Why not just make it legal?
"Yeah, whatever…" Photo by Darren Heath
In the immediate aftermath of last weekend’s brouhaha over team orders I started writing a blog post entitled The dreary face of orchestration in which I fully intended to lambast the hideousness of it all. I never got around to finishing it; not because I’m a lazy git, but because I got caught up in a whole load of other work*, which gave me pause for sober reflection.
That Formula 1 is a business as well as a sport is a truism we all have to accept, since without the presence of global brands and their cash injections F1 simply wouldn’t be sustainable in its current form. That said, Sunday’s events perfectly illustrate the philosophical chasm that separates the insiders from the fans. Simply put, not one of the business people and team figures I’ve spoken to since Sunday saw anything wrong with what Ferrari did. Conversely, the fans – if you exclude the zealot types who’d have approved of it even if Fernando had run over half the queue for the school bus en route to the chequered flag – were outraged by the sheer cynicism of the manoeuvre.
Alonso passes Massa, and the controversy begins… Photo by Darren Heath
From a purely pragmatic point of view, instructing Felipe Massa to let Fernando Alonso past had its merits. Alonso was 31 points ahead of Massa in the drivers’ championship and 47 behind Lewis Hamilton. Now put your calculators away and close down your spreadsheets. On an F1 pitwall, what matters is what works – now, not next week or next month. It doesn’t matter that Alonso may get run over by a bus (or, heaven forfend, actually be on a private plane that clips a building), thereby eliminating him from the rest of the season and causing Ferrari to rue the day they orchestrated the swap. In the heat of a grand prix, the future is another country. Possible championship permutations that may come about if three hens lay addled eggs? They may as well be in the horoscopes column.
So Ferrari made the choice. We all saw it coming, telegraphed well in advance like a ham-fisted soap opera twist. The FOM TV director knew it, bringing his camera to bear on the moist eyes and thoughtful mien of Rob Smedley as he prepared to push the button and deliver the instruction. This in itself was an act of pure opportunism in a dull grand prix that needed an injection of drama; they must have been whooping and high-fiving in the TV compound as the gift arrived…
The print media greeted it with a curious mix of outrage and glee: fury because most of them are, at heart, fans; joy because it brought something interesting to write about other than tyre degradation. The hunt for quotes began; as usual, Saint Martin of Whitmarsh delivered himself promptly to a microphone, but only to demur rather than condemn. He would, he said, speak privately to Ferrari about the matter, but make no public comment about it.
Joy on the podium – before the British media clamp their teeth round his ankles… Photo by Darren Heath
After all the posturing – including the absurd charade in which everyone from Ferrari continued to pretend that nothing untoward had happened – a number of insiders (Martin Brundle, Ross Brawn, David Coulthard, etc) have come out in support of team orders. Are they mad? Are they stupid? Are they corrupt? No, just so far ‘in’ that they’ve grown out of touch. They fail to appreciate that for the fans – the demographic these people deride for being naïve – Formula 1 is an emotional investment. You don’t choose a favourite team or driver as passionlessly as you might select a new fridge.
By the by, though, I wonder if they have a point. Perhaps teams should be allowed some leeway – not to use one or other of their drivers to block a rival, but at least to give one precedence over another when vital championship points are at stake. If they wish to do this – and if they don’t care what the fans think – then so be it. As my old English teacher, Mrs Lucock, was wont to say about essays handed in late: “It’s your funeral…”
For if teams don’t value your support – why should you give it to them? Invest your emotional capital elsewhere. Let ennui and ambivalence achieve what angry protest cannot.
*checking the facts and dates of a load of 1960s sportscar and non-championship F1 races in the LAT Archive for a future book project, although I had a brief diversion via a 1965 John Bolster article in AUTOSPORT entitled THINGS I HATE! Judging by the contents he hated rather a lot, since you ask..
hehe!!
So – who will compensate my for my loss of winnings?
Having earmarked Felipe as a potential winner several days before the race, I placed a bet that would have (should have?) produced £75 had Felipe maintained the lead until the chequered flag.
