Ferrari team order at Germany - What should be the penalty?

[andrew]

If the FIA or the WMSC are going to do this properly, they have to look at all teams as they are all as guilty as each other.

[WhiteBlue]

I have thought about the question why Ferrari did not protest the stewards decision. Perhaps they actually prefer this issue to end in front of the WMSC and not the ICA. The ICA is run by legal professionals and the WMSC is a political body. They have far better chances to come out of this with few losses if it goes to the WMSC. In the WMSC they have Bernie speak for them and he isn't interested in justice. He only wants to get on Ferrari's good side.

[747heavy]

Thanks Alberto & WB
for the aswer to my question, you made some good points.
So in 2002 Ferrari was fined 1M$ for bringing the sport in disrepute &/or mocking up the podium ceremony, but not for the team order as such, because then it was still legal.

Therefore, this WMSC hearing will be the first time that a (possible) breach of the team order rule is trialed - this could become rather interesting.
There is quite a lot riding on this hearing then, as it will set the preface/example for the future. So anything is possible.

I think WB has a valid point in regards to Ferrari not appealing against the stewards desicion. They may hope/speculate that the WMSC will overrule the findings of the stewards. - we will see

[747heavy]

I´m still not fully subscribing to your (WB) reasoning to reverse the positions, but I accept your point of view.
I´m not a laywer, but I´m hard pressed to see, how Driver B (Alonso) could be drawn into this.
(Please, I don´t want to turn this into a pro/con Alonso vs. Massa thread, I´m only interested in the possible (legal) explaination, and how it could be proved by the WMSC/FIA that he is a part of it. Therefore I will refer to Driver A as the one in front and Driver B to the one behind, winning in the end
For me I´m sure it was TO, and I personally think, that teams should be allowed to do what they want, but this is another topic. I agree we have the rule, and if the rule is broken, there should be consequences to that)
I´m just struggleing to see, how we can hold this against Driver B and which crime he has commited. The comment "This is rediculos" hardly proofs anything. For all what we know, he could be refering to the taste of the liquid in his drink bottle, or to whatever.
On the other hand, Driver A was (if proven that it was TO), a complice in the crime.
Therefore, in my understanding of justice, he should be punished as well, and not be awarded with some extra points.
So I conclude, that if the FIA really want to stage an example, and discourage this sort of behavior both should be excluded from the race, plus fined x amount of money.
Just MHO - we will se what happens

[Pierce89]

If the FIA or the WMSC are going to do this properly, they have to look at all teams as they are all as guilty as each other.

WOW some sanity on this issue.You must be in the wrong thread.

[donskar]

Anyone thought about the effect an anti-Ferrari judgement will have on the WDC and WCC? FIA/Ecclestone might.

[Miguel]

Anyone thought about the effect an anti-Ferrari judgement will have on the WDC and WCC? FIA/Ecclestone might.

I think Ecclestone is very happy with a 5-way title race.

EDIT: Which is exactly why Ferrari did it.

[WhiteBlue]

If the FIA or the WMSC are going to do this properly, they have to look at all teams as they are all as guilty as each other.

This is a very idealistic but also very impractical view. The justice of the FiA in F1 is primarily operating as a referee for race weekends. So before an issue gets recognized it has to come to the attention of race control. Very often the officers of the FiA sort things out in private and reject dodgy developments and sporting practices by warnings. The public will not even know about these things.

If race control deems it necessary to penalize something they can bring it to the attention of the stewards. A second source for action are the teams. If they make official complaints the organs of the FiA take action. One has to consider that the teams often deliberately do not file complaints. I believe that most teams think that team order is something they should have the right to decide according to their own policies. They do not necessarily have an interest to have that prerogative reduced by more legislation and prosecution. They will only take action if they see a competitor run away with a significant advantage in a case that also looks bad to the public. Red Bull's position in the team order in Germany is typical for that stance. They make their disapproval public and rely on the FiA stewards to find a solution. They reserve a protest for a final decision if all other actions fail.

How do those mechanisms work on all the other team orders that have happened since 2003? Basically 99% of all issues get ignored. All issues including those from 2009 are finally closed to FiA justice anyway. When the annual trophy ceremony is done in Monaco each year nothing can change the world championship results. They are set in stone. This is the reason why Piquet jr. revelations did not change the result of the 2008 Singapore race.

