take priority over Massa's irrelevancy?
- Regarding why the stewards stole Hamilton’s Spa victory and gave it to Massa, Donnelly claimed that they had relied on the precedent from Suzuka ’05, in which Alonso cut a chicane and overtook Klien, gave back the position insufficiently before overtaking a second time, and was then required by the stewards to concede the position again and start over.
This might be superficially persuasive (although the two situations were actually different in several ways) to anyone who did not recall or bother to look back at what actually happened.
The problem with Donnelly’s explanation is that at Suzuka, shortly after having forced Alonso to make the second concession, the stewards – too late – sent a new instruction to Renault – that Alonso should ignore the previous instruction, and that he did not have to concede again! Small detail, eh Donnelly?
- It was also interesting that Donnelly, in his search for the right precedent for Hamilton’s penalty, somehow neglected the incident that took place a year after Alonso/Klien's, in Hungary ’06, when Schumacher blatantly cut a chicane to prevent his being overtaken by de la Rosa. Perhaps the reason that Donnelly neglected to cite this incident was that, not only had the stewards failed to require Schumacher to re-concede, but Schumacher had never conceded in the first place. The stewards had done nothing about that, either. Another small detail. Funny how these small details seem to add up after a while.
The article had three glaring omissions staring the reader in the face. They were the questions that Bradley Lord didn’t bother to raise (let alone investigate) with the “permanent steward”:
- "What qualifications for the job of 'permanent steward' do you, Alan Donnelly, have?",
- “On what basis can you justify what many consider to be the most illogical and unfair stewards' decision in a decade, a penalty that nearly decided the World Drivers’ Championship – gifting an extra point to Massa in Japan after he had crashed into Bourdais?”, and,
- “What are the details and the extent of your firm’s historical business relationship with Ferrari SpA, when did you and it last do business with Ferrari, and will you make a binding undertaking that in no future circumstances will your firm or you personally do business with them?”
One supposes that it would have been too much to expect “The world’s best-selling GP magazine” to have asked Donnelly and Stoker truly probing questions, or to make an independent assessment of the validity of their assertions. So much easier meekly to accept them, and to pave the way for paddock access and more obsequious articles in future..
Then again, this is the august journal that loftily announced in its May ’08 issue, after the revelations of the Chelsea Embankment Affair, that they would “give it all a miss”, and instead “concentrate on what really matters: the sport” and, in the same issue, ran a six-page article on “Inside QPR with Flavio”.
The world’s “best-selling” GP magazine? Perhaps, and perhaps also the world’s least-respected.
Can't say I'm surprised. Mainstream Formula 1 journalism has become an awfully stale, overly-cautious old goat.
So much of being able to effectively report it lies in the hands of the people who run it, it's very difficult for journalists to actually ask any of the difficult questions, from a professional point of view. You get one great interview, but then you lose your job. Hurrah.
So much of being able to effectively report it lies in the hands of the people who run it, it's very difficult for journalists to actually ask any of the difficult questions, from a professional point of view. You get one great interview, but then you lose your job. Hurrah.
Nick_F said:
I tend to view that particular title as being, in effect, 'contract published' on behalf of the sport's vested interests - as such I'd no more expect it to critical, or even insightful, than I would Sainsbury's instore magazine.
The funny thing is that, a few years ago and lasting for maybe three years, there was a competing magazine, which was called something like "F1". Its logo was the official Formula One logo, because it was published by one of Bernie's companies. It went tapioca.F1 Racing is published by Haymarket, publishers of many motoring mags and owners of PH, who appear to know more about what sells mags than Bernie's people did.
In its treatment of the FIA, Autosport, also owned by Haymarket, has had at least some more backbone than F1 Racing has had (although that's a ground-level bar to get over).
It's possible unambiguously to take on the FIA and still do business, however. Motor Sport's coverage of the FIA's outrages has been quite forthright.
Unfortunately it is only to be expected - the interview being a complete waste of time and resources. Almost anyone could have predicted what Alan Donely would have to say in response to the questions asked, and had the extra questions been asked no doubt the answer would have been related to the continuation of press passes for those concerned.
