55 replies to this topic

[jk]

I beleive the fact that DC lead Ms 1½ lap around Spa is a very important issue. If it was the first corner after MS came up behind DC, alot of blame could be putted on MS. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. DC led for 1½ laps! You can't say MS should have been more carefull when he trailed DC as long as he did. When DC has blocked him a couple of times, why should he then suddenly slow down in a non passing zone?
Spa is known for it's small rivers runnig across the track. Take a look at how Villeneuve spun out of the race http://f-1.sovintel....98/spa/spa9.mpg
Just suddenly the car turns straight left! If you want MS to leave the racing line and run across some rivers, well i don't beleive that.
A backmarker cannot "force" the leading var in making a lapping attemp when there are only 1 line raceable!

[MacFan]

To address several points that have been brought up:

Another factor is visibility. The McLaren tends to blend into the background - making it impossible for MS to see DC .

I submit that it was easier for MS to see DC's silver McLaren with it's high intensity red rear light than it was for DC to see MS in his mirrors. Therefore, MS would have known where DC was before DC would have known where MS was.

1. notion of maintaining the racing line.

It is true for everyone except backmakers. They should get off the racing line.

In fact, the driver's briefing discussions I mentioned earlier are aimed directly at backmarkers. Significantly slower drivers weaving all over the track trying to get out of the way are a faster driver's nightmare - how is he supposed to predict when and where they will go off the racing line? If backmarkers stay on the line, the lapping driver knows he can go off line at any time to pass - if they don't stay on line, he can't attempt a pass in case the lunatic backmarker swerves into him.

notion that DC drove at his best

...Please explain to me how did he "find" his pace once the job was done, lapping at the same pace as leaders in a heavely damaged car (3 collisions in one race, Impossible to fully fix in 5 mins).

Easy. They fixed the car at the pitstop, put on more wing, and corrected the setup, as there was no chance of the track drying by that stage of the race. Very possible in 5 minutes.

[Brackets]

Originally posted by ZZMS
This was the only race in 1998 were McLaren has been slower then Minardi and has been lapped without any technical problems. Also, compare DC's pace during other wet races in 1998 (or his whole carrier for that matter). Then please explain to me how did he "find" his pace once the job was done, lapping at the same pace as leaders in a heavely damaged car (3 collisions in one race, Impossible to fully fix in 5 mins).

This was also the only race in '98 where DC - driving the spare car after having written of his race car on the first start - crashed into a tyre wall backwards after having collided with Wurz in Les Combes on the opening lap of the restart. That should do some damage to the back end of his car. A back end that got repaired after MS drove into it.

Also, I would like to remind the court of the irrelevance of DC's blocking on the previous lap. Only the crash is at trail here.

[Hooster]

I would like to make my summation but first I feel I have no chioce but to adress Greg's latest post.

1. Greg: "responded by keeping a slower speed and driving along the extreme edge of the road".
Extreme edge of the road? He was on the racing line.

2. Greg: "DC did the common and safe thing by staying on the racing line and keeping a steady and slower speed to assist MS in passing. In this context and in this situation, I think that it is clearly MS's responsibility to make sure the pass is completed safely, and I feel that due to poor judgement or anger at being held-up, MS misjudged the distance and/or speed and the collision occured."
Here I think you go very far off track. MS did not misjudge the distance and speed of DC because of anger. He was simply unable to see DC. Is this not clear to you after watching the video? Had MS been able to see DC I agree with you but since DC was not visible I have a hard time understanding how MS was suposed to pass safely as you say. Perhaps if MS where to use mind reading or some kind of telekinesis he should have been able to understand where DC was?

What are the facts here?

1. DC intentionally held MS up for around one and a half laps. The evidence persented here proves this beyoned any reasonable doubt. DC was shown blue flags, DC had oportunities to let MS pass safely and DC drove considerably slower than normal. This is all proven by video evidence and DC's lap times.