I hope I have shown that andrews POV isn't very practical. In a very political way the Ferrari scandal was caused by the prior events at Red Bull. Webber for reasons he only knows himself has played up the team order in Turkey and kicked off another scandal in Silverstone. I believe that his public stance has inspired Massa and Smedley to try something similar. Only that they stopped half way through the exercise and went back to the party line. But the rebellion was enough to get the media on the war path. All the hypocrisy which was fueled by the previous events broke loose and kicked off the scandal. In the end the FiA has to deal with it and they will have to follow precedents and have to uphold the sporting law. They will also have to see to it that no competitor is disadvantaged by illegitimate decisions.

[tifoly013usa]

Take the points Alonzo gained from taking the position from Felipe & deduct from Felipe's total after the race, he gave Alono 7, deduct additional 7 from his total.
Allow team orders, if they switch positions let the driver who gave up the position pay in double points..? No additional fines for Ferrari...
Alonzo should pay for Felipe's super licence next year if he is around.
Rob Smedley should run the track 5x & choose his words better in the future


spa+mp4-25+LH+JB=win,win

[Pandamasque]

People may argue that the rules are invalid today and all that jazz but the simple fact of the matter is, Team Orders are illegal, Ferrari ignored that rule knowing full well the implications.

They deserve a heafty punishment, you break one rule you break them all, theres no point going light on the punishment because people disagree with the rule, its a RULE.

So let's revise the outcome of all championships between and including 2002-2009, shall we? That the RULE.
FIA must learn to acknowledge their mistakes, leave the current situation as it is and change the rules. Any other solution will make F1 look even more stupid than it does at the moment.

[WhiteBlue]

So let's revise the outcome of all championships between and including 2002-2009, shall we? That the RULE.

It is not the rule. All issues before 2010 are closed. That is the rule.

FIA must ... leave the current situation as it is and change the rules.

That is not going to happen. The FiA will not tolerate Ferrari's rule violation because they have to be impartial. There will be further decisions because otherwise the extraordinary disciplinary hearing would not take place. Regarding a rule change in season one should remember that the teams make the rules and they will not unanimously agree to abolish the team order ban this year.

[timbo]

There will be further decisions because otherwise the extraordinary disciplinary hearing would not take place.

Stewards requested it.
There's nothing indicating FIA would want to do it on their own.

[WhiteBlue]

There will be further decisions because otherwise the extraordinary disciplinary hearing would not take place.

Stewards requested it.
There's nothing indicating FIA would want to do it on their own.

The stewards referred it to the WMSC. If Todt wanted to do nothing about it it could have gone as an item on the agenda of the next regular meeting. That did not happen. An extraordinary disciplinary meeting will be convened under the deputy president of sport Graham Stoker. This clearly indicates that the issue is seen as serious. The last times comparable meetings took place it was about Piquet crashing in Singapore 2008, Hamilton's lies in Australia 2009, Renault using stolen secrets from McLaren in 2007 and the Stepney/Coughlan Spygate affair in 2007. All of those issues were pretty serious for the individuals and teams who were concerned. For an FiA licensee to be the subject of a WMSC disciplinary hearing is usually not good news. The best outcome you can hope for is a suspended penalty.

[timbo]

For an FiA licensee to be the subject of a WMSC disciplinary hearing is usually not good news.

Or not. As in Renault's case 2007 and Macca's first hearing.
Note that at ALL times even if punishment was imposed the measures chosen were never damaging to overall championship perspective.

[xpensive]

I think the entire situation is rather awkward for everyone. On the face of it, just like WB says, Ferrari broke the rules in the most blatant of ways. But this rule since 2002 is a most artificial one, everybody seems to agree with that, why penalizing Ferrari too hard would risk the FIA look less than serious.

But nobody wants to see Ferrari or Santander/Alonso humiliated, they are a little too important for F1, but at the same time Jean Todt don't wish to be seen as being soft on his old team.

Awkward. I think the final verdict from WMSC might come out pretty surprising, while Massa will be just as desireble at Maranello as Nelson Piquet Jr with the Regie.