49 replies to this topic

[Woking]

"Nevertheless the Council finds it impossible to sanction the two drivers, because they were both contractually bound to execute orders given by the team. "

That is to say RB has no right to say "no" to team orders, or Ferrari could fire him immediately because of a breach of the contract?

This is stupid I think, this is not sporting at all. What do you guys think?

[HP]

Originally posted by Woking


This is stupid I think, this is not sporting at all.

Agreed, but F1 is mainly a business operation, so...

[baddog]

the day teams stop paying drivers, is the day drivers stop being contracutally obliged to their employers. what the hell do you think those milliions rubens gets are for.

Shaun

[hedges]

Originally posted by Woking
This is stupid I think, this is not sporting at all. What do you guys think?

I have no idea what you consider your word to be worth, but a contract is just that, your word. RB and every other driver have every right to ignore team orders, there is no real legal obligation to follow them, however breaking that contract means your team would have no legal obligation to provide you with employment. I don't think sporting even enters into it.

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by hedges


I have no idea what you consider your word to be worth, but a contract is just that, your word. RB and every other driver have every right to ignore team orders, there is no real legal obligation to follow them, however breaking that contract means your team would have no legal obligation to provide you with employment. I don't think sporting even enters into it.

Well, not necessarily. I agree that the sportingness of team orders is not really relevant, but I feel that one's "word" has nothing to enforce it but one's own sense of responsibility and obligation. A contract, on the other hand, has clauses, penalties, etc., that can be invoked in reprisal against a party that does not fulfill it. Therefore, I think one could make the case that if Rubens Barrichello disobeyed Ferrari's orders at Austria knowing full well that the consequence might be the sack, he could be said to have behaved more honorably than if there were no team orders clause in his contract and he had rather personally promised Jean Todt that he would relinquish the lead to Michael Schumacher if asked, and then refused.

Having said all that, I really rather doubt that Ferrari would have fired Rubens had he disobeyed. Who would they replace him with? Badoer? Burti? To secure the services of anyone else in the short term would require much more contract-breaking and reneged-upon-promises (on the part of Fisichella, Montoya, Raikkonen, or whomever). And furthermore, does anyone think that it is remotely possible that Ferrari would have fired Michael Schumacher if he had refused to take the win at Austria? I mean, even REMOTELY possible? He could presumably get Jean Todt and Ross Brawn fired, if he was so inclined. So his talk of being obligated to obey team orders as much as Rubens Barrichello is a little disingenuous - in fact, considering the manner of his departure from Jordan and Benetton, more than a little disingenuous.

I certainly think that one generally is morally obligated to do one's best to fulfill a contract that one has committed to, but Austria '02 is light-years distant from being a compelling example of the sublime beauty of the rule of law.

[BobP]

Hey... Everbuddies got the right to pulla Jean Alesi. Once in they pea-pickin' life.

As fer ignorin' team orders inna race? Schure thin'. Jus' so long's ast the pilot's got sufficient petrol'n'rubber to last to the FINISHED line.

An' considerin' thet he's gonna be purfecktly happy cuttin' his grass on Sundays fer the resta his natchurel life.

'Cuz in this day'n'age a BIG bidness Uber ALLES, ain't gonna be no team whut's even half acceptable [BAR excepted, even tho' they don't git their noses over the lowest limbo bar in town] gonna ever look at sucha NON-team player. Which is why FORD has likely given thumbs-down to extending Semi-Fast Eddies contract.

So, to answer the oh-riginal question, nice try dude, but NO ceegar!

Forza anna say-hey fer hustle, tho'.

Bob

[Spunout]

It´s interesting that using team orders is against the rules of F1 but it is not against the rules of F1 to make a contract where driver promises he will obey team orders...

[Mosquito]

Originally posted by Spunout
It´s interesting that using team orders is against the rules of F1 but it is not against the rules of F1 to make a contract where driver promises he will obey team orders...

Since when are team orders against the rules of F1?

[Liam]

Can a driver disobey team orders? Absolutly not. He drives for the team, he bloody well does as the team says. For a driver to willfully disobey a team order he has recieved is about as unsporting as you can get, it's just plain wrong. If I ran a team and a driver of mine disobeyed an order he's have a hard time getting back in he car the week after. It has nothing to do with contracts or business and everything to do with fair play.

I was not happy when Ralf decided to ignore orders last year in France, and you can be sure Patrick Head and Frank Williams made sure he knew just how annoyed they were too, behind closed doors of course.

Remember Gilles Villeneuve and his reaction to Peroni disobeying team orders at Imola.

Any driver that feels he can just ignore team orders when it suits him has no place in any form of motorsport, I'd be surprised if he even made it to F1.

[pRy]

It depends.

On the one hand, you could suggest that a driver such as Barrichello, who if he ignored team orders... may stand a chance of retaining his job, simply because of the back lash that the F1 fans would create if Ferrari fired him. If you imagine, the "victim" Barrichello having to move over and loose another win, and saying "No" only to be fired... the fans would take up his cause and Ferrari would get alot of problems from them. However.. one thing has changed that. Nurburgring. Schumacher allowing Rubens to win has in a way, nulled out any possibility of Rubens using his victim status to his own advantage.

Ignoring a team order suicide? Well look at Ralf Schumacher. He ignored two team orders to let Montoya pass him last year, and what did it get him? some would say more status in the team.

If Rubens had ignored the team order at A1 Ring, I speculate he would not have been resigned. But who knows how Ferrari works.

[Frans]

INCREDIBLE that this can even LEAD to any form of discussion!



EVERY human, has the RIGHT to say NO.

tell me, can you make me a list of people who HONOR a contract in a tough world as F1 today, in respect-levels or something? Admited, it's all relative, always, total diffrent in any one's viewpoint, but the right to say NO?

even Rubens has it, so do you, .

>> .dUh

and I'd applause him for doing so, ... like one person once said; "it are the SMALL things what do it."

indeed!

[LuckyStrike1]

Do you have the right to tell your boss at work: **** off, I'm going home. You can do my job if it wasn't for the fact you don't know a thing." ??

