FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

I didn't say the scenario was the same (only the being denied victory part is), but that it was still an unfair situation. Drivers should have the opportunity to race throughout. If the guy in front is quicker near the end of the race then he should have no problems anyway. If he is slower then that is his problem, we should not be denied potential action because teams want a nice formation finish. I find that mentality utterly infuriating as a fan. Look at Turkey, where the drivers were (albeit mistakenly) put in a position whereby they could actually have a go at each other! How exciting was that?!

Oh I absolutely agree with you. All out racing is the best option. Im trying to find a solution that suits the TEAM SPORT brigade whilst maintaining the best option of allowing racing. But you are right-they should race to the end. Turkey was ace!

[spankyham]

It's Ferrari's preposterous legal defense (We didn't do it, except we did, but so did everyone else, except they didn't, so it's okay)

Don't misrepresent Ferrari's defense. Firstly, read it so you know what you are talking about. I have already posted the link, but here is its again http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Documents/08092010a-wmsc-decision.pdf
To correct your misrepresentation to summarize Ferrari's defense was as follows:-
1) No mandatory order was given
2) Information was provided to Felipe
3) Felipe made a personal (not team decision) to allow Fernando to pass
Ferrari made another submission to the hearing in that the penalty applied by the stewards was not equitable in that Team Orders had previously been given and the perpetrators received no penalty. Here Ferrari provided the examples of Germany 08 and Turkey 10.

So let me get you on record with this. It is your belief (I am assuming based on your using the Ferrari defense given to the WMSC to support your position) that Felipe made his own decision to move aside and let Fernando through?

Here is Felipe's contention/statement
[youtube]jreVi_Hb6W0[/youtube]

If so, please explain the following...

1) The arguments that were reported to have happened in the pits (as per the BBC telecast as it happened) shortly before the "you... are... slower" transmission.

Is this the best you can do? Your best offering, first place on your list, is a second hand, unsubstantiated hearsay comments, not one shred of evidence and this is your lead item.

2) The apology from the race engineer to the racer and telling him he is a good lad immediately following the pass in question.

Sorry he wasn't able to respond and improve his times on the hard tyres. Sorry he couldn't keep his gap on Fernando and Sebastian. Congratulating him for doing the team thing, putting the team above himself.

3) The clear lack of enthusiasm from Felipe following a 1-2 victory for the team.

He was disappointed. Disappointed that he couldn't prevent Seb from closing in on the team.

If you cannot explain these items, then obviously Ferrari is also guilty of lying to the stewards and the World Motor Sports Council.

Also, although Ferrari gave examples of where THEY FELT team orders had been used (including Turkey 2010 / Germany 2008) in the brief I read the WMSC did not judge on each of their examples as having been (or not been) team orders, so please refrain from putting forth the assertion that the WMSC said that was or was not team orders for those races.

The link to the complete decision of the WMSC has been posted quite a few times, so I wont do it again. But, as I have pointed out previously, Ferrari included 2 examples of previous Team Orders in their submission. One was McLaren Germany 2008. One was McLaren Turkey 2010. The council cannot rule on evidence that is not submitted, therefore the only team orders they can comment on in their decision are the 2 from Ferrari's submission and the one against Ferrari from the reporter (the term for the prosecutor in their report). Now, in their report, on page 8, under the "Decision" section, in item "C" they specifically state that there were examples of Team Orders in F1 and the had been inconsistency in the application of the rule.

Like I said, I support the decision of the WMSC to get us back to racing as the focus, instead of a long drawn out legal battle. But please do not try to rewrite history.

I'm not the one making stuff up and presenting it as evidence and, I'm not the one denying what's there in black and white

[spankyham]

All out racing is the best option. Im trying to find a solution that suits the TEAM SPORT brigade whilst maintaining the best option of allowing racing. But you are right-they should race to the end. Turkey was ace!

If Turkey was ace, with the challenge on one lap between Lewis and Jenson, wouldn't it have been more ace if they had done that for 10 more laps. As a Ferrari supporter, I would have absolutely loved to have seen them really at it for 10 more laps.
As an F1 fan, did you feel robbed that they didn't continue racing?
Did you feel that Jenson had his chance of passing Lewis taken away from him?

