191 replies to this topic

[DS27]

Nah, I think it was more invoking the NASCAR golden rule, 'never give the fans a different result on Monday to the one they left the track with'. 65,000+ people left the Norisring thinking Ekstrom had come first, but in fact watched an invalidated win. An upheaval of the results on this scale ought to be caused by something more than a technicality.

Still, at least Mercedes are happy...

A Technicality? Really?


"Technicality - noun (plural technicalities)

a point of law or a small detail of a set of rules, as contrasted with the intent or purpose of the rules"


I am at a loss to see how an attempt to cheat is classed as a technicality.

[redreni]

A Technicality? Really?


"Technicality - noun (plural technicalities)

a point of law or a small detail of a set of rules, as contrasted with the intent or purpose of the rules"


I am at a loss to see how an attempt to cheat is classed as a technicality.

Exactly. Picking up a flag on the slowdown lap is a technical breach because, although you're not allowed to collect objects on the slowdown lap, there's no way the flag is going to make it onto the scales with either the driver or the car so it doesn't offend against the purpose of the rule, which primarily concerns weight. Same goes for drivers hugging their crew before they are weighed - it's not allowed but as long as there's no funny business going on, it doesn't offend against the purpose of the rules.

In my view it would make the stewards' life easier if they would enforce all the parc ferme rules strictly and have some sort of punishment (maybe not DQ, but some sort of punishment) even for minor technical breaches because, that way, the rules would be respected and the opportunity for people to pull the sort of stunt we saw on Sunday wouldn't arise at all. And I expect that will happen now - I doubt the next driver to win a DTM race will be allowed anywhere near his crew until he has been weighed.

But to claim there's no difference between the purely technical breaches we see all the time, like drivers hugging their crew or picking up flags or whatever, and what we saw on Sunday is just wilful blindness. Either it's a very poorly executed attempt to cheat, or it's stupidity on a level that is easily sufficient to warrant disqualification.

[soren]

Mattias father Bengt is a former rallyx driver. He drove mostly BMW:s in the 80s and 90s. So he is not a newcomer in motorsport.

Mattias has been in controversal things before. This is from the STCC-final in 1999, the year Mattias won the STCC:

[string158]

Maybe he pissed himself during the race, and needed a cover

[TimRTC]

Maybe he pissed himself during the race, and needed a cover

Isn't that why they all spray champagne?

[redreni]

Maybe he pissed himself during the race, and needed a cover

Kicking myself for not thinking of this, but Tim Gray from Radio Le Mans has just pointed out that this incident will go down in history, and people will refer to it as "watergate".

[FenderJaguar]

so he wasn't even close to this minimum weight thing...? not surprised. mattias doesn't cheat. but he is a hell of a driver

[CSquared]

so he wasn't even close to this minimum weight thing...? not surprised. mattias doesn't cheat. but he is a hell of a driver

He didn't cheat by running the race underweight. He cheated by trying to get the scales to inaccurately overestimate the weight at which he ran the race.

[Zippel]

I can just imagine a situation after a wet race where a driver gets out of his car and stands in the rain a little too long.

[gm914]

Kicking myself for not thinking of this, but Tim Gray from Radio Le Mans has just pointed out that this incident will go down in history, and people will refer to it as "watergate".

Mitchell & Webb 'Watergategate'

[anbeck]

Hahaha, that's insane!

So today we should hear Audi's side of the story, shouldn't we?

[LuckyStrike1]

so he wasn't even close to this minimum weight thing...? not surprised. mattias doesn't cheat. but he is a hell of a driver

The minimum weight for a driver incl. race gear is 85 kg. Mattias is normally very close or slightly below that limit.

[redreni]

I can just imagine a situation after a wet race where a driver gets out of his car and stands in the rain a little too long.

That's why the parc ferme rules specify they should go to the weighbridge "immediately". That's a rule that could do with being enforced - they could allow the drivers a couple of minutes after they've been weighed but before they go up to the podium, to celebrate with the team, pose for pictures on top of the car etc. But "immediately", since it's in the rules, should mean exactly that, then you wouldn't get this kind of issue cropping up at all.