Of course you are, but don't count on keeping your job. Of course a driver has the right to disobey teamorders but he wouldn't have much chance of staying with the team ...

[Jon Allen]

I would have never guessed that F1 fans would turn out to be such fierce believers in the absolute sanctity of contracts and one's overarching duty to always obey his or her superiors unquestioningly. This belief must be inspired by the conduct all of the great sports and entertainment figures of our age, including Grand Prix drivers and team principals.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Jon Allen


Well, not necessarily. I agree that the sportingness of team orders is not really relevant, but I feel that one's "word" has nothing to enforce it but one's own sense of responsibility and obligation. A contract, on the other hand, has clauses, penalties, etc., that can be invoked in reprisal against a party that does not fulfill it.

It is still your word, you are just offering compensation if you choose to reneg on it. By saying no legal obligation I mean any driver has the right to refuse a team order, but obviously they would then be obliged to compensate the other party.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Therefore, I think one could make the case that if Rubens Barrichello disobeyed Ferrari's orders at Austria knowing full well that the consequence might be the sack, he could be said to have behaved more honorably than if there were no team orders clause in his contract and he had rather personally promised Jean Todt that he would relinquish the lead to Michael Schumacher if asked, and then refused.

There is nothing honourable in breaking your word just so you can win a race. If RB was morally against team orders he wouldn't have signed the contract, let alone be racing in F1. He can talk out about team orders any time he likes, why wait untill it occurs in a race. If RB had taken the win it would have been for his own gain, that he considered winning more important than the consequences. He would not have been reaching out to fans, making a statement about team orders and the rights and wrongs thereof. He races for a team, he signed a contract with that team and he has lived up to that contract.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Having said all that, I really rather doubt that Ferrari would have fired Rubens had he disobeyed. Who would they replace him with? Badoer? Burti? To secure the services of anyone else in the short term would require much more contract-breaking and reneged-upon-promises (on the part of Fisichella, Montoya, Raikkonen, or whomever).

I don't know whether they would have fired him or not but I think Burti or Badoer could fill in just fine. The WDC looks well in hand and as for the WCC, this is the F2002 we are talking about, how many laps have they completed in it, they would be garaunteed points as long as they finished.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
And furthermore, does anyone think that it is remotely possible that Ferrari would have fired Michael Schumacher if he had refused to take the win at Austria? I mean, even REMOTELY possible? He could presumably get Jean Todt and Ross Brawn fired, if he was so inclined. So his talk of being obligated to obey team orders as much as Rubens Barrichello is a little disingenuous - in fact, considering the manner of his departure from Jordan and Benetton, more than a little disingenuous.

Utter bollocks, there is no way MS could get Jean Todt (the man who hired MS) fired. Jean Todt is further up the food chain than either of his drivers and there is no way Luca would let anyone question who ran his team. I agree there is no chance MS would have been fired for refusing the order but since MS has ALWAYS followed team orders, even when to his detriment in 1999 it appears he is just as obligated. How anyone can think that one guy hired to drive a car for a few years now runs the team and company is beyond me, what reality do people live in.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
I certainly think that one generally is morally obligated to do one's best to fulfill a contract that one has committed to, but Austria '02 is light-years distant from being a compelling example of the sublime beauty of the rule of law.

Sublime beauty of the rule of law, what the ... RBs reaction at Austria showed he was well aware of what his contract, signed just two weeks before Austria, meant.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Jon Allen
I would have never guessed that F1 fans would turn out to be such fierce believers in the absolute sanctity of contracts and one's overarching duty to always obey his or her superiors unquestioningly. This belief must be inspired by the conduct all of the great sports and entertainment figures of our age, including Grand Prix drivers and team principals.

I am surprised you value your word and contracts so cheaply. Since RBs 'superiors' only asked him to honor his contract I fail to see your objection. Ferrari didn't ask RB to kill anyone, they didn't ask him to poke himself in they eye, they didn't even ask him work late without overtime. They asked him to honour the clause in his contract that said he may be called on to give up a win that he will in turn be compensated for.

If my boss asks me to do something that falls within my contract/job description I do so, as I would not have signed it if it contained anything I considered objectionable. If I was asked to do anything outside my job description and I was morally opposed I would refuse and my contract would protect me, limiting any possible reppocusions.

You may choose to base your beliefs and morals on whoever you wish, my word will continue to mean something to me and those who know me.

[The First MH]

Can a driver ignore team orders? Sure. Ralf Schuy ignored them last year when Monty was on a different pit strategy as him. He simply ignored them, saying his radio wasn't working...

Hindsight is always 20/20 though, and if a driver disobeyed orders on safety grounds I don't think you can blame them. Drivers can tell the difference between right and wrong, and if they are in a situation were judgement is required then they should try use it. In Austria Michael should have had the judgement ot hit the brakes...

[Jon Allen]

Hedges - thanks for the comprehensive reply. Actually, I would love to see Burti or Badoer get to race - to see Luca Badoer, in particular, drive the best F1 car ever built in an actual Grand Prix after all his earlier talent-obscuring misfortunes at the back of the grid would be wonderful.

As for the Jean Todt/Ross Brawn getting fired remarks, I don't mean that Michael Schumacher runs the company - I know he doesn't. But if he threatened to go to Williams if Jean Todt was not replaced (I know, it will never happen) then we would see who has the real de facto power at Ferrari. FIAT knows which side of the bread contains the highest concentration of butter. David Couthard could not get Ron Dennis fired - but David Coulthard is not the greatest and most lavishly compensated (for good reason) F1 driver of the day, and Ron Dennis has fewer people to answer to.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that Rubens should have disobeyed team orders in Austria, or that if he had he should have escaped any consequences resulting from it. (Which I thought I made clear.) I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a little incredulous that the sanctity of contracts in F1 is getting such a ringing defense as a result of the Austria decision. (I assume we all take a dim view of Toyota and Gustav Brunner, right?) The tone almost seems more appropriate to an episode of "Davey and Goliath" than a glamorous international sport known for it's cutthroat atmosphere and Machiavellian intrigue. I simply don't believe that most of the people defending the Austria incident on those grounds actually believe so strongly in contractual obligation - perhaps you do, in which case I admire the consistency of your convictions. (Really.) But elsewhere, I see a lot of disingenuousness and hypocrisy.