P.S. I think the two rules you stated previously could work
A)Teams may use strategy to gain and to protect maximum points for the team.
B)At no point may a team give an order that penalises a driver and gains nothing for the team.
But I still think getting rid of all reference to any rule is the best option.

[bud]

Lol you feel robbed as an F1 fan From Turkey would you feel raped and pillaged from Germany then?

[spankyham]

Lol you feel robbed as an F1 fan From Turkey would you feel raped and pillaged from Germany then?

Yes!
Raped, Pillaged, strangled, raped again, beaten, dropped off a cliff and gutted
For Germany 2008 you would feel all those things if you were a supporter of Team Orders

[bud]

Yeah McLaren stopped Heikki from winning that race huh

[spankyham]

Yeah McLaren stopped Heikki from winning that race huh

Yep, they sure did make their driver yield and give over the position to their driver behind. I'm glad you acknowledge it.
It's just a pity you didn't originally mention the two previous races where Heikki had to move over for Lewis as well - France and England.

I wonder why those who try to justify Turkey (because they deny Jenson ever was ahead of Lewis) get around these ones.
Perhaps Heikki was never in front, it might have been an optical illusion. Probably organised by the F1 dark-side - Ferrari - through their smoke-and-mirrors division

[bud]

Haha you just don't get it! Typical Ferrari lamb!

[spankyham]

Haha you just don't get it! Typical Ferrari lamb!

Spanky 1 Bud 0

[bud]

Haha good on you champ! I'm out you're no different to a brick wall!

[Bubbie]

It's Ferrari's preposterous legal defense (We didn't do it, except we did, but so did everyone else, except they didn't, so it's okay)

Don't misrepresent Ferrari's defense. Firstly, read it so you know what you are talking about. I have already posted the link, but here is its again http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Documents/08092010a-wmsc-decision.pdf
To correct your misrepresentation to summarize Ferrari's defense was as follows:-
1) No mandatory order was given
2) Information was provided to Felipe
3) Felipe made a personal (not team decision) to allow Fernando to pass
Ferrari made another submission to the hearing in that the penalty applied by the stewards was not equitable in that Team Orders had previously been given and the perpetrators received no penalty. Here Ferrari provided the examples of Germany 08 and Turkey 10.

So let me get you on record with this. It is your belief (I am assuming based on your using the Ferrari defense given to the WMSC to support your position) that Felipe made his own decision to move aside and let Fernando through?

Here is Felipe's contention/statement
[youtube]jreVi_Hb6W0[/youtube]

If so, please explain the following...

1) The arguments that were reported to have happened in the pits (as per the BBC telecast as it happened) shortly before the "you... are... slower" transmission.

Is this the best you can do? Your best offering, first place on your list, is a second hand, unsubstantiated hearsay comments, not one shred of evidence and this is your lead item.

2) The apology from the race engineer to the racer and telling him he is a good lad immediately following the pass in question.

Sorry he wasn't able to respond and improve his times on the hard tyres. Sorry he couldn't keep his gap on Fernando and Sebastian. Congratulating him for doing the team thing, putting the team above himself.

3) The clear lack of enthusiasm from Felipe following a 1-2 victory for the team.

He was disappointed. Disappointed that he couldn't prevent Seb from closing in on the team.

If you cannot explain these items, then obviously Ferrari is also guilty of lying to the stewards and the World Motor Sports Council.

Also, although Ferrari gave examples of where THEY FELT team orders had been used (including Turkey 2010 / Germany 2008) in the brief I read the WMSC did not judge on each of their examples as having been (or not been) team orders, so please refrain from putting forth the assertion that the WMSC said that was or was not team orders for those races.

The link to the complete decision of the WMSC has been posted quite a few times, so I wont do it again. But, as I have pointed out previously, Ferrari included 2 examples of previous Team Orders in their submission. One was McLaren Germany 2008. One was McLaren Turkey 2010. The council cannot rule on evidence that is not submitted, therefore the only team orders they can comment on in their decision are the 2 from Ferrari's submission and the one against Ferrari from the reporter (the term for the prosecutor in their report). Now, in their report, on page 8, under the "Decision" section, in item "C" they specifically state that there were examples of Team Orders in F1 and the had been inconsistency in the application of the rule.