There is, however, no need for the magazine to keep quiet - the stance taken by Motorsport is surely much better, Maurice Hamilton making hos points very well whilst making it clear it is his own opinion. The one issue of the French magazine F1i which I bought this year also showed that it is possible to report negatively about the FIA and continue - the issue I have is the one which severely criticised MM and pointed out facts such as his Monaco office being paid for by Ferrari.
What a shame though that Donnelley doesn't face up to the realities which should go along with his post and recognise that it does require total independence. I suspect that, to take his example, any influence from Schumacher against Alonso would be much less than that which may come from an unqualified, inexperienced steward who has been a (probably very well paid) commercial advisor to one of the teams making decisions relating to that team.
There is, however, no need for the magazine to keep quiet - the stance taken by Motorsport is surely much better, Maurice Hamilton making hos points very well whilst making it clear it is his own opinion. The one issue of the French magazine F1i which I bought this year also showed that it is possible to report negatively about the FIA and continue - the issue I have is the one which severely criticised MM and pointed out facts such as his Monaco office being paid for by Ferrari.
What a shame though that Donnelley doesn't face up to the realities which should go along with his post and recognise that it does require total independence. I suspect that, to take his example, any influence from Schumacher against Alonso would be much less than that which may come from an unqualified, inexperienced steward who has been a (probably very well paid) commercial advisor to one of the teams making decisions relating to that team.
andyps said:
Unfortunately it is only to be expected - the interview being a complete waste of time and resources. Almost anyone could have predicted what Alan Donely would have to say in response to the questions asked, and had the extra questions been asked no doubt the answer would have been related to the continuation of press passes for those concerned.
It wouldn't surprise me at all, Andy, if the article had been proposed by the FIA to the magazine, rather than vice versa. These devious 5hits know how to play the game: let us not forget that, by occupation (one could hardly call it a 'profession'), Donnelly is a lobbyist and PR guy. They don't care about the opinions of those who have been following racing for decades and have a real understanding of the sport. They care about the opinions of the people who buy the Ferrari baseball caps and believe that Bourdais was just a clumsy so-and-so for getting in Massa's way in Japan. That's where the money lies.
This is all part of their plan to condition their market into thinking the Formula One is entirely above board and honest - just like we all know it is!
I think that this year with Damien Smith and Nigel Roebuck on board that Motor Sport magazine and it's coverage of F1 has been outstanding. Autosport has had it's moments too.
I'll only ever read F1 Racing in a waiting room when some other fool has paid for it and the only alternative is House and Garden or some other middle class toilet paper.
I hope you didn't spend money on it flemke
I'll only ever read F1 Racing in a waiting room when some other fool has paid for it and the only alternative is House and Garden or some other middle class toilet paper.
I hope you didn't spend money on it flemke
LanCat said:
I think that this year with Damien Smith and Nigel Roebuck on board that Motor Sport magazine and it's coverage of F1 has been outstanding. Autosport has had it's moments too.
I'll only ever read F1 Racing in a waiting room when some other fool has paid for it and the only alternative is House and Garden or some other middle class toilet paper.
I hope you didn't spend money on it flemke
In the past, they've had an occasional article that was quite good. Revealing interviews with Jackie Stewart and Adrian Newey spring to mind. ISTM an interesting one with Patrick Head too. Every once in a while they have some decent photography as well, although that mostly ended a few years ago when they seemed to drop their regular salon features on classic F1 cars.I'll only ever read F1 Racing in a waiting room when some other fool has paid for it and the only alternative is House and Garden or some other middle class toilet paper.
I hope you didn't spend money on it flemke
I must admit, however, that these days to buy a copy of the magazine is, as Dr Johnson said about second marriages, "the triumph of hope over experience".
flemke said:
It wouldn't surprise me at all, Andy, if the article had been proposed by the FIA to the magazine, rather than vice versa.
I am pretty sure you are right. The only other alternative is that the magazine proposed it, asked for comment and were given specific areas which they were allowed to cover. Either way, those who have followed the sport closely will hopefully see through the propaganda, the problem is the more casual fan may believe it.flemke said:
- Regarding why the stewards stole Hamilton’s Spa victory and gave it to Massa, Donnelly claimed that they had relied on the precedent from Suzuka ’05, in which Alonso cut a chicane and overtook Klien, gave back the position insufficiently before overtaking a second time, and was then required by the stewards to concede the position again and start over.