In any case, had Rubens disobeyed team orders in Austria, it obviously would not have been because he was " morally opposed" to team orders, or that he wished to make a "statement" regarding them in a public forum. It would have been because he had comprehensively outqualified and outraced Michael and had moreover (if the accounts of the radio conversation I've read are accurate) been promised by Jean Todt that he would not have to relinquish leads to Michael, and had concluded, in the heat of the moment, that (on that day at least) Ferrari could go soak their heads. Not honorable perhaps, but not exactly dishonorable either.

Anyhow, thanks for the complete and well-argued reply.

[Slyder]

I wonder why Didier Pironi wasn't fired after his stunt over Villeneuve in Imola 82?

Or how bout Reutemann in Brazil 80?

[The First MH]

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Hedges - thanks for the comprehensive reply. Actually, I would love to see Burti or Badoer get to race - to see Luca Badoer, in particular, drive the best F1 car ever built in an actual Grand Prix after all his earlier talent-obscuring misfortunes at the back of the grid would be wonderful.

As for the Jean Todt/Ross Brawn getting fired remarks, I don't mean that Michael Schumacher runs the company - I know he doesn't. But if he threatened to go to Williams if Jean Todt was not replaced (I know, it will never happen) then we would see who has the real de facto power at Ferrari. FIAT knows which side of the bread contains the highest concentration of butter. David Couthard could not get Ron Dennis fired - but David Coulthard is not the greatest and most lavishly compensated (for good reason) F1 driver of the day, and Ron Dennis has fewer people to answer to.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that Rubens should have disobeyed team orders in Austria, or that if he had he should have escaped any consequences resulting from it. (Which I thought I made clear.) I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a little incredulous that the sanctity of contracts in F1 is getting such a ringing defense as a result of the Austria decision. (I assume we all take a dim view of Toyota and Gustav Brunner, right?) The tone almost seems more appropriate to an episode of "Davey and Goliath" than a glamorous international sport known for it's cutthroat atmosphere and Machiavellian intrigue. I simply don't believe that most of the people defending the Austria incident on those grounds actually believe so strongly in contractual obligation - perhaps you do, in which case I admire the consistency of your convictions. (Really.) But elsewhere, I see a lot of disingenuousness and hypocrisy.

In any case, had Rubens disobeyed team orders in Austria, it obviously would not have been because he was " morally opposed" to team orders, or that he wished to make a "statement" regarding them in a public forum. It would have been because he had comprehensively outqualified and outraced Michael and had moreover (if the accounts of the radio conversation I've read are accurate) been promised by Jean Todt that he would not have to relinquish leads to Michael, and had concluded, in the heat of the moment, that (on that day at least) Ferrari could go soak their heads. Not honorable perhaps, but not exactly dishonorable either.

Anyhow, thanks for the complete and well-argued reply.

First off, your analogy with Ron Dennis is simply wrong. Ron could never be fired as he owns much of McLaren... And thinking that Michael and Jean Todt/Ross Brawn would come to blows is illogical as they form an unbeatable team.

Second, as far as contracts go, I think we have to draw a distingtion. There is a difference between a written contract that is broken on the grounds that you are furthering your career (a la Brunner) and doing what is right or wrong (a la Austria). The one is a judgement call while the other is a business/carrer transaction. And as far as team orders on Austria go, the onus of responsibility fell not with Rubens but with Michael. Michael could have (should have?) disobeyed team orders, but Rubens was ion no position to.

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by hedges


I am surprised you value your word and contracts so cheaply. Since RBs 'superiors' only asked him to honor his contract I fail to see your objection. Ferrari didn't ask RB to kill anyone, they didn't ask him to poke himself in they eye, they didn't even ask him work late without overtime. They asked him to honour the clause in his contract that said he may be called on to give up a win that he will in turn be compensated for.

If my boss asks me to do something that falls within my contract/job description I do so, as I would not have signed it if it contained anything I considered objectionable. If I was asked to do anything outside my job description and I was morally opposed I would refuse and my contract would protect me, limiting any possible reppocusions.

You may choose to base your beliefs and morals on whoever you wish, my word will continue to mean something to me and those who know me.

Oh dear, I knew when I made my original post I was risking a personal attack on my own ethics.

Indeed, RB did fulfill his contract. And I said that if he hadn't, he would have been obliged to face the consequences but that it would be, under the circumstances, an understandable impulse. How then do you conclude that I value my word and contracts so cheaply?

[Williams]

It's too bad this discussion is taking place in the context of drivers' contracts. Obviously if Rubens signed a contract saying that he could be asked to move over for Michael, then there is simply no way he can refuse.

On the other hand when he was asked to give up second place to Michael at Austria last year, he very surprised and upset, which makes me think that the issue of giving up places for Michael was not part of his contract. Further more in this year's race he stated that he argued with the team that he had been told that he would not have to give up a win to Michael, but in the end relented, not wanting to argue over it "at 180mph", as he put it. In both of these cases, where was the honour of the team in respecting their obligations to Rubens ? I wonder just how dishonorable Rubens really would have been to refuse under those circumstances. In fact, he would have been simply taking Ferrari at their "word", expecting them to do their own honourable thing in sticking to their word.

One could go even farther. To hear Rubens' account of what happened, the team asked him to move over, but after he pointed out their promise regarding giving up a race win, they in fact had to plead with him to do so "for the good of the team". In fact Rubens did not obey an order but rather did Ferrari a favour by moving over. One could argue that this was the sort of favour that one does one's boss when "requested" to come to work on a weekend, but I don't think one could have accused Rubens of being dishonourable if he had refused.

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by The First MH


First off, your analogy with Ron Dennis is simply wrong. Ron could never be fired as he wons much of McLaren... And thinking that Michael and Jean Todt/Ross Brawn would come to blows is illogical as they form an unbeatable team.

Second, as far as contracts go, I think we have to draw a distingtion. There is a difference between a written contract that is broken on the grounds that you are furthering your career (a la Brunner) and doing what is right or wrong (a la Austria). The one is a judgement call while the other is a business/carrer transaction. And as far as team orders on Austria go, the onus of responsibility fell not with Rubens but with Michael. Michael could have (should have?) disobeyed team orders, but Rubens was ion no position to.

But that's my point - Jean Todt does not own much of Ferrari the way Ron Dennis owns much of McLaren. That's why Michael Schumacher would be in a much better position to go over a team principal's head than David Coulthard. And I realize that Schumacher/Todt/Brawn are a united front - I was simply trying to illustrate that MS' remarks about not disobeying in Austria because he was subject to team orders as much as RB rings a little hollow.

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by Williams
It's too bad this discussion is taking place in the context of drivers' contracts. Obviously if Rubens signed a contract saying that he could be asked to move over for Michael, then there is simply no way he can refuse.

On the other hand when he was asked to give up second place to Michael at Austria last year, he very surprised and upset, which makes me think that the issue of giving up places for Michael was not part of his contract. Further more in this year's race he stated that he argued with the team that he had been told that he would not have to give up a win to Michael, but in the end relented, not wanting to argue over it "at 180mph", as he put it. In both of these cases, where was the honour of the team in respecting their obligations to Rubens ? I wonder just how dishonorable Rubens really would have been to refuse under those circumstances. In fact, he would have been simply taking Ferrari at their "word", expecting them to do their own honourable thing in sticking to their word.

One could go even farther. To hear Rubens' account of what happened, the team asked him to move over, but after he pointed out their promise regarding giving up a race win, they in fact had to plead with him to do so "for the good of the team". In fact Rubens did no obey an order but rather did Ferrari a favour by moving over. One could argue that this was the sort of favour that one does one's boss when "requested" to come to work on a weekend, but I don't think one could have accused Rubens of being dishonourable if he had refused.

Well put. Since none of us have ever seen (and will presumably never see) Rubens Barrichello's contract with Ferrari, the whole discussion is taking place in an evidential vacuum. Which is one (admittedly lesser) reason why I'm failing to display the required outrage over the hypothetical case of Rubens refusing to move over, although I have assumed for the sake of the discussion that RB's contract does have a team orders (at least under certain circumstances pertaining to championship points status and positions held - 2/3, 3/4, etc.) clause.

[schuy]

F1 is a team sport, it is not an individual person sport.
The driver, e.g. JP Montoya has to do what the team tells him.
If the team tells him they want him to finish 24th in the quals, and he fails to do so, it's the same as John Smith not giving in his paper in time to his boss.

Liran Biderman.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Hedges - thanks for the comprehensive reply. Actually, I would love to see Burti or Badoer get to race - to see Luca Badoer, in particular, drive the best F1 car ever built in an actual Grand Prix after all his earlier talent-obscuring misfortunes at the back of the grid would be wonderful.

I couldn't believe they didn't give him a chance in 99 after MS broke his leg

Originally posted by Jon Allen
As for the Jean Todt/Ross Brawn getting fired remarks, I don't mean that Michael Schumacher runs the company - I know he doesn't. But if he threatened to go to Williams if Jean Todt was not replaced (I know, it will never happen) then we would see who has the real de facto power at Ferrari. FIAT knows which side of the bread contains the highest concentration of butter. David Couthard could not get Ron Dennis fired - but David Coulthard is not the greatest and most lavishly compensated (for good reason) F1 driver of the day, and Ron Dennis has fewer people to answer to.

I just can't believe MS has that much power in Ferrari. Luca bought Todt in to fix Ferrari and I think he would side with him no matter what and there is no way MS carries more weight than Luca. This is just my opinion though so my utter bollocks comment was a bit over the top, sorry, I may have argued with RicaroF1 too many times, he's a bit more adversarial.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Furthermore, I'm not saying that Rubens should have disobeyed team orders in Austria, or that if he had he should have escaped any consequences resulting from it. (Which I thought I made clear.) I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a little incredulous that the sanctity of contracts in F1 is getting such a ringing defense as a result of the Austria decision. (I assume we all take a dim view of Toyota and Gustav Brunner, right?) The tone almost seems more appropriate to an episode of "Davey and Goliath" than a glamorous international sport known for it's cutthroat atmosphere and Machiavellian intrigue. I simply don't believe that most of the people defending the Austria incident on those grounds actually believe so strongly in contractual obligation - perhaps you do, in which case I admire the consistency of your convictions. (Really.) But elsewhere, I see a lot of disingenuousness and hypocrisy.

Don't get me wrong, I know contracts in F1 or most sports do not mean that much in that teams are often too happy to reneg and fight the compensation in court. I would not sign with arrows for instance without a watertight contract and a very good compensation package and due to this perhaps drivers who have been burned may not consider their obligation as seriously but in my view you should not lower your own standards just because someelse does. Sure, be smarter, negotiate a better contract, but be prepared to honour that contract.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
In any case, had Rubens disobeyed team orders in Austria, it obviously would not have been because he was " morally opposed" to team orders, or that he wished to make a "statement" regarding them in a public forum. It would have been because he had comprehensively outqualified and outraced Michael and had moreover (if the accounts of the radio conversation I've read are accurate) been promised by Jean Todt that he would not have to relinquish leads to Michael, and had concluded, in the heat of the moment, that (on that day at least) Ferrari could go soak their heads. Not honorable perhaps, but not exactly dishonorable either.

I don't think I would have labelled him dishonourable, but I can see how Ferrari would think it. He had signed a contract a couple of weeks prior that he said allowed for compensation should something like Austria occur again. It is possible that he didn't think that as far through as giving up a win, given Todts assurances after Austria 01, but if that was the case why not get it in writing.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
Anyhow, thanks for the complete and well-argued reply.