[redreni]

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/108939

"The DMSB told AUTOSPORT, amid much confusion as to what part of Article 44 had actually been breached, that the driver is considered part of his or her car in parc ferme[...]"

DTM Sporting Regs Article S 44:
44.1 From the moment the race leader receives the end-of-race signal, all classified cars are subject to Parc Fermé rules which apply on the whole area of the circuit. Any technical intervention on the cars is prohibited. It is prohibited to remove or add material or substances from or to the cars on their way from the track to the Parc Fermé.

44.1 Nach dem Abwinken des Führenden des Wertungslaufes unterliegen alle in Wertung befindlichen Wettbewerbsfahrzeuge auf dem gesamten Gelände der Rennstrecke den Parc-fermé-Bestimmungen. Es sind jegliche technischen Änderungen am Fahrzeug untersagt. Es ist auch verboten, während der Fahrt von der Strecke in den Parc fermé, Materialien oder Substanzen vom Fahrzeug zu entfernen oder dem Fahrzeug hinzuzufügen.

If the driver is considered part of the car in parc ferme, one assumes adding weight to the driver is a technical intervention on the driver and, therefore, on the car. but will the DMSB agree that the driver is considered part of the car while in Parc Ferme? If not, will they have to amend the regulations to stop weight being added to the driver in parc ferme?

[holiday]

Rules are there for a reason, rules are there to be followed...I can not understand how upholding a rule can be bad, and I can not see that the penalty lack common sense.

Reminds me of Stalin's saying: Revolutions can't happen in Germany, because you would have to step on the lawn.

[Wanderer]

It's beyond me how anyone could watch the video and still find the penalty too harsh.

[TimRTC]

Appeal should have been today but no news announced yet...

Perhaps they don't want to overshadow the 2014 China race news.

[sportyskells]

Or taking their time to make a call on this

[Gilles4Ever]

Jamie O'Leary @mrjamieoleary
Today @mattiasekstroem finds out whether he will get his Norisring #DTM win back. @Audi__Sport's appeal starts 4pm CET in Frankfurt (3pm UK)

[ardbeg]

If the water trick would be revealed ten years from now in a DTM history book, then we would laugh and say "smart". Now it's just seem clumsy and idiotic.

Edited by ardbeg, 30 July 2013 - 11:04.

[redreni]

Jamie O'Leary @mrjamieoleary
Today @mattiasekstroem finds out whether he will get his Norisring #DTM win back. @Audi__Sport's appeal starts 4pm CET in Frankfurt (3pm UK)

Thing about a 4pm hearing is, one assumes, the DMSB officials who hear it will not wish to be there all that long. I'm sure they all have dinner plans. Perhaps they're going for the perfunctory approach to justice...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Well, or the case is so straightforward you can make your argument in under an hour.

[HaydenFan]

Well, or the case is so straightforward you can make your argument in under an hour.

If you can make an argument that takes even close to an hour for this your lawyer is just trying to pad his billing.

I just hope this hasn't spoiled any relationship his Mattias and his father had.

Edited by HaydenFan, 30 July 2013 - 14:13.

[Gilles4Ever]

"@Audi__Sport: @mattiasekstroem remains excluded from #DTM #Norisring results. In the spirit of sport, we respect the decision by the DMSB appeal court"

[ardbeg]

"@Audi__Sport: @mattiasekstroem remains excluded from #DTM #Norisring results. In the spirit of sport, we respect the decision by the DMSB appeal court"

Sad. Fair, I guess, still a tragedy for the Ekström family. Ok, tragedy is too take it a bit far, but the shadow will be there.

[TimRTC]

I think the bigger news is that there is now no winner, so Wickens drops back to 2nd. Rather bizarre.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Now that doesn't make any sense. There was a Euro F3 race last year with no winner after penalties(which was a very German decision, and I mean that in a good way). But Wickens was declared the winner immediately after the penalty, no? Or was that just everyone's assumption that he moves up? If Wickens did inherit the win/result, how does he now lose it?