Horse racing can have several horses in the same race owned and trained by the same individuals – and they manage to avoid any need for “team” oders. Surely, with the advantage of the data logging on F1 cars it’s a lot more easy to see if the car/driver performance has been other than maximum than whether a horse is just feeling less willing than expected.
You make a very interesting point, and indeed you and everyone else who put a bet on Felipe can feel rightly aggrieved. Although – and here’s a potentially controversial thought – you could argue that in arriving at odds on Felipe, any bookmaker worth their salt would factor his standing at Ferrari into their calculations…
@Stuart C
Peter, tines toda la razón; creo que deberías coger tu boleto e irte al Juzgado de tu ciudad para poner una denuncia por estafa a Ferrari: han manipulado el resultado en un juego que admite apuestas legales: muy grave.
Well said.
Why not just make it legal? A good question. Here’s the answer: because there’s a Drivers’ Championship. If not all drivers are to be allowed to compete for the championship on an equal footing, that championship is a farce.
So, let’s decide once and for all that F1 really is a team sport and a team sport alone – it’s the team that calls the shots and the drivers, while important cogs in that team machine, are no more important than other the cogs – designers, engineers, technicians, managers and so on – who pool their talents to win or lose each GP and each season, and yet are not individually lauded for their efforts with separate championships. They mark their balance of profit and loss solely by the Constructors’ Championship table. Why should the drivers be any different?
Scrap the Drivers’ Championship and team orders not only make sense they also become a vital and fascinating part of the strategy of the sport. Let teams design, build, drive and develop together over the course of a season, and let them win and lose as one entire unit.
But until then, let’s punish any team that breaks the established rules. Ferrari are deliberately bringing the sport into disrepute, and more than a fine is required to bring them back into line. Financial penalties have little or no impact on the larger teams, who would happily pay $100,000 every race for the right to break any one rule of their own choosing. Only a points deduction will really hit them where they live.
But the rules prohibit team orders – so why would the odds include their impact?
But the rules prohibit team orders – so why would the odds include their impact?
(ooops on the previous post quoting myslef
)
@Peter
The hard-bitten cynicism of the trade!
@pulguitaatodogas
Also an interesting point! If this was horse racing, there would be trouble.
[For the benefit of non-Spanish speakers, pulguitaatodogas suggests Peter investigates legal recourse, since the sport allows bets and the result was manipulated]
@Sam Tana
Good point – something that needs to be factored into any rational discussion of this issue at the rule-making level.
I am amazed anyone bets on F1. I have been a fan for decades and have a decent knowledge of it betting on it and certainly not on the number two driver in any team. Alonso learned from his McLaren experience to insist on number one treatment and Ferrari has a history of having a clear number one and number two so this situation was entirely predictable.
I really don’t understand how a fine is a penalty in this case. Ferrari have exactly the result they wanted and it cost them peanuts.
I never really objected to team orders when they were normal but they are illegal and should stay illegal. Anyone who objected to that rule has had years to try and have it altered but now Ferrari have been penalised for it all of a sudden it is a bad rule.
This incident follows hot on the heels of Ferrari’s abuse of the filming day rule to test new parts on the car. It is time the WMSC taught Ferrari that Max has gone and they are no more important than any other team and will be treated exactly the same as any other team.
An interesting post and debate, this. I hope I’m not a zealot and I’m certainly not an “insider,” (although I am a pretty neutral no-dog-in-this-fight observer) but I personally wasn’t outraged by Ferrari’s orchestrations. Team orders have always been a part of the sport, and aren’t the post-Austria 2002 rules unenforceable regardless? Was everyone so up in arms when Felipe gave way to Kimi at Interlagos in 2007 to give the title to Kimi? Is the difference between then and last weekend the fact that it’s only mid-season, that it was arguably unnecessary? Or was it Felipe’s predictably (and entertainingly) petulant response on Sunday that has caused such a stir?
Speaking of checking on facts and dates of races long past, I wonder what Peter Collins’ fans thought of him giving up his car–and the championship–to Fangio at Monza in 1956? They wuz robbed, I tell ya! ROBBED!!!