Ditto

[Jon Allen]

Originally posted by schuy
F1 is a team sport, it is not an individual person sport.
The driver, e.g. JP Montoya has to do what the team tells him.
If the team tells him they want him to finish 24th in the quals, and he fails to do so, it's the same as John Smith not giving in his paper in time to his boss.

Liran Biderman.

If F1 is strictly a team sport, then why isn't Michael Schumacher content to simply try and secure the constructor's championship for Ferrari?

[Zmeej]

Good start to the thread, Woking

Argument closest to my own is Jon Allen's:

I think one could make the case that if Rubens Barrichello disobeyed Ferrari's orders at Austria knowing full well that the consequence might be the sack, he could be said to have behaved more honorably than if there were no team orders clause in his contract and he had rather personally promised Jean Todt that he would relinquish the lead to Michael Schumacher if asked, and then refused.

In fact, either in someone's recent post on this BB or in a recent Atlas item, there was a 1994 (95?) FIA decision that placed a driver's actions and responsibility BEYOND team orders, in fact saying that although a team may demand that a driver do something, it is the driver's responsibility to act in a fashion that does not contravene the rules and does not bring the sport of racing into disrepute.

Of course, in Austria there was a double bind, because the team's order was also within the rules -- however, I believe that BOTH Barrichello AND Schumacher were in a position where they should have recognized that to follow the order would be to bring the sport into disrepute, and thus they were not only ENTITLED but OBLIGATED to disobey the order.

To date, Schumacher is the only one in the Ferrari team who has realized this, and who has explicitly stated that he would not follow such an order again in the future.

Barrichello has said that he would follow such an order again, and all team officials have said that they would issue one.

Of the rest of the grid, only Webber and Fisichella have explicitly rejected such orders and said that they would not follow them. Of team principals, only Frank Williams has held counsel and not expressed an opinion about it.

Hedges

Although, "your word is your bond" argument has a certain resonance, both the 1994 FIA decision and general case law CLEARLY allow for the breaching of contracts in special circumstances which it is the particular responsibility of parties to the contract to recognize. The bond that a contract creates cannot be and never has been considered absolute.

Good post Williams

I like your reasoning First MH , and I do think that the primary onus to disobey was on Michael, but I believe that had Rubens ALSO disobeyed, it would have put Michael in a far easier situation to argue the case.

[Jon Allen]

Hedges - thanks, no hard feelings. Regarding MS's power, I was illustrating in a somewhat hyperbolic way that MS is nearly sack-proof, unlike DC or JPM, for example, and that he holds a greater degree of power within the team, due to its diffuse ownership and his own invaluable skills, than any other current drivers. Ok, I have to go for a while - I'll check in later.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Jon Allen


Oh dear, I knew when I made my original post I was risking a personal attack on my own ethics.

Indeed, RB did fulfill his contract. And I said that if he hadn't, he would have been obliged to face the consequences but that it would be, under the circumstances, an understandable impulse. How then do you conclude that I value my word and contracts so cheaply?

Your original comment

"I would have never guessed that F1 fans would turn out to be such fierce believers in the absolute sanctity of contracts and one's overarching duty to always obey his or her superiors unquestioningly. This belief must be inspired by the conduct all of the great sports and entertainment figures of our age, including Grand Prix drivers and team principals. "

seemed to imply, that you do not have a fierce belief in contracts or a willingness to follow your bosses directions.

By questioning why posters considered a contract a valid reason for RB to not disobey team orders it seemed you did not consider it sufficient reason. I don't actually think your word is any more or less valuble than mine, I questioned it because of the above and to prompt you to consider your own position on contracts and why that should or shouldn't apply in RBs case. What would you have done?

If I found myself in RBs position I would have honoured my contract and moved aside.

[fiftyeggs]

Originally posted by Spunout
It´s interesting that using team orders is against the rules of F1 but it is not against the rules of F1 to make a contract where driver promises he will obey team orders...

interesting indeed. unsporting, one might say. the problem is not with drivers obeying their contracts. you can´t really blame rubens for falling into line, as it would simply be ruinous not to. the problem is that a legal contract can dictate the outcome of a supposedly competitive sporting event!

[hedges]

Originally posted by Williams
On the other hand when he was asked to give up second place to Michael at Austria last year, he very surprised and upset, which makes me think that the issue of giving up places for Michael was not part of his contract. Further more in this year's race he stated that he argued with the team that he had been told that he would not have to give up a win to Michael, but in the end relented, not wanting to argue over it "at 180mph", as he put it. In both of these cases, where was the honour of the team in respecting their obligations to Rubens ? I wonder just how dishonorable Rubens really would have been to refuse under those circumstances. In fact, he would have been simply taking Ferrari at their "word", expecting them to do their own honourable thing in sticking to their word.

Rubens was refering to Todts comment after Austria 01, I would suggest this was natural for RB to try and talk Ferrari out of their request. Rubens reaction after the race, tells a different story and if I remember correctly either Todt or Rubens said there was a clause that meant he would be compensted with either a return of favour, or cash if circumstances didn't allow. Ferrari is a company and no one person can really speak for them, their word is whatever is in the contract and I bet the bottom line for any F1 contract is that you will do what the team tells you to.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Zmeej
Although, "your word is your bond" argument has a certain resonance, both the 1994 FIA decision and general case law CLEARLY allow for the breaching of contracts in special circumstances which it is the particular responsibility of parties to the contract to recognize. The bond that a contract creates cannot be and never has been considered absolute.

I do not contend that a contract can not or should not be broken. There are obvious examples, when safety is an issue, when a drivers career or a teams advancement is being impeeded or circumstances force a rethink by either party etc. Contracts by their nature allow for breaches, that is why there are compensation clauses. You are saying I will do this, but if for some reason I do not I will give you this. I would consider my word given verbally and unconditionally to mean more than signing a contract with 'outs', however you can still act in good faith even if feel the other party has not.

In the case of RB I believe the right thing to do if he had no longer wanted to honour his contract would be to follow the order, finish the race and hand in his resignation. The team would either accept it or try to renegotiate.

[Jon Allen]

Hi Hedges. I was being a little facetious and sarcastic, to be sure. What I mean is that in sports and entertainment generally, and F1 in particular, contracts seem not to be so binding - a bigger cash offer (to Schumacher, Brunner, Newey, whomever) and off they go. I certainly believe in honoring contracts but F1 personalities and to some extent fans, at least in the past, have not seemed to feel so strongly about it, as long as they (or their favorite team or driver) benefited from it.

Moreover, what bothered me was a certain type of Tifoso that used the "contractual obligation" argument. Not Tifoso type 1: "Ferrari can do no wrong!" or Tifoso type 2: "Well, this Austria thing bothers me but I've got to support Ferrari.". Either of those subspecies of the glorious family Ferrarus Tifosius I have no problem with - that's how I feel about McLaren. It was Tifoso type 3, who used disingenuous and somewhat out-of-character arguments from, variously, precedent at British teams such as Williams and McLaren, the sanctity of contracts, unsentimental business practicality, and other rather un-Ferrariesque attitudes that irritated me. In other words, Tifosi that sounded like Ron Dennis, or at least the caricature Ron Dennis who is occasionally the target of vitriolic criticism from the first two types of Tifosi.

So, I suppose all of what I've said has less to do with contracts and team orders than with my reaction to others' views on the subject. And, by the way, If Rubens had indeed ignored team orders and then handed in his resignation, I would have been very impressed - although the way he obeyed them without sulking, resentment, or doublespeak showed a lot of self-control, and I hope in the next few years Ferrari richly rewards him, both in terms of compensation and status, once Michael Schumacher retires. He has been the ultimate team player.

As to what I would have done, I don't know. In a hot nomex suit at 190mph, with a glorious victory over the greatest driver of the age at my fingertips, and (allegedly) a reneged-upon promise from the team principal that I would not be asked to relinquish a victory on merit to Michael, I really can't say. If I felt that my position at Ferrari were secure I would probably do what Rubens did. If I felt that Ferrari were just stringing me along, treating me as a lapdog, and their assurances of future compensation were without credibility, I probably would have taken the win and faced the music. The fact that Rubens was so calm and optimistic afterwards leads me to believe that Rubens was confident of his future status at the Scuderia and felt that Ferrari would act in good faith. But you're right, contractual obligation would probably not be uppermost in my mind, due to the physical and emotional extremity of the circumstances.

[Liam]

Disobeying team orders may make you feel good for the 2 minutes it takes you to get back to the pits, where you then have to live with the nasty looks and mutterings of the rest of the team almost every day for the rest of the season and beyond.....

[hedges]

Hi Jon,

Originally posted by Jon Allen
It was Tifoso type 3, who used disingenuous and somewhat out-of-character arguments from, variously, precedent at British teams such as Williams and McLaren, the sanctity of contracts, unsentimental business practicality, and other rather un-Ferrariesque attitudes that irritated me. In other words, Tifosi that sounded like Ron Dennis, or at least the caricature Ron Dennis who is occasionally the target of vitriolic criticism from the first two types of Tifosi.

I have never supported a team, only drivers. Define a team to me, they are made up of hundreds of people I know nothing about. You support McLaren, how does that work? McLaren hire and fire staff all the time, they are a continually changing entity. To me the teams are nothing more than businesses who recieve some form of personification from their fans. You can not expect a team who spends 300 million a year, employs 300 people, has millions of dollars in assets like factories and wind tunnels to adhere unerringly to the traditions of the past. Ferrari is a great example because it could be argued that they have departed most from their traditions, but they are more successful because of it. If Ferrari remains dominant the next couple of years how long before teams like McLaren and Williams change their policies. In all honesty how far would they need to change them, they use team orders all the time, like hold station, let driver x pass he is on a two stopper or he is faster right now. When was the last time you saw a driver pressure his teammate from behind lap after lap to get by. It just doesn't happen because the teams won't let it happen. And look at the last race, Ralf makes a move on JPM at the start and JPM complains afterwards that as a teammate he should of backed off. Even drivers expect a healthy level of team orders.

Originally posted by Jon Allen
As to what I would have done, I don't know. In a hot nomex suit at 190mph, with a glorious victory over the greatest driver of the age at my fingertips, and (allegedly) a reneged-upon promise from the team principal that I would not be asked to relinquish a victory on merit to Michael, I really can't say.

I totally respect that, you are right it is difficult to know exactly what you would do. My answer was of course my ideal reaction given my values but pressure has a way of altering perception. I also hope they reward RB with more than just money. Even if they only give him one year as their number one to prove himself when MS retires.

Liam has also bought up a great point though, the reason there are team orders are because of the team. When you ignore one, you slap 200 odd people in the face and say I am more important than you. That may well carry more weight than a contract.

[Jon Allen]

Interesting points. I would argue, however, that many Tifosi support Ferrari, rightly or wrongly, because they feel that the team embodies the glorious traditions and passion of Grand Prix racing. I support McLaren because of their history, their mystique, their driver choices, and, most importantly, because of Ron Dennis and what he has done with the team since his acquisition of it. Call me crazy, I just think he's cool. In all seriousness, if RD was to sell McLaren to someone, I would probably no longer support them with nearly the same level of enthusiasm. I know many people feel the same way about Sir Frank Williams or Eddie Jordan.

Of course, my sympathies in a race are not exclusively with the McLaren drivers. I'm always happy to see JPM or Rubens do well (actually, I'm happy to see anyone do well), but I have simply selected McLaren for various reasons as the team that I "root for". In fact, I like David Coulthard as a driver on his own terms, and if he returned to Williams and Ralf Schumacher came to McLaren, I'd still support DC, and have to try and find a place in my heart for RS (whom I'm simply not taken with, despite the fact that I think he is a fine driver and becoming a serious WDC contender) as a McLaren driver. Why does anyone support any team (or player) in any sport, for that matter - geographical affiliation, achievement, various aesthetic and ethical considerations - none of it is terribly rational compared to the reasons that cause one to purchase one brand of paper towels rather than another.