This might be superficially persuasive (although the two situations were actually different in several ways) to anyone who did not recall or bother to look back at what actually happened.
The problem with Donnelly’s explanation is that at Suzuka, shortly after having forced Alonso to make the second concession, the stewards – too late – sent a new instruction to Renault – that Alonso should ignore the previous instruction, and that he did not have to concede again! Small detail, eh Donnelly?
- It was also interesting that Donnelly, in his search for the right precedent for Hamilton’s penalty, somehow neglected the incident that took place a year after Alonso/Klien's, in Hungary ’06, when Schumacher blatantly cut a chicane to prevent his being overtaken by de la Rosa. Perhaps the reason that Donnelly neglected to cite this incident was that, not only had the stewards failed to require Schumacher to re-concede, but Schumacher had never conceded in the first place. The stewards had done nothing about that, either. Another small detail. Funny how these small details seem to add up after a while.
Good post, and i'm particularly glad you raised these points re Spa. At Suzuka '05 the stewards had simply not seen that Alonso had already given the position back, and then overtook again, so they ordered him to let Klein pass again. Once they had been told that Alonso *had* already let Klein pass, they rescinded their oder but it was too late. Alonso would have won that race had that not happened.This might be superficially persuasive (although the two situations were actually different in several ways) to anyone who did not recall or bother to look back at what actually happened.
The problem with Donnelly’s explanation is that at Suzuka, shortly after having forced Alonso to make the second concession, the stewards – too late – sent a new instruction to Renault – that Alonso should ignore the previous instruction, and that he did not have to concede again! Small detail, eh Donnelly?
- It was also interesting that Donnelly, in his search for the right precedent for Hamilton’s penalty, somehow neglected the incident that took place a year after Alonso/Klien's, in Hungary ’06, when Schumacher blatantly cut a chicane to prevent his being overtaken by de la Rosa. Perhaps the reason that Donnelly neglected to cite this incident was that, not only had the stewards failed to require Schumacher to re-concede, but Schumacher had never conceded in the first place. The stewards had done nothing about that, either. Another small detail. Funny how these small details seem to add up after a while.
The one big thing about this years penalties though, is that in all the stuff i've read about them, no-one addresses the issue of why penalties were handed out in a manner that has never been done before in the sports 58 year history. That's the issue for me. That's what i would like explaining. It would put my mind at rest that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we were about to have the first black world champion.
I would say though, that imo the incident with Schumacher and PDLR was similar to Spa this year, in that one driver did not give room to the other in the chicane. In each incident the one driver was given nowhere to go and so had to take to the run-off or collide with the other car. Had that been the reason given for not penalising MS then it should have been used for LH. But in fact no reason was given at all IIRC for not penalising Schumacher.
flemke said:
I must admit, however, that these days to buy a copy of the magazine is, as Dr Johnson said about second marriages, "the triumph of hope over experience".
Indeed it is, I've stopped buying Evo now and I never thought I'd say that. Sniff Petrol and Drivers Republic and Autoblog/World Car Fans are all I need these days.I used to subscribe to F1 Racing a few years ago, when it was under different editorship. I cancelled my subscription when Matt Bishop left - his long-form interviews were a regular highlight, but since he left the magazine has essentially turned into what F1 Magazine was before it folded.
When I left my last job, my colleagues bought me a year's subscription to F1 Racing as a leaving present, which is the only reason I read it. Every time I open it up, I have hope for the content - and every time, I am disappointed.
When I left my last job, my colleagues bought me a year's subscription to F1 Racing as a leaving present, which is the only reason I read it. Every time I open it up, I have hope for the content - and every time, I am disappointed.
heebeegeetee said:
Jungles said:
Didn't Schumacher concede a lap later?
My memory is very fuzzy.
IIRC he continued and kept the place.My memory is very fuzzy.
Not only did he not ever voluntarily concede to de la Rosa, but a couple of laps after that Schumacher pulled the same stunt against Heidfeld.
Recall that this was in '05, when the Ferrari was not competitive anyhow.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff