3425 replies to this topic

[halifaxf1fan]

Why on earth is that impossible? All it takes is a decision.

The driver involved would have to turn on his team to provide proof and that will not happen. Without this proof the only decisions possible are going to be either subjective or political which will result in irratic and unfair rulings. This effectively renders this type of rule to be useless in any practical sense. There simply is no proof.

[Hairpin]

The driver involved would have to turn on his team to provide proof and that will not happen. Without this proof the only decisions possible are going to be either subjective or political which will result in irratic and unfair rulings. This effectively renders this type of rule to be useless in any practical sense. There simply is no proof.

You do not understand what I mean. FiA need to decide if it is a team sport or if it is an individual sport and adjust the rules accordingly. About enforcing, say there is two teams from London in the Champions League playing a quarter final against each other. In the middle of the game, the trainer of one of the teams get a phone call from the London mayor (or similar) saying "let the other team win, we think they have a better chance of winning the cup".
How easy is that to enforce? Should it be legal because it is difficult to prove?

That is how sport is, there is some elements that falls into ethics and sportsmanship and those are always, always was and always will be, difficult to "enforce".
But when someone get's caught, they get caught and they have to pay the price. That is actually a fundamental part of all legal systems, there must be a risk involved, a risk that makes you think twice before you speed, before you rob a bank, before you kill your neighbors dog.

[Ferrari2183]

You do not understand what I mean. FiA need to decide if it is a team sport or if it is an individual sport and adjust the rules accordingly. About enforcing, say there is two teams from London in the Champions League playing a quarter final against each other. In the middle of the game, the trainer of one of the teams get a phone call from the London mayor (or similar) saying "let the other team win, we think they have a better chance of winning the cup".
How easy is that to enforce? Should it be legal because it is difficult to prove?

That is how sport is, there is some elements that falls into ethics and sportsmanship and those are always, always was and always will be, difficult to "enforce".
But when someone get's caught, they get caught and they have to pay the price. That is actually a fundamental part of all legal systems, there must be a risk involved, a risk that makes you think twice before you speed, before you rob a bank, before you kill your neighbors dog.

That would involve changing the face of Formula 1 as we know it. Not going to happen. Just allow team orders... If people aren't happy about team orders then they should watch something else. If a team wants a clear #1 and #2 then I'm all for it. It has proven to be a successful way of winning championships in the past.

[New Britain]

That would involve changing the face of Formula 1 as we know it. Not going to happen. Just allow team orders... If people aren't happy about team orders then they should watch something else. If a team wants a clear #1 and #2 then I'm all for it. It has proven to be a successful way of winning championships in the past.

You are addressing a different point - whether there should be a rule against team orders.
Regardless of whether there should be, right now there is. The rule was flagrantly broken, in a way that affected not only the race result but quite possibly the championship - which indeed was the offenders' very purpose for breaking it - and for this reason there should have been a more severe penalty.

[New Britain]

The driver involved would have to turn on his team to provide proof and that will not happen. Without this proof the only decisions possible are going to be either subjective or political which will result in irratic and unfair rulings. This effectively renders this type of rule to be useless in any practical sense. There simply is no proof.

There are subjective judgment calls made in every sport, all the time. "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is a good thing that, at long last, the FIA has moved towards having qualified stewards at GPs.
You can argue, if you like, that the evidence was not persuasive, or was inconsistent, but the notion that there had to be some sort of "smoking gun" proof in order for the regulator to pass judgment is fanciful and outside how it works in the real world.

[New Britain]

PS - Irrelevant note for the day. The thumbs up sign shown at the end of gladitorial combat meant that the victorious gladiator recieved acknowledgement to administer the fatal blow(s) to his defeated competitor, as it indicated that the poor soul about to perish was to be affored a glorious and noble death. Thumbs down meant he had to live in shame. Western society changed the significance of the gesture. (See Pearl Harbour, Ben Affleck, 2001 for modern day history readjustment, or Braveheart, Mel Gibson, 1995 if you want to research further).

There was a metaphorical basis for the gesture.
Putting a thumb down was to signify sliding a sword down into its scabbard, mercifully. Putting a thumb up was to signify lifting a sword out of its scabbard, readying it for use.

[Ferrari2183]

You are addressing a different point - whether there should be a rule against team orders.
Regardless of whether there should be, right now there is. The rule was flagrantly broken, in a way that affected not only the race result but quite possibly the championship - which indeed was the offenders' very purpose for breaking it - and for this reason there should have been a more severe penalty.

The rule was flagrantly broken in Brazil 2008 when Kimi got off the throttle down a straight to allow Massa to pass. No fuss was made then... It had even more of an effect on the championship than Germany 2010. You can't have your bread buttered on both sides. The rule was never properly enforced and you can't hand pick the examples you want to punish. I am happy with the ruling and even happier that the FIA admitted that the rule was never enforced and that it should be reviewed. I don't know what the fuss is about...