2. DC failed to accelerate in a part of the track where acceleration is normal. This is proven by telemtry submitted by MacLaren showing that DC maintaned his speed in the area where he and others normall accelarate.

3. MS was unable to see DC untill it was too late for him to take action to avoid a collision. This simple fact shows that this could not have been MS's fault. He had no choice except to assume DC would accelerate in the area where acceleration was normal. This is a normal assumption and if it cannot be made I put it to you that wet weather racing would be impossible. In wet weather the car following is commonly covered in spray from the car ahead making visibility practically non existant. If the driver in the car behind is unable to trust the driver ahead under such circumstances wet weather racing would be reduced to a procession of cars, each following the other with about 100 m clearance with no chance of ever passing. The driver following MUST be able to count on the driver ahead not doing anything unexpected.

Conclusion. DC maintained his speed in an area where acceleration is normal knowing MS was behind him with little or no visibility. MS accelarated as normal. Who is to blame? The driver who was unable to see and drove as he normaly did trusting the driver in front or the driver in front who did something unusual while fully aware of the conditions. To me the verdict is clear. DC is 100% to blame for the collision.

[Rainstorm]

Thank you for all who submitted evidence to this case; the hearing is now closed.

I will take the next few days to read everything and do my best to reach a verdict as soon as possible.

Best regards,

Rain

[Rainstorm]

Fellow members,

My apologies for the time it has taken me to post this verdict. It was not an easy case to try and as you will note, the verdict itself was not a short nor clear-cut one to write.

On to the verdict.

*   *   *

Prologue: The Stuff that Controversies are Made Of

The 1998 season was, to a large extent, a tough year for Michael Schumacher. His biography, written by James Allen, called that year "the Quest for Redemption" - perhaps aptly so. After what must have been the lowest point of his career - the European Grand Prix of 1997, where he not only lost the World Championship to rival Jacques Villeneuve but also did so through crashing into Villeneuve as the latter made a passing move on him - Michael Schumacher must have been in a combative state of mind; 1998 was the year he was to clinch the World Championship, and make all his sins be forgotten, if not forgiven.

The start of the season did not quite pan out that way: McLaren had a different plan.

At the opening race of the season, the two McLaren drivers lapped the entire field. It was a display of dominance not seen for some time and Schumacher himself must have been wondering if he had not missed the boat the previous year, when the Ferrari was good enough to allow him to match title favourite Villeneuve.

A couple of races later, in Argentina, Schumacher was already involved in controversy, and with McLaren's David Coulthard no less. Making an aggressive passing move on Coulthard, who himself went somewhat wide, the German didn't earn any sympathy points from the Scot, who criticised Schumacher's move heavily.

Schumacher drove the rest of the year like a man possessed. Along the way he was involved in controversy (Silverstone, Canada, to name a couple) but also gave some of the best performances of his career (Hungary, for one). "In order to beat the McLarens," Peter Windsor wrote back then, "Michael had to take more risks than most drivers take in a decade."

Going into the Belgian Grand Prix - the 13th round of the 2000 season (out of 16) - Michael Schumacher was in the remarkable position of being second in Championship, merely 7 points behind Mika Hakkinen. Schumacher had 70 points; Hakkinen had 77. And Spa was, after all, Schumacher's favourite track, where he made a fantastic debut and where he won four times, finished first another time only to be disqualified, and finished another second. His record at Spa was, at that point, impeccable.

Schumacher was the favourite for a win at the Belgian GP, and a win was sure to vastly improve his chances in the World Championship. In fact, the mathematics showed that if Hakkinen were to not finish the race while Schumacher won, it would take the German into the lead of the standings.

What happened at the race itself is open to interpretation. The facts would show that Mika Hakkinen, starting from pole position, retired on the first lap of the second restart; that David Coulthard finished in 7th, some 5 laps behind the winner, and that Michael Schumacher retired from the Belgian Grand Prix on lap 25, after leading the race commandingly and crashing into the back of Coulthard's McLaren while attempting to lap him.

