Ferrari threaten to have a REAL strop
Discussion
So, now Ferrari want to stamp their feet good and proper. GROW UP!!
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/162629/1/ferrari_thre...
Dr Rick
http://www.crash.net/f1/news/162629/1/ferrari_thre...
Dr Rick
I'm in two minds about this.
1. It's from crash.net, I would normally call BS at this point.
2. It could get interesting if they call into question the FIA's mandate to enforce fines/affect sporting championships. If the FIA are found to be unsuitable to make judgements like these, would there be a retrospective over previous decisions? $100million fine anyone? + the TV revenue for the year after.
1. It's from crash.net, I would normally call BS at this point.
2. It could get interesting if they call into question the FIA's mandate to enforce fines/affect sporting championships. If the FIA are found to be unsuitable to make judgements like these, would there be a retrospective over previous decisions? $100million fine anyone? + the TV revenue for the year after.
If the FIA can prove beyond doubt that team orders were applied, then Ferrari would not have a case as they broke the rules. Simple!
In my mind, the only way that they can prove this is with data and lap time which, if reports after the race prove correct, show that Alonso was not faster than Massa or not by a margin sufficient to require Massa to yield.
Ferrari may claim that Alonso was slower because he was behind Massa. That will then come down to percentage of throttle / brake use between the two which again, rather suggests that Alonso was pushing hard to keep up with Massa.
What every single person with eyes, ears, brains, knows to be true is very different to what can be proven.
I reckon the threat of a civil action is simply a ploy to get the FIA to skew their opinions if the decision is marginal - which I think it will be.
In my mind, the only way that they can prove this is with data and lap time which, if reports after the race prove correct, show that Alonso was not faster than Massa or not by a margin sufficient to require Massa to yield.
Ferrari may claim that Alonso was slower because he was behind Massa. That will then come down to percentage of throttle / brake use between the two which again, rather suggests that Alonso was pushing hard to keep up with Massa.
What every single person with eyes, ears, brains, knows to be true is very different to what can be proven.
I reckon the threat of a civil action is simply a ploy to get the FIA to skew their opinions if the decision is marginal - which I think it will be.
StevieBee said:
In my mind, the only way that they can prove this is with data and lap time which, if reports after the race prove correct, show that Alonso was not faster than Massa or not by a margin sufficient to require Massa to yield.
I disagree. There is ample circumstantial evidence to support the allegation of team orders. Overwhelming is too small a word. I wish I'd been able to go to court with this amount of evidence every time.Then is the original message to Massa sugggesting that the three seconds gap is significant. This was at a time when Alonso suddenly speeded up. Then there is the messsage from Smedley. It has only one interpretation.
There is the aborted first attempt to overtake Massa. It was obvious to Brundle that Alonso thought he was going to be let through.
There is the move over, then the congratulations/thanks.
Then the comment to Massa to say he's back (at the back?).
At the end Alonso shows his caring side by asking if massa was alright. He's all heart.
And then, critically, there's the debacle afterwards. Loads of comments and statements which can only be interpreted as team orders.
For the messages to Massa to make any sense there needs to have been a decision before the race as to the protocol.
Ferrari now have to decide on their strategy at the hearing. Do they deny there were team orders? Very risky. Very risky indeed. Even without someone in charge who has no concern for spectacle (more on this later) to deny what went on with so much evidence to prove that it did is extremely dangerous.
Do they admit it but suggest that other teams do it all the time? If so then where will they get the evidence - remember it is only since the Schumacher incident that it has been illegal.
The main bit against them is that it was done with cool minds before the race. In other words they showed what the hearing might feel in contempt for the rules.
The other way will be to plead mitigation. Difficult season, need every point to challenge, Massa nowhere, Alonso only hope, only if much faster did it come into play: all that sort of rubbish.
Further, this is a big test for the new Todt system. The FIA are under scrutiny. Is Todt really any better than the disaster that went before him? He states that discipline is nothing to do with him. Oh, yes it is mate. We will know a lot more about Todt at the end of this enquiry.
I only hope he won't try and show that he isn't a puppet of Ferrari. All that needs to happen is a bit of a wrist slap and then let it go. The thing is not that they had team orders but they ignored a rule that was brought in because of the way they manipulated the rules in the past (and who was in charge then? I forget.) Further, Todt was well upset when the last bit of mainuplation was penalised. Is he now going to put the boot in as a show of strength against that bloke who ran the sport into the ground.
And talking about albatrosses around your neck there is this somewhat confusing comment from some bloke who used to think he was important:
"I will not make any recommendation, but on the facts at the moment there should have been some sporting sanction and not only a fine."
That is one hell of a non recommendation.
the most sensibel result would be nil point for all concerned: Ferrari, Massa and Alonso. they were all involved.
And two other things, a sort of slap and tickel: a warning, yellow card sort of thing, to Ferrari and a promise to look into the rule.
Quote from article...
"with former FIA president Max Mosley stating his belief that the team should lose the maximum score it secured with its controversial 1-2 finish."
Well, they ain't gonna want to agree with Maximilian, are they now?
Would Sir prefer his long term loaner in black or red??
"with former FIA president Max Mosley stating his belief that the team should lose the maximum score it secured with its controversial 1-2 finish."
Well, they ain't gonna want to agree with Maximilian, are they now?
Would Sir prefer his long term loaner in black or red??
Derek Smith said:
I disagree. There is ample circumstantial evidence to support the allegation of team orders. Overwhelming is too small a word. I wish I'd been able to go to court with this amount of evidence every time.
I agree with your disagreement (!)But...only from a civil law perspective (I'm no legal expert so happy to be corrected)
The FIA don't really work under any legal structure other than that they create themselves otherwise, would not Max Mosely be charged with prejudice, given his public comments could be amply argued they are designed to influence the opinion of the judge/jury in advance of the case hearing?