As for Liam's point, well, that could well be the case. It's also possible that the non-management elements of the Ferrari crew think Michael Schumacher is an ass and would secretly cheer Rubens for sticking it to the boss. I'm again indulging in facetiousness, I know, as MS' good relationship with the mechanics and engineers is well known. But I do think the joy of a GP win lasts more than two minutes. At least, the joy from a victory on merit, rather than as the beneficiary of team orders. But that's another topic...

[Jon Allen]

And, in case I seem like I've been doing a lot of Schumi-bashing lately, well, I have been. But, for the record, I think Michael Schumacher is the most talented driver of his generation, that the majority of his achievements have been on merit, that the resurgence of the Prancing Horse is due primarily to his contributions, and that, at least usually, over the last few years, he has been a gracious and mature winner, embodying all the best traditions of the sport. The Austria incident has somewhat tarnished his (and Ferrari's) reputations, rightly I think, but not disastrously or permanently. So, no offense to Tifosi and MS fans.

[Williams]

Originally posted by hedges


Rubens was refering to Todts comment after Austria 01, I would suggest this was natural for RB to try and talk Ferrari out of their request. Rubens reaction after the race, tells a different story and if I remember correctly either Todt or Rubens said there was a clause that meant he would be compensted with either a return of favour, or cash if circumstances didn't allow. Ferrari is a company and no one person can really speak for them, their word is whatever is in the contract and I bet the bottom line for any F1 contract is that you will do what the team tells you to.

While nobody will deny that disobeying teams orders can be a tad risky career-wise, (although in many cases it is not necessarily career suicide), disobedience of team orders has a long tradition among race drivers. In the old days these men were literally risking their lives for race wins, so a driver who told his team owner to get stuffed over a win, like Carlos Reutemann did to Frank Williams in Brazil in 1981, could be understood by most fans and even team owners. Things have changed drastically since then, but I still believe that there may be no actual dishonor in disobeying team orders under certain conditions, whether or not such a decision could be considered foolish.

In Rubens' case, if his deal with Ferrari, even verbally, was that he could keep his wins, then he could certainly take his win with honour, in spite of the team's wishes. And if such a race win was to raise his stock in the rest of the pitlane, it might not even be such a bad career move. But if contract specifically states that he must move over for Michael, no matter what, then he really wouldn't had have a leg to stand on.

[LB]

Originally posted by LuckyStrike1
Do you have the right to tell your boss at work: **** off, I'm going home. You can do my job if it wasn't for the fact you don't know a thing." ??

Of course you are, but don't count on keeping your job. Of course a driver has the right to disobey teamorders but he wouldn't have much chance of staying with the team ...

I actually have done almost word for word..

and I still do the same job

( he called me two hours later and said " are you a bit calmer now and considered things? I took the hook but still didn't do what he had asked )

[tifosi]

Originally posted by hedges
Hi Jon,



I have never supported a team, only drivers. Define a team to me, they are made up of hundreds of people I know nothing about. You support McLaren, how does that work? McLaren hire and fire staff all the time, they are a continually changing entity. To me the teams are nothing more than businesses who recieve some form of personification from their fans. You can not expect a team who spends 300 million a year, employs 300 people, has millions of dollars in assets like factories and wind tunnels to adhere unerringly to the traditions of the past. Ferrari is a great example because it could be argued that they have departed most from their traditions, but they are more su2ccessful because of it. If Ferrari remains dominant the next couple of years how long before teams like McLaren and Williams change their policies. In all honesty how far would they need to change them, they use team orders all the time, like hold station, let driver x pass he is on a two stopper or he is faster right now. When was the last time you saw a driver pressure his teammate from behind lap after lap to get by. It just doesn't happen because the teams won't let it happen. And look at the last race, Ralf makes a move on JPM at the start and JPM complains afterwards that as a teammate he should of backed off. Even drivers expect a healthy level of team orders.

Dang I must really be messed up. Not only have I supported Ferrari since 1978, I also have supported the Washington Capitals (NHL Team) since 1974, The Prince William Cannons (Single A Baseball club), The Washington Freedom (Womens, soccer), and the Dallas Cowboys who Ive follwed since growing up in Oklahoma in the 60s. And whatever will I do in 2006 when certaintly the team, I supported in this years world cup (the US) will possibly have some new players.


BTW congradulations to Brazil, fine game.

[Liam]

I support the teams first. If you drive for Jordan, I'm a fan. As a consequence of that though, I tend to stay a fan of Jordan drivers when they move on, which is a big list now, MS, RB, HHF, TS, GF, EI, RS, and JT. The there are the drivers I'd noticed in the lower ranks, JV from CART, JPM and NH from their battles in F3000 and MW as well. The obvious talent I'd missed like KR, FM and JB
as well as the drivers that have impressed me in F1, like OP, begrunginly after his Ligier takes out Jordan days in '94'/95 MSalo who is quick and hopefully will have some well deserved success at Toyota, and PdlR suffering at Jaguar.
I've never been a DC fan, I recognise his talent, but I've never liked him as a driver. I fear it may be due to his time at Willaims.

So who's left, AY, EB,, AmcN, yet to really impress me, though Enrique and Alan are doing a good job, and then there's Alex. At least he qualifies that Minardi, hell, he drives for Minardi, how could you not wish him well


So thats basically makes me a fan all the drivers, though I'll admit some more than others.... then again, I could say the same for the teams too.

[hedges]

Originally posted by Jon Allen
And, in case I seem like I've been doing a lot of Schumi-bashing lately, well, I have been. But, for the record, I think Michael Schumacher is the most talented driver of his generation, that the majority of his achievements have been on merit, that the resurgence of the Prancing Horse is due primarily to his contributions, and that, at least usually, over the last few years, he has been a gracious and mature winner, embodying all the best traditions of the sport. The Austria incident has somewhat tarnished his (and Ferrari's) reputations, rightly I think, but not disastrously or permanently. So, no offense to Tifosi and MS fans.