[Ross Stonefeld]

But at the time they DQ'd Ekstrom for the same reason as the final result. Breaking parc ferme. And I assume they realised at the time there was no performance advantage, it was a procedural violation. So why on race day was it Ekstrom DQ & Wickens promoted, but not now? In effect nothing has changed since the few hours after Norisring, other than Wickens losing his promotion to first.

[ensign14]

Hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

Perhaps the FIA ought to get people with a brain involved.

[redreni]

Autosport reports that the stewards did decide to move all the other classified drivers up one position as a result of Ekky's exclusion and the DMSB appeal court upheld the decision to exclude Ekky but reversed the decision to move the other drivers up.

I'd be interested to read the judgement because I can't imagine for the life of me why the DMSB would overturn the stewards' decision in a case like this. The last time I heard about something like this even being contemplated was when Max Mosley wasn't for-a-changing the outcome of the 2007 F1 WDC after a bunch of cars were chucked out for putting cool fuel in the cars at the pitstops in Brazil. He basically said that had the teams lost their appeal and their exclusions from the results had stood, they would not have promoted the other classified cars (including Hamilton). In the end it never came to that because the teams that were provisionally excluded threw enough doubt on the meaning of "ambient temperature" to get themselves reinstated.

To my mind if somebody is excluded the remaining classified finishers should always move up to fill the gap created. Either you're including Ekky in the classification or you're not, and if you're not then the first classified finisher is Wickens and he should win. I'd like to see that written into the rules.

Article 168 of the FIA International Sporting Code gives the stewards discretion to move the other drivers up in the classification:

168. Amendment to the classification and awards

In such cases as are provided for in Article 167 [i.e. where a competitor has been excluded, suspended or disqualified] , the stewards of the meeting shall declare the resulting amendment in the placings and awards, and they shall decide whether the next competitor should be moved up in the classification.

In international events the stewards pretty much always use this discretion to move the remaining classified drivers up. In F1, for example, I'm not aware of a single case where they've ever done anything else but move the remaining classified finishers up? If anyone has a scooby why on earth the DMSB would overrule the stewards in this case, I'd be interested to hear it...

[ensign14]

In international events the stewards pretty much always use this discretion to move the remaining classified drivers up. In F1, for example, I'm not aware of a single case where they've ever done anything else but move the remaining classified finishers up?

Brazil 1983. Nobody finished 2nd. Keke was DQ'd post-race for a pit-stop push-start, which followed a fuel flagration. For some inane reason they didn't promote everyone lower. Given Prost was 7th, and lost the title by 2 points, that could have had significant repercussions.

[scheivlak]

Autosport reports that the stewards did decide to move all the other classified drivers up one position as a result of Ekky's exclusion and the DMSB appeal court upheld the decision to exclude Ekky but reversed the decision to move the other drivers up.

I'd be interested to read the judgement because I can't imagine for the life of me why the DMSB would overturn the stewards' decision in a case like this. The last time I heard about something like this even being contemplated was when Max Mosley wasn't for-a-changing the outcome of the 2007 F1 WDC after a bunch of cars were chucked out for putting cool fuel in the cars at the pitstops in Brazil. He basically said that had the teams lost their appeal and their exclusions from the results had stood, they would not have promoted the other classified cars (including Hamilton). In the end it never came to that because the teams that were provisionally excluded threw enough doubt on the meaning of "ambient temperature" to get themselves reinstated.

To my mind if somebody is excluded the remaining classified finishers should always move up to fill the gap created. Either you're including Ekky in the classification or you're not, and if you're not then the first classified finisher is Wickens and he should win. I'd like to see that written into the rules.

Article 168 of the FIA International Sporting Code gives the stewards discretion to move the other drivers up in the classification:

168. Amendment to the classification and awards

In such cases as are provided for in Article 167 [i.e. where a competitor has been excluded, suspended or disqualified] , the stewards of the meeting shall declare the resulting amendment in the placings and awards, and they shall decide whether the next competitor should be moved up in the classification.