I think what the “insiders” think is that for all our angry outrage, they know we will keep watching, and the sponsors will keep paying, and they pay more for good performance. So what is important is winning titles. They are confident that for all our moaning, we’re moaning because we care, and we will actually stay.
As for the fans who hate it, will they actually stop watching? How many of them will be able to do so? And will this outnumber the people who are just starting to watch F1?
But when Gracia says that they’ve already been punished with the fine and should not be punished twice, will this really happen? It seems they do believe Ferrari is more important than all the other teams.
They would’ve been fine with it – that was Peter’s decision, not the team’s order.
Interesting few words on the comparison of 2007 Interlagos and 2010 Hockenheim on Adam Coopers blog:
It looks like the teams and FIA should have some mutual understanding when it is OK and when it is not to orchestrate finishing order of their drivers. There perhaps is some unwritten part of the rule. If that is the case, fine. But it can only work of all the parties involved follow that unwritten part of the rule…
“as usual, Saint Martin of Whitmarsh delivered himself promptly to a microphone” Haha doesn’t he always!
Thoroughly enjoyable read Stuart, especially as you tell it like it is without all the melodrama. If anything good is to come out of this maybe we will get clarification about what is and isn’t allowed as a team order, they all do it I’m sure, just some are more successful at hiding it in coded messages.
My read of the situation is that all of the teams have been doing this all the time when it suits them. It didn’t stop when the rule came in it just went underground. It’s slowly become more and more blatant, and this season with the reduced number of pitstops it is harder to hide.
So they want to drop the rule because it hasn’t actually changed behaviour. This is a bit like saying, “everybody breaks the speed limits from time to time so lets stop having them”.
To the people who made a bet I ask this question; what would have happened if Massa had “woken up with the ‘flu” and Ferrari had put another driver in the car? (Like Toyota did at the end of last season.)
You have to factor chicanery into Formula 1 results I’m afraid which is quite a sad indictment on the sport.
I personally despise any form of team orders in F1 – there’s never any justification for them.
The other worrying side to all of this is that Fernando Alonso yet again is embroiled in another controversy, but is close enough to the periphery of it to wash his hands of it.
It seems as though this man has no qualms winning at any cost – he doesn’t care what happens to his reputation or his legacy so long as he wins.
As Sir Jackie Stewart says “Winning is not enough” – just because you might win all the races does not mean you are a champion if you act in an unsporting way…
As commented on above Garcia is poking his nose in again and suprise surprise his opinion is that Alonso should keep the result. It’s quite incredible that his opinion is always in agreement with what is best for Alonso. Surely if the man had any concept of consistency he should be insisting on Ferrari allowing a Brazilian equality steward into their garage to make sure Felipe gets equal treatment.
@Steven Roy
While both drivers are in with a chance of the championship (as opposed to the likelihood of winning – I have a chance of winning the lottery but little likelihood of doing so…and even less if I keep not buying a ticket) then there shouldn’t be team orders. If, on the other hand, one driver cannot win the championship then I have no problem with one driver helping the other by letting them past.
The problem here is similar to Austria 2002, where it can easily be argued that it wasn’t necessary. The big difference between the two is that this time, Alonso was trying to catch up rather than have Schumacher’s gigantic lead.
My biggest problem is Ferrari’s denial. They then went on about it being ‘right’ and ‘just’ and various other pompous words their media department could come up with. All of which neatly ignored that it was against the rules.
Genuinely banning team orders is impossible. Even if you do, there’s nothing to stop a team strategising (or accidentally forgetting to bring out the tyres) one car in front of the other. So personally there should be set guidelines as to when team orders are allowed and when they’re not as opposed to the current ‘not allowed’ rules stance.
I agree. The practice is as old as the sport itself. Austria 2002 was obviously cynical and unsporting, so a few guidelines or a punishment could be implemented for that type of behaviour. Having orders banned will just mean that we’ll continue having daft incidents like we saw at Hockenheim.