What happened on lap 25 remains a painful and controversial event to all involved, not least to the fans themselves. It isn't without logic that the incident would be viewed as a title-deciding one, considering what was at stake and what might have been. The context, therefore, only enhances the controversy, the suspicion and the bitterness.

Not surprisingly, therefore, this incident was one of the first cases to be presented to the Atlas F1 Court, brought to judgement by Smooth. For whatever reason, however, the case itself ran largely as an argument of opinions rather than a presentation of facts and analysis. I take the liberty of criticising both sides for the insufficient effort placed at bringing hard facts to this hearing - facts well known, very obtainable and rather helpful in arguing this case.

In writing this judgement, I had to tackle the lack of evidence, and the fact that this case is, after all, one that invokes interest. I had to make a decision between blocking out of my mind everything I read or heard outside of this courtroom, and between making my decision based solely on what was presented in this thread.

I found myself writing no less than three judgements in the course of the last two weeks. The result would be different in each, evidence not only of the dilemma I felt I am in but also of the complexity of the incident itself. For I believe that, in the end of the day, there is no right or wrong, only dumb and dumber.


The Accident Itself: Can You Please be More Careful?

So what exactly happened on lap 25 of the Belgian Grand Prix?

Video footage provided to the court shows race leader Michael Schumacher attempting to lap backmarker David Coulthard, and running his Ferrari into the back of the McLaren - his right front wheel completely detaching from the red car. The weather conditions - heavy rain - also played a vital part. the video clips show Coulthard's rooster tail (spray kicked off by the car) to be so thick and heavy, that you in fact don't see Schumacher until he moves to the left, a split second before he crashes into Coulthard's back.

If I was to judge solely based on those 10 seconds - and yes, that's all it was; if I was to put aside everything and anything that evolved around this incident, then it would be easy to say that Michael Schumacher made a mistake, misjudged Coulthard's position ahead of him due to bad visibility and ended his race due to his own bad move.

But an event can never be judged based on the 10 seconds of the actual action. Cause, state of mind and motive play as much a vital role in any "whodunit" story and in many trials can make the difference between Guilty and Not Guilty.

Imagine this: a gunshot is fired; a man dies. Was this a murder case? You will want to know what happened before, what invoked the gunshot, what reason the shooter had, whether the action was premeditated or perhaps an accident, etc.

Greg L writes:

The fact that DC did not quickly pull over to let MS pass puts DC's sportsmanship into question, but I think it has little or no relevance in this debate. The issue is who is responsible for the collision, and most people making this arguement are assuming that because DC did not let MS pass earlier, he MUST be responsible should a collision occur minutes later. Not so. The key issue, and the issue that several people avoided addressing, was the sequence of events immediately leading up to the collision.

I highly disagree. What happened in the previous laps leading to this incident has a big part in determining what happened in the incident itself, and who was to blame for it.

Sufficient evidence was brought to this court that David Coulthard blocked Michael Schumacher for a substantial amount of time, and certainly did not make it easy on the German to lap him in the previous lap and a half.

There seems to be no dispute between the prosecution and defence that Coulthard, being a backmarker, had no right to make the passing hard. Therefore, since that point in itself is not disputed, I will not delve on it and take it as a fact - David Coulthard should have moved over for Michael Schumacher much earlier than the point at which the accident happened, and in not doing so he showed bad sportsmanship.

But what I do agree on with Greg L is that this point alone does not make David Coulthard guilty. Not wishing to help a rival when you should be helping him is indeed bad sportsmanship, but it does not lend enough cause for belief that Coulthard planned or wanted Michael Schumacher to crash into him. Perhaps he was merely being difficult in the hope that Schumacher would make a mistake and spin; perhaps he was just being a small person about it, who knows? We never will know what went through Coulthard's mind in those two laps, and I will give Coulthard the benefit of the doubt that he most certainly did not mean to cause this accident.

However, I cannot help but imagine what frustration Michael Schumacher must have felt being stuck behind a relentless backmarker, in such conditions. The fact that Ferrari's sporting director Jean Todt had to walk to the McLaren garage, and the fact that Ron Dennis himself had to tell David Coulthard to let Schumacher by - albeit the fact that Coulthard already knew that Schumacher is behind him (as proved by the image presented to the court) - proves just how long Schumacher was stuck behind a backmarker who was unwilling to assist the race leader. One can only wonder: would Coulthard have been penalised - as he should have been - by the stewards, if the accident did not happen and Schumacher had not passed Coulthard safely within the next few yards?

Was Schumacher eager to get past David Coulthard? I'm sure he was. Did he have a reason for that? I believe that yes: he was the race leader and he was overtaking a backmarker. Does that make Schumacher in the right? Yes it does. But it does not absolve him entirely of the responsibility for accident itself.


After the 2001 Brazilian Grand Prix, where rookie sensation Juan Pablo Montoya was shunted out while in the lead by the Arrows of Jos Verstappen, Williams technical director Patrick Head said: "I think it's well known in any situation on the road that the responsibility is with the driver behind. If he runs into the car in front he pays for the damage to both cars."

This point was also stated by several posters in this case: the driver from behind bears the primary responsibility.

Is that so?

Road driving is invariably different than car racing. When you go and get your license, you learn how to slow down when nearing a crossroad; how to keep a healthy enough distance from the car in front at all times (a "braking distance" I believe it's called); you learn to make a pass on the left lane, not on the right, and how to slow down when being passed, to allow the passing driver to merge back into the lane ahead of you.

Imagine a Formula One race running by those rules!

No one would ever come close enough to make a pass; drivers would be stopping at the headlights for a chat and then politely say, "after you Michael"; and there would never be any lapping unless the road has two racing lines...

No, motor racing is invariably different than civilian road driving. It happens at different speeds, with reaction time vastly smaller, and with far more dangers and risks being taken than us mere mortals would attempt on the highway.

However, while I believe Patrick Head's comparison to civilian road driving is vastly inappropriate, I also believe there is some truth in the belief that the driver from the back can be and should be the more careful of the two.

That is especially true when visibility is so bad, as it was on lap 25 of the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix. I've heard no evidence to make me doubt that Michael Schumacher could not see David Coulthard well, just as Coulthard himself could not see Schumacher behind him well. What do you do in such conditions, then?

If the two were fighting for positions, I suppose the one behind would have to make a decision of whether to take the risk or settle for what he has.

If the two are not fighting for positions, then I would expect both of them to find a way that should end with one result only: the leader will lap the backmarker safely and as soon as possible.

I reiterate: it would need both of them.

Why Michael Schumacher tried to pass David Coulthard at a point with zero visibility, I don't know. I believe none of us will never know but I hasten to say that he could have been far better off showing some patience. After all, his lead in the race was vast, he had a WC leadership at stake, and he was tackling a problematic backmarker. Why take an unnecessary risk?

The Schumacher detractors of this case said he indeed took an unnecessary risk, and can blame no one but himself for the consequences.

The Schumacher defence, however, brings one important factor to establish Coulthard's guilt: his speed of driving at the point of the accident.

For indeed, if Coulthard lifted off on the racing line at zero visibility, then his driving should not only be condemned but he may be fully responsible for this accident.

Based on that, the Ferrari team lodged a complaint against McLaren and Coulthard, claiming the Scot slowed down on the racing line, at a point where a driver - even a backmarker - is expected to accelerate. McLaren in return produced telemetry which proves Coulthard "neither braked nor decelerated."

But looking at the video clips, one can also tell he also didn't accelerate. The result, to the viewing eye, is the same: Coulthard appears to go slower at those crucial seconds.

Furthermore, Ron Dennis produced tapes of voice communication telling Coulthard that Schumacher was closing in and to let him pass.

Schumacher didn't know that. How could he know, after almost two laps of chasing a backmarker, that at this point, on the racing line, that backmarker will suddenly be so 'helpful'?


The Verdict: How Wonderful to Have Someone to Blame!

mikedeering wrote:

Schumacher was clearly to blame [...] Schumacher would surely have seen he was approaching a McLaren, Ferrari's main title rivals that season. He had a huge lead, was obviously going to win as long as he kept going, Hakkinen was out of the race etc. Why the need to go so fast and take a risk against any traffic, espeically a McLaren which was bound to push the rules of sportsmanship to the limit? Regardless of whether Coulthard slowed deliberately, Schuey should have been prepared for any of DC's antics. [...] From this perspective, MS is to blame regardless of DC's actions.

I pondered a lot on that statement, for it reminded me of the old "She Asked for It" defence in rape cases: If a woman wears a mini and flirts with a stranger in a bar, well, then she should have no claim if she's then raped...

I cannot, in any good faith, place blame on Schumacher "regardless of Coulthard's actions." What kind of justice is that? What if proof was presented that Coulthard told Ron Dennis on the radio, "I am going to slow down deliberately and make Michael crash into me. Remember: you owe me." Would Schumacher still be "to blame regardless of DC's actions"?

To be fair, I believe there is a common misconception here on what blame is. Blame is being responsible for something; something happened because of you, hence you are to blame.

I will fully agree with the statement that Schumacher should have been more prudent, that he could have avoided this accident by contenting to follow a backmarker without attempting to pass. I will fully agree that Schumacher's move was not very smart. But can it fairly be stated that the incident on the 25th lap of the Belgian Grand Prix happened solely or primarily because of Michael Schumacher?

"Well it was very difficult conditions when we were in all that traffic. And to be honest, you couldn't see anything of the car in front so you had to have a pretty good deal of trust in the other drivers to still keep it flat."

The speaker: David Coulthard.
The occasion: post-race press conference of the 2001 Brazilian Grand Prix.

I wonder what Michael Schumacher felt, sitting alongside Coulthard when he said that...


I believe that the incident between Michael Schumacher and David Coulthard happened primarily because of Coulthard's behaviour - before and immediately going into those crucial 10 seconds.

I believe that David Coulthard, being the backmarker, had the full responsibility of assisting the race leader in safely lapping him, and in failing to do so he showed bad sportsmanship, to say the least, and should be apportioned blame for the subsequent result.

But I also believe that Michael Schumacher could have avoided this accident altogether by playing it smart. And sometimes, being right does not equal being smart.

Hence, the bottom line of my judgement is this:

both drivers were involved in an accident that could have easily been avoided by either of them. However David Coulthard should be apportioned more blame due to the fact that as a backmarker it is his responsibility first and foremost to assist the leader, even if it means completely clearing the racing line and saying, "After you Michael."

David Coulthard not only failed to assist the race leader, but he also made exceptional efforts of disrupting him. Therefore, I find David Coulthard guilty, for he himself had created the circumstances that lead to this accident to begin with.


Epilogue: But it Could Have Been Different

My verdict above is based solely on the arguments presented in this thread. However, I will contend that my verdict could have been different if other available evidence would have been presented to the court.

As I mentioned, I was disappointed at the lack of factual evidence and analysis produced in this case. I am surprised, for example, that not one poster brought to the court, as evidence, the incident between Schumacher and Pedro Diniz but 3 laps before, where Schumacher almost crashed into the back of Diniz at exactly the same situation as subsequently happened with Coulthard. Such evidence, for example, could have strengthened the claim that Schumacher was behaving recklessly in the context the race was run: he had a healthy lead, visibility was zero and yet the race leader almost crashed when overtaking one - innocent - backmarker and went on to crash into the next backmarker. That is strong evidence.

Perhaps this evidence alone would not have been enough to change my verdict. Perhaps it could have overturned it altogether. Either way, it's a moot point; based solely on the arguments made in this case, my verdict above remains intact.

To those who took the time to participate in this case, and to those who followed it from the back benches - I thank you. It was a fascinating case to follow and delve into, and the experience of writing this verdict was truly remarkable.

Thank you,

Rain.