In international events the stewards pretty much always use this discretion to move the remaining classified drivers up. In F1, for example, I'm not aware of a single case where they've ever done anything else but move the remaining classified finishers up? If anyone has a scooby why on earth the DMSB would overrule the stewards in this case, I'd be interested to hear it...

I'm pretty sure why

If everybody moved up a place - which seems an utterly logical thing to do - championship leader and Audi driver Rockenfeller would have moved up from 5th to 4th, gaining a couple of points.

That would mean that a team could push a driver with the same car a few points up in the championship table by a - possibly - deliberate DQ. And championships have been won or lost by single points....

I think the DTM officials didn't want to promote the next finishers to higher placings because they didn't like to help Audi gaining a favourable Championship position for their main driver as a reslut of DQ'ing Ekstrom. That would leave the door open to some tricks.....

[redreni]

maybe it's just the location (just kidding)
If you look at last years F3 race at the same venue, you will find a similar outcome - no race winner.
The race winner (Daniel Juncadella) was excluded for a/some driving infringement(s), but the 2nd placed car, was not promoted to the win.

It's within the discretion of the stewards &/or in this case the court of appeal.
Why and if you consider this fair or just is a different matter, different people will have different opinions about this, it can be seen from both angles.

If I were in Wickens' position I would feel entitled to say that I stayed within the regulations and I finished ahead of all the other cars that did likewise, so I would be aggrieved to have the win taken away. That's the galling thing; the fact that it was given and taken away. If you're beaten fair and square that's one thing, but if Ekky beat Wickens fair and square why was he excluded?

If I were Mercedes I'd consider an appeal, depending what it says in the judgement by way of explanation. The ISC gives discretion to the stewards and the stewards exercised their discretion - I don't see why the DMSB appeal court would get involvd in that at all. They were hearing an appeal against the exclusion, weren't they? I wasn't aware Audi had appealed seperately against the decision to give the win to Mercedes - is that even appealable?

Edited by redreni, 30 July 2013 - 23:16.

[senna da silva]

Stupid decision to not award Wickens the win.

[redreni]

I'm pretty sure why ;)

If everybody moved up a place - which seems an utterly logical thing to do - championship leader and Audi driver Rockenfeller would have moved up from 5th to 4th, gaining a couple of points.

That would mean that a team could push a driver with the same car a few points up in the championship table by a - possibly - deliberate DQ. And championships have been won or lost by single points....

I think the DTM officials didn't want to promote the next finishers to higher placings because they didn't like to help Audi gaining a favourable Championship position for their main driver as a reslut of DQ'ing Ekstrom. That would leave the door open to some tricks.....

There are lots of ways for a team to prevent its non-title-contending drivers from finishing ahead of their title contender(s). You don't need to get kicked out of the race for cheating to achieve that. EDIT: Brain fade, Paffett binned it on the penultimate lap.

Edited by redreni, 30 July 2013 - 23:19.

[scheivlak]

There are lots of ways for a team to prevent its non-title-contending drivers from finishing ahead of their title contender(s). You don't need to get kicked out of the race for cheating to achieve that. And it's not a consideration in this case, is it, because the exclusion is better for Paffett than it is for Rocky?

I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong. I'm just pointing at what could have been the logic of their decision.

[BRG]

If there is no winner, how can anyone have come second?

[JHSingo]

Would've loved to have been in the room when they came to the conclusion that not having a race winner at all was somehow a good idea. Try explaining that one to the fans.

I sometimes wonder in these situations whether the stewards are motorsport fans or not. Because decisions like this would make you think not.

[ensign14]

It's not so much about making decisions to please fans; if what's right is unpopular, they should do what's right.

It's just that here they've made a complete pile of pig's bollocks sauteed with fresh cock-up out of it.

[redreni]

It's not so much about making decisions to please fans; if what's right is unpopular, they should do what's right.

It's just that here they've made a complete pile of pig's bollocks sauteed with fresh cock-up out of it.

[DS27]

Excellent - a resolution that leaves no one happy. Good job.

[Andrew Hope]

If there is no winner, how can anyone have come second?

My head exploded.