Like I said, I support the decision of the WMSC to get us back to racing as the focus, instead of a long drawn out legal battle. But please do not try to rewrite history.

I'm not the one making stuff up and presenting it as evidence and, I'm not the one denying what's there in black and white

My points were arranged chronologically, not in order of importance. I have read the decision, so stop trying to indicate that people who interpret it differently than you haven't read it.

With regards to point 1... It was when it was happening live and the report was made from the BBC pit reporter. Not after the fact, or once the debate started.

With regards to point 2/3... How was he supposed to keep his times up when he had been ordered to turn his engine down, and Fernando had not?

I don't buy the post-race propaganda from Ferrari including Massa and Smedley who by then were in "save our jobs" mode.

I also have a problem that the Tifosi and even Ferrari in their response love to swing between. "There were no team orders in this race" and "Team orders are used by all the teams so it was okay" depending on which point they are arguing.

[f1ea]

I also have a problem that the Tifosi and even Ferrari in their response love to swing between. "There were no team orders in this race" and "Team orders are used by all the teams so it was okay" depending on which point they are arguing.

In such case, you have problems with facts, because:

Fact 1. There were no direct explicit orders. Therefore, any order given must have been indirect.
Fact 2. The same kind of indirect orders happen all over, all the time. To no punishment.

[Bubbie]

I also have a problem that the Tifosi and even Ferrari in their response love to swing between. "There were no team orders in this race" and "Team orders are used by all the teams so it was okay" depending on which point they are arguing.

In such case, you have problems with facts, because:

Fact 1. There were no direct explicit orders. Therefore, any order given must have been indirect.
Fact 2. The same kind of indirect orders happen all over, all the time. To no punishment.

So this was an indirect order for Felipe to move over for Fernando?

[vaptin]

I also have a problem that the Tifosi and even Ferrari in their response love to swing between. "There were no team orders in this race" and "Team orders are used by all the teams so it was okay" depending on which point they are arguing.

In such case, you have problems with facts, because:

Fact 1. There were no direct explicit orders. Therefore, any order given must have been indirect.
Fact 2. The same kind of indirect orders happen all over, all the time. To no punishment.

So this was an indirect order for Felipe to move over for Fernando?

I'll answer this one - yes.
Could the WMSC realistically do anything about that: no.

[spankyham]

My points were arranged chronologically, not in order of importance. I have read the decision, so stop trying to indicate that people who interpret it differently than you haven't read it.

With regards to point 1... It was when it was happening live and the report was made from the BBC pit reporter. Not after the fact, or once the debate started.

It was hearsay, 2nd hand and unsubstantiated - give me one source or one statement ascribed to this so called event that can be verified, a name of who anyone involved, what was said, who was present?. Honestly this is far below what is worthy of any decent reporting or posting.

With regards to point 2/3... How was he supposed to keep his times up when he had been ordered to turn his engine down, and Fernando had not?

This was a speculative contention from the prosecutor, not a fact. Ferrari refuted this both verbally and in writing. Having heard both sides, this is one element that those judging, in their decision section, did not validate. Therefore this was an accusation that was not denied and ended up not verified.

I don't buy the post-race propaganda from Ferrari including Massa and Smedley who by then were in "save our jobs" mode.

That's your choice. However, they are both on record and it was inserted to respond to your contention that there was doubt as to whether Felipe had contended that it was his decision and not the decision of the team.

I also have a problem that the Tifosi and even Ferrari in their response love to swing between. "There were no team orders in this race" and "Team orders are used by all the teams so it was okay" depending on which point they are arguing.

This is not a "Swing" as you put it. It is the legal method of responding to the claim. If you look at the complete decision document it is broken up into section. There is the charge, which should include which rule was broken and how each element of the rule was broken.

Then there is the discussion of the sanction. This is where it is discussed as to what the appropriate penalty should be. In addressing the charge section, Ferrari pointed out that it was the hearing duty and the prosecutors responsibility to show concrete proof that a binding team order had been issued by Ferrari and that it had effected the outcome of the race. Ferrari contented they only gave information and that Felipe made his own decision based on the information provided.

In responding to the sanctions section, Ferrari were arguing that if they were found guilty any punishment would be inequitable because previous occurrences of team orders the effected races had occurred and had received no sanction.