[New Britain]

The rule was flagrantly broken in Brazil 2008 when Kimi got off the throttle down a straight to allow Massa to pass. No fuss was made then... It had even more of an effect on the championship than Germany 2010. You can't have your bread buttered on both sides. The rule was never properly enforced and you can't hand pick the examples you want to punish. I am happy with the ruling and even happier that the FIA admitted that the rule was never enforced and that it should be reviewed. I don't know what the fuss is about...

Of course you can "hand pick" examples to enforce - it's called "proportionality", and "using judgment".
As for the specific case that you cite, I don't think that we want to use anything from the Mosley Era of systematic, unfettered favouritism for a precedent.

[Lifew12]

I do not think you are that stupid. You attempt to apply logic and fail miserably. Boolean algebra foreign to you? Trolling? Or what is your problem?

I don't have a problem and yes, boolean algebra is alien to me. What i'm saying is that you are happy to damn a body as corrupt when you don't like the verdict, but would be willing to waive that when you do, even if the decision itself was, in fact, corrupt as deciding to further punish Ferrari in the instance given would have been.

[Lifew12]

Would you please articulate the "pre-ordained scenario" under which Massa was required to yield to Alonso, but at the same time was a completely voluntary act by Massa,

Before we go on, can you point to where I said it was a 'completely voluntary act by Massa' because, if you wish, I can point to where I said it was not? It might help with the discussion if you cared to take note of what my stance is on the matter, rather than assuming I somehow believe somethign I've made it quite clear I don't believe at all.

[Lifew12]

You do not understand what I mean. FiA need to decide if it is a team sport or if it is an individual sport and adjust the rules accordingly.

This I agree with. Rescinding 39.1 does that quite easily, as since the late 1950's - until the present day - F1 has operated very nicely as both.

[rabbitleader]

I've moved on from Ferrari's "team orders gate". Now expecting the next FIA cover up, allowing any of the guilty parties involved in Crashgate to re enter F1 after only a very small period of re habilition. No prizes for guessing who.

Edited by rabbitleader, 18 September 2010 - 11:26.

[halifaxf1fan]

There are subjective judgment calls made in every sport, all the time. "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder, which is why it is a good thing that, at long last, the FIA has moved towards having qualified stewards at GPs.
You can argue, if you like, that the evidence was not persuasive, or was inconsistent, but the notion that there had to be some sort of "smoking gun" proof in order for the regulator to pass judgment is fanciful and outside how it works in the real world.

Wake up! Todt himself said there wasn't enough proof even in this case where it is was painfully obvious that a team order was given. Any rule that tries to read what is in the drivers mind cannot be enforced. Anyway rule 151 is on the books and is a catch all rule for whatever situation the FIA want to control to keep the optics of F1 ok. The team order rule needs to go the way of the dodo.

What McLaren did to help Hamilton win the wdc in 2008 and what Ferrari are doing to help Alonso to win the wdc this year were and are the right calls.

Edited by halifaxf1fan, 18 September 2010 - 14:10.

[aditya-now]

Wake up! Todt himself said there wasn't enough proof even in this case where it is was painfully obvious that a team order was given. Any rule that tries to read what is in the drivers mind cannot be enforced. Anyway rule 151 is on the books and is a catch all rule for whatever situation the FIA want to control to keep the optics of F1 ok. The team order rule needs to go the way of the dodo.

Ha, it´s great, this thread is still going!

What a discussion, and how many hypocrites around here who support the unsupportable.

The rule was crap right from the beginning, everyone continued to do team orders, and Ferrari were the only one courageous enough (and powerful enough) to do it openly.
Remember when Stefano Domenicalli phoned with "my boss" (Luca Montezemolo) when the BBC team wanted to interview him already in Hockenheim (when Eddie Jordan tried to highjack Stefano)?

I am sure they did all as planned, only that Massa and Dyer acted a little bit out of line. But it was all in the interest of Ferrari (and the sport, for that matter) to get the issue into the open.

Better openness (F1 is a team sport!) than hypocrisy!

[Hairpin]

I don't have a problem and yes, boolean algebra is alien to me. What i'm saying is that you are happy to damn a body as corrupt when you don't like the verdict, but would be willing to waive that when you do, even if the decision itself was, in fact, corrupt as deciding to further punish Ferrari in the instance given would have been.

I guess i give up on you regrading this issue. You claim that a corrupt court always make corrupt decisions. The same as saying that a person that lies never tells the truth. I claim that FiA proved itself being corrupt during the Max days and so far there is no evidence that anything have changed. So therefore say that not each decision they make is a result of corruption although many of the people involved is indeed corrupt. Same as with lying, sometimes not even the worst liar find any reason for not telling the truth.

[Hairpin]

This I agree with. Rescinding 39.1 does that quite easily, as since the late 1950's - until the present day - F1 has operated very nicely as both.

In your opinion. But many does not agree.

F1 is currently flawed, WCC and the WDC can not coexist with each driver doing what is best for himself. And how can people who is not actually competing for the WDC compete together with those who does?

Maybe they should copy "the chase" from NASCAR and allow only one member from each team to take part in the WDC and the other driver must assist. Would lead to funny situations though because I do not think there is anything worse for any driver than seeing your team mate becoming World Champion.

[Gene and Tonic]

In your opinion. But many does not agree.

F1 is currently flawed, WCC and the WDC can not coexist with each driver doing what is best for himself. And how can people who is not actually competing for the WDC compete together with those who does?

Maybe they should copy "the chase" from NASCAR and allow only one member from each team to take part in the WDC and the other driver must assist. Would lead to funny situations though because I do not think there is anything worse for any driver than seeing your team mate becoming World Champion.

Which is why it is so interesting to watch - there are many different situations at play. F1 would be more stale without the need to balance team and driver goals

[Hairpin]

Which is why it is so interesting to watch - there are many different situations at play. F1 would be more stale without the need to balance team and driver goals

Maybe. I am not a betting man myself, but I happen to think that when some people are not doing their best, then it is hard to judge the performance of the others. And when you can not judge the performance, watching sport is actually quite boring.

Think about it for a while - Alonso's fans was all ecstatic over how much faster Alonso was than Massa and then it turns out that Massa was ordered to run on reduced engine performance while Alonso used full. Heck, with the right performance advantage even I would be faster than Massa. So what is it worth? Is he faster or not? How many times have Ferrari played the same stunt? What about Massas' tire warming issues, are they intentional from the team to avoid competition that makes Alonso run screaming and kicking to the Spanish press? We do not know what we see but we know that things might not be as they look.

[Watkins74]

I guess i give up on you regrading this issue. You claim that a corrupt court always make corrupt decisions. The same as saying that a person that lies never tells the truth. I claim that FiA proved itself being corrupt during the Max days and so far there is no evidence that anything have changed. So therefore say that not each decision they make is a result of corruption although many of the people involved is indeed corrupt. Same as with lying, sometimes not even the worst liar find any reason for not telling the truth.

Maybe they are not corrupt at all, they are people who occasionally make a bad decision or they make the correct decision that you don't agree with.

Is there any chance that your opinion of the FIA is not 100% accurate 100% of the time?

Edited by Watkins74, 18 September 2010 - 15:25.

[Hairpin]

Is there any chance that your opinion of the FIA is not 100% accurate 100% of the time?

Eh... you know the meaning of the word 'opinion'?

[Watkins74]

Eh... you know the meaning of the word 'opinion'?

Your just trying to avoid the question. If you want to fight, find someone else.

Have a great day.

Edited by Watkins74, 18 September 2010 - 15:33.

[Hairpin]

Your just trying to avoid the question. If you want to fight, find someone else.

Have a great day.

I am not trying to avoid the question, but I have already answered it. If not before, spank-gate proved FiA is corrupt beyond belief.

[Henrytheeigth]

I am not trying to avoid the question, but I have already answered it. If not before, spank-gate proved FiA is corrupt beyond belief.

Aren't all if not most governing bodies in the world? All they care for most is money n power..

[Hairpin]

Aren't all if not most governing bodies in the world? All they care for most is money n power..

True, some more than others though.

[JPW]

Ha, it´s great, this thread is still going!

What a discussion, and how many hypocrites around here who support the unsupportable.

I agree, it's hilarious to see some with unresolved frustrations from Spygate, Spankgate or Liegate spew their venom here.

[New Britain]

Before we go on, can you point to where I said it was a 'completely voluntary act by Massa' because, if you wish, I can point to where I said it was not? It might help with the discussion if you cared to take note of what my stance is on the matter, rather than assuming I somehow believe somethign I've made it quite clear I don't believe at all.

I don't believe that I put "completely voluntary act by Massa" in quotations; I ascribed the literal phrase to no-one, including you.

Perhaps we can resolve this another way. Can you please explain what you mean by "pre-ordained scenario"?
As I see it, there are only two possibilities: either Massa slowed voluntarily, that is, the decision was entirely his own, or he did not and it was not.
This would be the difference between "team orders" (that is, the team's inducing the driver to do something that is contrary to his interests and which he would prefer not to do) and a personal act of sportsmanship and generosity.
It appeared to me unmistakable that Massa did not want to move over, but ultimately was pressurised by the team into doing so. Otherwise, I don't see how one could explain his trying to put in hot laps and defend his P1, making no perceptible effort to accommodate Alonso, until he got the word from Smedley, whereafter he almost immediately backed off and let Alonso overtake him.