The FIA World Council meets in Paris today to deal with the latest matters of the moment in the sport. There is expected to be a revamp of the World Rally Championship and an F1 calendar for 2011, but all eyes will be on the disciplinary action against Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro following the team’s alleged use of team orders in Hockenheim. Ferrari is expected to be represented by Stefano Domenicali and lawyers. The team has argued that there were no team orders and thus must either admit that there was an order for Fernando Alonso to pass Felipe Massa and ask the FIA to understand and think again about its rules, or continue with the charade and face the consequences of that route of argument. In April 2009 McLaren was handed a suspended three-race ban in what was called “Liegate”, after team members insisted that there had been no order from the team demanding Lewis Hamilton allow Trulli to pass him in Melbourne. Hamilton and the team were also disqualified from the race for having “deliberately misled”, the stewards. This came after McLaren finally admitted that it had not been telling the truth. If Ferrari follows the same path and admits that there were team orders and that it misled the Hockenheim stewards then there may be some leniency, but the team must expect a minimum punishment of the loss of points and perhaps some kind of fine or ban, probably suspended. This will mean that it will not dare to use team orders again.
The question of what to do about the issue of team orders needs to be addressed by the FIA. The tradition in the sport has always been that the team calls the shots, but attitudes have changed and the general public no longer seems willing to accept this. There are also legal questions about whether team orders constitute some kind of race-fixing, as such things are illegal in some of the jurisdictions in which Grands Prix take place. It is expected that the rules will be rewritten to stop such things happening in the future as the FIA seems to understand that it is necessary to move with the times and not hang on to unpopular and anachronistic ideas. The public seems to be willing to accept that one team-mate will help another if the World Championship is in the final stages of a season, but not that a driver be forced to give way to a team-mate at the mid-season. It is also likely that the FIA will look for ways to ban contractual arrangements between teams and drivers which demand such things. Most contracts include a clause that insist that the driver obeys the team management, but some contracts are believed to have specific clauses that insist on one driver being given priority.
The World Council will be chaired by FIA Deputy President for Sport Graham Stoker, as Jean Todt – a former Ferrari team boss – has (wisely) decided to step back from the process to avoid any suggestion that he is influencing the decision-making process.
We understand that the World Council will study a substantial report on events at the German GP which has been prepared by the Swedish FIA delegate Lars Osterlind, after referring to the various race officials and to the stewards José Abed, Paul Gutjahr, Waltraud Wünsch and former racer Danny Sullivan.
What is clear is that the drivers are unlikely to be punished directly as they have not been charged with any offence and thus, legally, are not under examination. In any case, it would probably be wrong to punish Massa, as he was punished enough by giving up what would have been his first victory since the near-fatal accident in Hungary in 2009.
Any removal of Constructors’ points will demolish all hopes Ferrari might have had of winning the World Championship. The team has 250 points compared to Red Bull’s 330. If 43 are removed from the total Ferrari would have 207, which is still well clear of fourth-placed Mercedes GP Petronas, but 123 behind the leaders, with a maximum score in the final six races of 258. Winning the championship would still be mathematically possible, but highly unlikely given the reliability rates of the rival teams, which have averaged 25 points per race this year. The only hope left if this happens is for Alonso to win the Drivers’ title. He is currently fifth with a total of 141 points, 41 behind leader Lewis Hamilton. He could catch up quite quickly if the others do not score, but once again the average score per race for Hamilton this year has been 14 points, while Alonso has managed only 11 per race.
If they blow this chance to show that the days of “FIA” standing for “Ferrari International Assistance”, a great many fans will watch something other than Formula One in future.
There should be a change in the rules to clarify what constitutes ‘team orders’. Something along the lines of the only team order allowed is “Hold position”.
I’m looking forward to seeing what happens today. I don’t see much of a punishment handed out, but to be honest I am more interested to see how the FIA deals with the question of team orders in modern F1. That is the real issue I reckon…
The team orders rule has to be quite vague to cover the bases. However, team orders should be allowed if only one driver has a mathematical chance of the WDC.
Well written article, again, Joe
In the current climate of match fixing accusations in cricket and snooker the FIA would be well advised to give Ferrari the drubbing they deserve so as not to drag the sport into the same mire.
The Liegate scandle is different, very different. In that instance Lewis and his engineer were asked direct questions by the stewards about an incident and they lied. It wasn’t the fact they’d told Lewis to let Trulli past that got them the punishment, it was the fact that they lied to them. To the best of my knowledge Ferrari didn’t directly ask Massa to move over, thus they can truthfully say ‘we didn’t ask Massa to let Alonso past’ even though we all know that’s what they wanted.
If we’re looking for a comparison we should look at moves in previous seasons where teams have allowed their number 1 drivers to pass, like Hamilton/Kovalinen at Hockenhiem and Ferraris shuffling of the pack in Brazil a couple of years back.
Richard Williams article in the Guardian this week takes a real common sense approach to it all, and I hope that the FIA do so as well. Team orders are impossible to ban (and occur in virtually every race), it didn’t detract from racing when I started to watch it back in the early 80′s and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed now. Now Max has gone it’s high time some of his stupid ideas get the boot too.
Paul,
How do you know what the FIA stewards were told at Hockenheim? I don’t know for sure, but I hear that the FIA was not happy with what was said.
I think teams will always find ways around this.
Again, invoking what “the public” wants is pure guesswork. I had a conversation with a friend of mine who is a more casual follower of F1 than I am (I’m a bit of a die-hard who counts the days down to each race, such is the shallow nature of my life), and who felt that Ferrari’s actions at Hockenheim were disgraceful, but he came out of that conversation agreeing with them after I explained my own perspective on the incident.
i.e. public opinion, even when known, is remarkably fickle, highly malleable, and can often be rather ignorant, unfortunately.
Nice article Joe.
Quote
“It is also likely that the FIA will look for ways to ban contractual arrangements between teams and drivers which demand such things. Most contracts include a clause that insist that the driver obeys the team management, but some contracts are believed to have specific clauses that insist on one driver being given priority.”
Glad you brought up the contractual angle Joe, as I belive this to be the crux, of Ferrari’s current dilemma.
LDM is on record as saying:
“You come to Ferrari, you drive for Ferrari, not, for yourself”
So who’s interests were served by switching drivers at Hockenhiem?
Regards,
“The only hope left if this happens is for Alonso to win the Drivers’ title.”
Which bizarrely would entirely justify their actions
I still think the FIA should take away constructors and driver points. Alonso and Massar are directly responsible for their actions on the German GP, they knew the rules forbid team orders and had a duty to uphold these rules. They failed to do that so should lose their points too. Alonso for directly influencing the team with his “this is ridiculous” and “I’m faster” comments on radio (sadly not followed by “I can overtake him fair and square”), and Massa for actually doing the dirty work.
The rules should be changed to only allow team orders on the last 3 or 4 races of the season AND if one of their drivers has no mathematical chances of winning the title, while the other still does. Then we all know where we are and teams can help one of their drivers on the final stretch of the title race – doing this kind of thing mid-way through the season is just silly.
A good considered piece, and one hopes that the FIA recognises the new realities.
But are they so new ? I’m getting tired of reading phrases like “The tradition in the sport has always been that the team calls the shots” on these blogs. It’s not true. Motor racing in all its forms has always been a contest of men, and only incidentally machines. The WC instituted in 1950 was for drivers, and the constructors’ title was an afterthought 8 years later.
It’s true that teams could, and sometimes did, pull rank to favour one driver or another, but such occasions have always, without exception, been derided by the fans. To pretend that they are the heartbeat and the tradition of the sport is to falsify that tradition.
I hope the FIA hit Ferrari hard for taking the piss, and subsequently find a way to uphold the real traditions of the sport.
Am I alone in finding it very odd that Ferrari’s Constructor’s Championship points are under threat yet the points scored by the drivers are not?
Surely the action that Ferrari allegedly took only influenced the driver’s Championship. It had no effect whatsoever on the Constructor’s Championship. They would have been first an second whichever way they had finished.
In my opinion it would be fairer if the drivers points were removed should they be found guilty!
I’m surprised that no one has tried to address the logical disconnect that members of Ferrari had after that race, they would say “there was no team orders”, then “Massa was slow getting out of that corner that time”, then “Massa let Alonso through by his own decision”, and then the implicit admission of team orders by “Our drivers drive for our team.” .. I’m sorry, which excuse do you want to use exactly?
I wonder if they can take 2 of those statements and say “you said contradictory things”, so when one of them is true the other must be a lie. Or both are lies. Therefore you lied to us.”
Whatever punishment Ferrari get the FIA should also reverse the points from Hockenheim – giving Massa the win and Alonso second place.
Then the FIA should change the rules regarding team orders to allow them for the last X number of races, but only after the teams have publically stated which of their drivers they are going to back.
Additionally, the FIA should forbid drivers (specifically Alonso) from using the royal ‘we’ in interviews. In annoys me no end.
“Paul,
How do you know what the FIA stewards were told at Hockenheim? I don’t know for sure, but I hear that the FIA was not happy with what was said.”
Everyone heard the radio message Joe, Massa was not asked to move over, he was given a message with no direct action attached to it. Thus Ferrari can say we didn’t tell Massa to move over without it being a lie. McLaren weren’t in that position with LieGate, because they had told Lewis to ‘let him past’ and it was on the radio records. Ferrari didn’t do this, they gave a message saying ‘Alonso is faster than you, do you understand’ (or very similar). We all know the meaning of it, but it wasn’t ‘Let Alonso Past’ heck it wasn’t asking him to do anything if you look at the words used. That is why Ferrari haven’t lied as McLaren did in LieGate and that’s why the situations are different.
It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this over the course of the day. I’d be surprised if Alonso or Massa are penalised in anyway though.
Paul,
As I explained this morning: they cannot be penalised…
Joe,
I’m curious as to why you’ve used the term ‘alleged use of team orders’. You stated the same in your previous post on the rights and wrongs of team orders.
I was under the impression that Ferrari had already been found ‘guilty’ of using team orders by the stewards, and had been fined the maximum allowable (although, by some accounts, more than the maximum allowable). They simply referred the case to the World Council due to the severity of the case.
Or have I misunderstood?
[...] doesn’t seem to be any great consensus over what might be doled out: a bigger fine, a loss of constructors’ championship [...]
Fiat Lux!
Coercion hasn’t lost its meaning, Felipe was blatantly coerced and must be given back his 7 points. Cui bono hasn’t lost its meaning, Big Girl’s Blouse down to zero Hockenheim points at the very least, applicable for WCC as well.
One thing that has surprised me about this whole affair is the fact that Rob Smedley kept his job, despite being the one who effectively dropped Ferrari in it by his apologising to Massa and by stressing the need for confirmation from him that the ‘information’ (the instruction) was received and understood.
Perhaps Ferrari could have told Massa to change to a fictional engine mapping (being a code word for letting Alonso through), but instead the instruction was almost unequivocally a ‘move over’.
The question of the degree of the lie doesn’t matter. They both told whoppers.
McLaren lied to the FiA directly, despite direct evidence to the contrary, and then had to admit it when caught.
Ferrari concealed what they did through code: i.e. “Alonso is faster..”, but then the combo-admission on-track, “Sorry, Mate” from Rob, and Massa’s obvious pull-over, sealed the deal. They were trying to do it quietly, hide the order in a vague narrative, but then two of the players went off-script and gave the game away. Because of this, Ferrari should’ve said, “yeah, we told him to go by…just not in so many words.”
Instead, they’re maintaining a fairy tale that the coded message didn’t tell Massa to let Alonso past, that they have no idea why Massa finally was overtaken when their speeds were so evenly matched, why Rob insisted on confirmation, and then apologized over the radio afterwards, why Massa’s body language was so negative on the podium or the vague and evasive answers in the media center given by the drivers failed to convince anyone that the overtake was legit.
The FiA is rightly going to see this as a monumental effort to cover-up a team order, which comes to the same thing as a “lie”.
What’s really astounding to me is the degree to which Ferrari seems to believe they can get away with this — given how collectively dumb they all think we are. I don’t like being treated like an idiot; I know what I saw and heard, and so does the FiA. I reckon they’re going to feel that Ferrari think their bulletproof and can treat the governing body like idiots. In the FiA of old, they probably could. In this new FiA, I hope not.
I don’t really have a problem with team orders. I see it as a) a long time part of the sport; b) ideally a private contractual issue between the drivers and team, and c) impossible to police. Motor racing is a very dangerous and very expensive sport and I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong in permitting teams to manage the various physical, competitive and financial risks as they see fit via team orders.
It’s only “unfair” if you think drivers have some sort of unambiguous moral right to do what they please with someone else’s (in this case, the teams’) property and take unnecessary risks with their team mate’s safety.
The legal issue regarding “race-fixing” is obviously something that the FIA must be mindful of but it strikes me as somewhat ridiculous to modify the long-standing aspects of a sport essentially to make it “safe” for gamblers. If you don’t like the ambiguity of team orders, don’t bet on racing.