As an MS fan, none taken. I think everyone has a right to question some of MS tactics (Jerez in particular), I like him in spite of them, not because of them.

[hedges]

Originally posted by tifosi


Dang I must really be messed up. Not only have I supported Ferrari since 1978, I also have supported the Washington Capitals (NHL Team) since 1974, The Prince William Cannons (Single A Baseball club), The Washington Freedom (Womens, soccer), and the Dallas Cowboys who Ive follwed since growing up in Oklahoma in the 60s. And whatever will I do in 2006 when certaintly the team, I supported in this years world cup (the US) will possibly have some new players.


BTW congradulations to Brazil, fine game.

Thanks for the sarcastic tone, not.

I do take both your and Jons point (although Jon has the common descency to just make his point and not resort to cheap theatrics), and I too fervently support my local and national teams. I guess it is at what level I see my connection to a team. I do not support those who are really just international teams or bussinesses like team NZ in the Americas Cup. They are two faced when it comes to being a New Zealand team and very hypocritical. I usually support whichever team Dennis Conner puts together, he is a real character and loves his sport.

In New Zealand most teams are run by boards elected from the region/sport to govern the sport and allocate funds back into the game, they are non profit organisations. We do not in general have privately owned sports teams who function as a money making scheme (Warriors Rugby League team being an exception), so maybe I am just not used to the 'corporate team' philosophy. Most, if not all F1 teams fall into this catagory for me.

Of course I still have favourite teams like Ferrari while MS is there, Manchester United in English Football or the Miami Dolphins in American Football but that could change depending on personel or the style they adopt during a season. I would not disrespect true fans of these teams by calling myself a fan.

[canada95]

As an itneresting aside.
Jean Totd in 1995 ordered Jean Alesi to move over for Gerhard Berger. Alesi told Totd to stuff himself and refused. Afterwards Alesi was fined I think $200 000 by his own team.
Predictably Alesi then went ballistic and told the world press that "Totd has broken my balls". Later though he turned to Berger and said "It was good value for money"
...That was also the last year Alesi drove for Ferrari although this was not the reason, it certainly didn't do much good for the working relationship.

[benrapp]

We've done this to death elsewhere, so I'll be brief.

The point of contracts is not the sanctions in breach. Yes, all contracts will provide for penalties if their terms are broken, and yes, one of those penalties may be dismissal, but the question isn't "would Ferrari have sacked Rubens if he'd disobeyed?". Contracts are statements of intent -- essentially saying "I will do these things for you if you do these other things for me". Signing a contract that included an acceptance of team orders, then refusing to obey those orders when no obvious safety consideration supervened would have made Rubens a lesser man, and made it harder for anyone to exchange any kind of obligation with him in the future.

If you think of a contract as meaning "I trust you to do x if I do y" then you should see my point.

[Zmeej]

Hedges

In the case of RB I believe the right thing to do if he had no longer wanted to honour his contract would be to follow the order, finish the race and hand in his resignation. The team would either accept it or try to renegotiate.

He could do that, but unfortunately, the opportunity to drive the best car on the grid is a very tough one to give up. Furthermore, the ascension of a driver to a team that has the best car should involve the kind of raw competitiveness that it is perverse to stifle with team orders such as those that obtain at Ferrari.

Thus, in a case such as RB's competitiveness gets you to the top, but then keeps you from the top, because if you show too much of it, you're knocked back down.

This is a perversion of the sport by Ferrari, which I think both Rubens and Michael are entitled to resist.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Mosquito
Since when are team orders against the rules of F1?

The real problem is perhaps that F1 now has a large number of fans to whom "team orders" are an alien concept and little idea as to the history and background of the sport. The teams and those adminstering the sport are little better informed in some ways. The whole tempest in a teapot is a result of an action that spoiled the entertainment value of the series.

Personally, I did not bat a eye nor did I really care what happened in Austria. Big deal. The same as the outrage in Australia in 1998 -- a completely bogus ranting and raving by many over nothing.

While I have to say that the Ferrari drivers handled all this quite badly in the light of how F1 is now run -- Barichello and Schumacher, Todt, et. al., simply didn't bother to disguise what they did -- such is life in the big leagues. Grand Prix and F1 racing is full of examples of team orders being obeyed and disobeyed. Phil Hill backed off while in second at Casablanca in 1958 to ensure that teammate Mike Hawthorn won the WDC; at Mexico in 1964, Lorenzo Bandini did the same for John Surtees; in Brazil in 1981, Carlos Reutemann did not give way for Alan Jones and the Williams team became an unpleasant place for the rest of that season.

If there were three or four or five drivers duking it out for the championship this issue would not even make it to these threads as a serious topic of discussion. However, the paucity of any real competition, the use of smoke and mirrors for so long to disguise the shaky foundation of F1, and the new generation of F1 fans who now dominate the sport means that this is now an issue.

I think that team orders are part and parcel -- for better or worse -- of F1 racing and the new breed of F1 fan needs to just deal with it and get over it. Next.

[Mosquito]

Don, couldn't agree more. Just one side note tho.

I think that team orders are part and parcel -- for better or worse -- of F1 racing and the new breed of F1 fan needs to just deal with it and get over it. Next.

One problem is the success of Bernie and Co. in making F1 such a success commercially and bringing it full scaled as entertainment for the masses. The average Joe Sixpack gets very upset once he realizes that despite all the hype, there's more to the Bernie show than only heros in fast cars doing their damn best to win.

[Zmeej]

Another great post from Mr. Capps

(even though I disagree with it; i.e. I won't take the "ranting and raving" comments personally )

[Locai]

The driver can always ignore the team orders and deal with the consequences later, but that wouldn't exactly be the smartest career move.

The new twist on this scenario, though, is the two-way telemetry. I'm not sure how far along the teams are with it, but the team managers might be able to force the car to slow down (or shut off) without the driver being able to do anything about it. That would obviously be a drastic move on the teams part, but it might be possible.