Just a thought!
StevieBee said:
Derek Smith said:
I disagree. There is ample circumstantial evidence to support the allegation of team orders. Overwhelming is too small a word. I wish I'd been able to go to court with this amount of evidence every time.
I agree with your disagreement (!)But...only from a civil law perspective (I'm no legal expert so happy to be corrected)
The FIA don't really work under any legal structure other than that they create themselves otherwise, would not Max Mosely be charged with prejudice, given his public comments could be amply argued they are designed to influence the opinion of the judge/jury in advance of the case hearing?
Just a thought!
I would assume that now there is no legally trained person in charge of the FIA the discipline system will start to depend on evidence. No one reckons they know more about the law and ignore as a matter of course like a failed lawyer.
Derek Smith said:
I would assume that now there is no legally trained person in charge of the FIA the discipline system will start to depend on evidence. No one reckons they know more about the law and ignore as a matter of course like a failed lawyer.
If you were to extrapolate that a bit further Derek, one could reasonably argue that 'no one reckons they know more about regulation changes to make better racing and ignore the F1 engineer's advice like a failed racing driver with a physics degree'.Mazda Baiter said:
Derek Smith said:
I would assume that now there is no legally trained person in charge of the FIA the discipline system will start to depend on evidence. No one reckons they know more about the law and ignore as a matter of course like a failed lawyer.
If you were to extrapolate that a bit further Derek, one could reasonably argue that 'no one reckons they know more about regulation changes to make better racing and ignore the F1 engineer's advice like a failed racing driver with a physics degree'.Derek Smith said:
Mazda Baiter said:
Derek Smith said:
I would assume that now there is no legally trained person in charge of the FIA the discipline system will start to depend on evidence. No one reckons they know more about the law and ignore as a matter of course like a failed lawyer.
If you were to extrapolate that a bit further Derek, one could reasonably argue that 'no one reckons they know more about regulation changes to make better racing and ignore the F1 engineer's advice like a failed racing driver with a physics degree'.
This latest from Maranello seems rather ham-fisted, which has been a quality common to a number of the team's actions in recent times. When they were hand-in-glove with der Floggermeister, they didn't make these mistakes.
Any argument about Mosley's prejudicing the Council will get nowhere. Nobody cares anymore about what he says.
Although the French Court upheld Briatore's appeal, that was on technical grounds that the FIA had exceeded its actual powers.
This here is about the FIA's application of powers that it indisputably has (unless Ferrari want to argue that the official 2007 World Constructors Championship should go from itself to McLaren because the FIA did not have the right to penalise McLaren).
ISTM that the only thing that Ferrari will accomplish by this sabre-rattling will be to set the WMSC against it. Any entrant has the right, as per FIA constitution, to challenge a ruling in civil court. The WMSC is well aware of that already. Ferrari's attempt to intimidate the WMSC (for whom I have not a shred of sympathy, but they are a reality with whom the players must deal) is most likely to backfire.
Any argument about Mosley's prejudicing the Council will get nowhere. Nobody cares anymore about what he says.
Although the French Court upheld Briatore's appeal, that was on technical grounds that the FIA had exceeded its actual powers.
This here is about the FIA's application of powers that it indisputably has (unless Ferrari want to argue that the official 2007 World Constructors Championship should go from itself to McLaren because the FIA did not have the right to penalise McLaren).
ISTM that the only thing that Ferrari will accomplish by this sabre-rattling will be to set the WMSC against it. Any entrant has the right, as per FIA constitution, to challenge a ruling in civil court. The WMSC is well aware of that already. Ferrari's attempt to intimidate the WMSC (for whom I have not a shred of sympathy, but they are a reality with whom the players must deal) is most likely to backfire.
Just to get my credentials established, I did physics in my first year at uni and I've done some amateur karting so I'm sure we can all agree I know what I'm talking about
I'm with flemke on this one I think it's an attempt by Ferrari to either intimidate the WMSC into backing down even partially by threatening more "bad" publicity for F1 in the form of a civil dispute and then offering to drop any potential action as a bargaining chip. They may also be thinking that they can try and get some positive PR by dropping the action as "for the good of the sport" (see Mercedes re: Monaco) I also think it will likely backfire for them on both counts. I'm sure the WMSC are aware that the court of public opinion as pretty much already decided that Ferrari are cheating gits who deserve to be punished so any bad PR from a subsequent appeal from Ferrari is likely to fall on the boys in red rather than the WMSC.
Also as evidenced by this thread and comments I've seen on other sites about this news the general response from the fans has been that this makes Ferrari look like whiny children just for talking about doing a civil case so another PR own-goal there methinks.
I'm with flemke on this one I think it's an attempt by Ferrari to either intimidate the WMSC into backing down even partially by threatening more "bad" publicity for F1 in the form of a civil dispute and then offering to drop any potential action as a bargaining chip. They may also be thinking that they can try and get some positive PR by dropping the action as "for the good of the sport" (see Mercedes re: Monaco) I also think it will likely backfire for them on both counts. I'm sure the WMSC are aware that the court of public opinion as pretty much already decided that Ferrari are cheating gits who deserve to be punished so any bad PR from a subsequent appeal from Ferrari is likely to fall on the boys in red rather than the WMSC.
Also as evidenced by this thread and comments I've seen on other sites about this news the general response from the fans has been that this makes Ferrari look like whiny children just for talking about doing a civil case so another PR own-goal there methinks.
grumbledoak said:
Pathetic. Why do people even still consider this a sport; it's worse than football.
Controversy and competition have long made uncomfortable but ever present bedfellows. All part of the tapestry which - truth be told - makes the whole a tad more interesting.The worst that can happen is when people think that it matters in the wider scheme of things.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff