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

[zeph]

I understand the indignation in this thread, but really: what did you expect?

Consistency and even-handedness from the FIA?

When did THAT ever happen?

[Pup]

We live in hope, zeph.

I've always thought that decisions from the WMSC should be in some way like appellate court decisions; i.e., they should serve to clarify the rules through their judgement. Perhaps I'm wrong to see it that way. Regardless, I don't think it's asking too much that their decisions at least not be self-contradictory.

[Richard]

Gosh, I hope most the posters in the thread do not work for the judiciary.

Good justice should allow the judges to recognise the context of the crime and adjust the punishment accordingly.

Good regulators recognise when judgements show rules to be poor and then bin or redraft the bad rules.

Seems to me that the WMSC have done the first, and are about to do the second.

[Pup]

Good judges are knowledgeable of the issues before them, understand the binds of precedent, and are conscious that their decisions have bearing on matters beyond the case at hand.

The FIA decision showed a distinct lack of focus on any of those points. Hence, we have a judgement which contradicts itself and precedent, and teams and drivers who are now more confused than ever about where they stand.

How is that good, in any sense? I don't care if Alonso or Ferrari are punished or not. All I want is clear reasoning behind the decision which clarifies the sport's position on the matter. Are teams now allowed to swap their drivers at $100k a pop? Because they will. And if it's ok for them to do it, then why are they paying the fine? Is this an indulgence thing? Does someone need to go nail a petition to Todt's door?

[timbo]

What puzzles me is a letter of support for Ferrari by Frank Williams.

[andartop]

Good judges are knowledgeable of the issues before them...

The issue at hand was whether there was enough evidence to punish Ferrari further. Obviously, there was not.

Good judges understand the binds of precedent...

Apparently, there were fully aware that all teams have been using team orders one way or another.

Good judges are conscious that their decisions have bearing on matters beyond the case at hand.

Surely, they wanted to prepare the ground for having this unenforceable rule about team orders reviewed.

Hence, we have a judgement which contradicts itself and precedent, and teams and drivers who are now more confused than ever about where they stand.

How is that good, in any sense? I don't care if Alonso or Ferrari are punished or not. All I want is clear reasoning behind the decision which clarifies the sport's position on the matter. Are teams now allowed to swap their drivers at $100k a pop? Because they will. And if it's ok for them to do it, then why are they paying the fine? Is this an indulgence thing? Does someone need to go nail a petition to Todt's door?

It is now clear enough for all teams that at least until the rules are reviewed they will have to be more careful as to how they implement team orders so as not to offend those viewers who do not understand team orders, disagree with team orders or want to believe there are no team orders in F1.

Ferrari were already charged with the fine by the stewards and did not appeal the stewards' decision. Had they filed an appeal, in view of the lack of evidence, it is possible the WMSC would have no option but accept it.

[andrew]

What puzzles me is a letter of support for Ferrari by Frank Williams.

Probably becasue Williams have used team orders to great effect in previous years and will continue to use them. If anything, this letter of support is possibly an admission by Frank Williams?

[timbo]

What puzzles me is a letter of support for Ferrari by Frank Williams.

Probably becasue Williams have used team orders to great effect in previous years and will continue to use them. If anything, this letter of support is possibly an admission by Frank Williams?

Well, Williams was used as a prime example of fair-play at anti-team orders rhetorics by many people (although look at "brilliant" pass of Frentzen by Villeneuve at Jerez'97).
If anything, Sir Frank does not need to use any team orders these days as his team is rarely in contention for a big prizes...

[Giblet]

Good thing the FIA released an overly wordy and poorly scanned PDF to bore us past this event as quickly as possible.

I'm curious to see if they rewrite the rule or simply allow team orders.

[Pup]

Should we laugh or cry...

Michael Schumacher has offered to help provide input for the framing of new team order rules in Formula 1 - to ensure that they satisfy both the fans and those involved in the sport.

[siskue2005]

who better, he has first hand experience in it

[andrew]

Copied from the FIA website:

Press Release
World Motor Sport Council 08/09/2010
On 25 July 2010, at the Grand Prix of Germany, the Stewards of the meeting found an infringement by the Scuderia Ferrari to the prohibition of team orders interfering with a race result and then decided to impose a fine of $100,000 and to forward the dossier to the World Motor Sport Council for further consideration.

The Judging Body of the World Motor Sport Council held an extraordinary hearing in Paris on 8 September 2010 to examine this matter.

After an in depth analysis of all reports, statements and documents submitted, the Judging Body has decided to confirm the Stewards’ decision of a $100,000 fine for infringing article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations and to impose the payment of the costs incurred by the FIA.

The Judging Body has also acknowledged that article 39.1 of the Sporting Regulations should be reviewed and has decided to refer this question to the Formula One Sporting Working Group.

The full decision of the World Motor Sport Council may be consulted on the following link

Proceedings

In March 2010 at Bahrain at the initiative of the FIA President, the World Motor Sport Council adopted a new transitional disciplinary procedure, in order in particular to ensure the separation between the prosecuting body and the judging body. At the General Assembly on 5 November 2010, a more global reform of the FIA judicial system will be submitted for approval, including in particular the creation of an International Tribunal which will exercise the disciplinary power in the 1st instance in place of the World Motor Sport Council.

In application of this new procedure, previously applied within the context of the US F1 case, the FIA President exercises the role of prosecuting body. As such, he has the authority to notify any person being prosecuted of the grievances brought against him and to submit the matter to the Judging Body of the World Motor Sport Council, chaired by the Deputy President for Sport, Mr Graham Stoker.

The Deputy President for Sport has the power to proceed with an investigation and, within this context, to designate a reporter from among the members of the World Motor Sport Council.

In the present case, the Deputy President for Sport designated Mr Lars Österlind, a member of the World Motor Sport Council, as reporter. Mr Österlind’s report was forwarded to the Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro as the party being prosecuted.

Prior to the hearing, the members of the Judging Body of the World Motor Sport Council received all the documents in the case, including the observations submitted by the Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro.

The FIA President did not attend the hearing but was represented by Maître Jean-Pierre Martel from the law firm Orrick Rambaud Martel.

The hearing before the Judging Body of the World Motor Sport Council, assembled on 8 September 2010 in an extraordinary meeting, was chaired by the Deputy President for Sport and allowed the hearing, in person, of Mr Stefano Domenicali, Team Principal of the Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro, assisted by lawyers, Mr Henry Peter and Nigel Tozzi. The World Motor Sport Council had the possibility to join the drivers Mr Fernando Alonso and Mr Felipe Massa via videoconference.

More here:

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pr ... cision.pdf

[mx_tifoso]

One of the SPEED commentators brought up what to me seems like a good point; if the WMSC was not able to prove that Ferrari used team orders then why did they fine them and why don't they give the 100K back?

[Just_a_fan]

I think Whitmarsh made that very point too earlier in the week. I wonder if that's where the commentators picked it up?

[Miguel]

One of the SPEED commentators brought up what to me seems like a good point; if the WMSC was not able to prove that Ferrari used team orders then why did they fine them and why don't they give the 100K back?

My best guess is they didn't remove the fine because Ferrari didn't appeal it. Furthermore, AFAIK stewards' penalties can not be appealed (Hamilton, Spa, 2008?).