Ferrari get angry...
- Thread starter FB
- Start date
I guess I'm missing something, but I seem to remember:
Massa being told Alonso's faster and being asked if he understands what that means;
Massa slowing on the straight to make it absolutely obvious he chose to let Alonso past;
Massa's engineer apologising to him;
After the race Massa saying he let Alonso past;
On being asked if it was team order effectively saying "Go figure";
Ferrari en-mass stating that other teams are being hypocritical in denying there are team orders;
Ferrari saying Lauda is being hypocritical in saying that Ferrari broke the rules in having team orders.....
Oh, and let's not forget.. On the podium Massa refusinbg to look at Alonso
Somewhere in there, apparently there is some doubt, damned if I can see it though. Methinks they have a suit with arrows on it and a sack over their shoulder with"SWAG" written across it...
Massa being told Alonso's faster and being asked if he understands what that means;
Massa slowing on the straight to make it absolutely obvious he chose to let Alonso past;
Massa's engineer apologising to him;
After the race Massa saying he let Alonso past;
On being asked if it was team order effectively saying "Go figure";
Ferrari en-mass stating that other teams are being hypocritical in denying there are team orders;
Ferrari saying Lauda is being hypocritical in saying that Ferrari broke the rules in having team orders.....
Oh, and let's not forget.. On the podium Massa refusinbg to look at Alonso
Somewhere in there, apparently there is some doubt, damned if I can see it though. Methinks they have a suit with arrows on it and a sack over their shoulder with"SWAG" written across it...
Flood1
Rookie
I suspect they will not be punished and I suspect that all of those who wear red on Sundays will tell the truth.....................the Ferrari truth.
Massa will say that the team had agreed that a faster car will not be slowed by his teamate. And if that happens, then the drivers agree to take info and make their own decision. He will explain that his public complaints were meant to deflect criticism of him by his fans. There are those who would disagree that Alonso was faster. He wasn't when behind Massa, but he was when he was allowed to go ahead.
It was wrong in my opinion, but I do not think any inquiry run in the "not Mosely" regime will find a punishable fault, a punishment beyond what has already been done. The Todt era has been very docile regarding punishments, and generally speaking, I agree with that approach.
Massa will say that the team had agreed that a faster car will not be slowed by his teamate. And if that happens, then the drivers agree to take info and make their own decision. He will explain that his public complaints were meant to deflect criticism of him by his fans. There are those who would disagree that Alonso was faster. He wasn't when behind Massa, but he was when he was allowed to go ahead.
It was wrong in my opinion, but I do not think any inquiry run in the "not Mosely" regime will find a punishable fault, a punishment beyond what has already been done. The Todt era has been very docile regarding punishments, and generally speaking, I agree with that approach.
rufus_mcdufus
Champion Elect
I think Smedley could be the key to how things pan out. It was pretty clear that he was aggrieved when the incident took place - aggrieved enough to make it pretty obvious in a sarcastic manner that team orders were taking place. He must've thought about such situations beforehand and how he would react. Perhaps he really is prepared to put his job on the line for the sake of his integrity? I really think he could go against Ferrari here. But he's such a key asset to Ferrari that they may decide he's too great a loss if they were to get rid of him.
This could also be a precursor to Ferrari letting Massa (& Smedley) go at the end of the season, despite the contract re-signing, if they go against Ferrari.
This could also be a precursor to Ferrari letting Massa (& Smedley) go at the end of the season, despite the contract re-signing, if they go against Ferrari.
Regarding Todt's involvement, hasn't he already ruled himself out of the WMSC hearing?
Bearing in mind he used to head up Ferrari and he is the father of Massa's manager, it would seem to be the prudent thing to do.
An odd situation for the president of the FIA to be in though...
Bearing in mind he used to head up Ferrari and he is the father of Massa's manager, it would seem to be the prudent thing to do.
An odd situation for the president of the FIA to be in though...
Brogan said:
That's true.He will not be directly involved with the hearing.Nick Craw the director for sport will be the FIA representative.
But even if Todt is not directly involved he cannot disregard his position of president of the FIA.
sportsman said:
No, he can't. However, he's in a position where a vested interest could be claimed, so he's got out of the courtroom. A very wise* decision.
Remember Moseley only went into the court if he had a vested interest!
*OK, its not very wise, its actually bloody obvious but not apparently in the world of Ecclestone, Moseley and friends. Nice to see someone trying to make an FIA court legitimate!
A sensible decision from Todt. There is an obvious conflict of interest there, so he is doing the correct thing by distancing himself.
teabagyokel said:
Don't get me wrong.I think Todt has made the right decision and adopted a very sensible and intelligent approach.
But that will still not stop the scandalmongering F1 press whether or not Ferrari are let off, given further punishment twisting that fact to their own ends.
He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.Since when has the truth had any bearing on what the F1 press report.
sportsman said:
Yes, you're spot on, with the exception that the situation is not unique to the F1 press. However, when you get to the stage that you're damned if you do/don't, then the best thing to do is to do whatever your job is right, so that they are throwing smaller tomatoes at you (as it were).
This is an interesting viewpoint.I happened to be having lunch wih a lawyer today about a different matter and after we had finished with that we got to chatting.
He turned out to be a DTM fan, he is German so no suprise there.He is obviously aware of the Ferrari hearing and knows the details as we do.
I asked him, as a lawyer what is your opinion of the likely outcome of the hearing.His answer suprised me to say the least.
He said legally Ferrari have no case to answer.They never issued a direct order to Massa to allow Alonso to pass him.All Ferrari did was advise Massa that Alonso was faster.It makes no difference in court if this is a coded transmission or not.It was not a direct team order.The tone of voice of Smedley and his subsequent apology have no bearing on the legality of the message.
To say I was stunned is an understatement.That was nothing to what he said next.
The only person who broke any rules was Massa.He was guilty of breaking the rules of article 151c by carrying out an act predujicial to competition
I found this bloody preposterous and told him so.But although he agreed that it was riduculous that is the legal situation as he sees it as lawyer.
He turned out to be a DTM fan, he is German so no suprise there.He is obviously aware of the Ferrari hearing and knows the details as we do.
I asked him, as a lawyer what is your opinion of the likely outcome of the hearing.His answer suprised me to say the least.
He said legally Ferrari have no case to answer.They never issued a direct order to Massa to allow Alonso to pass him.All Ferrari did was advise Massa that Alonso was faster.It makes no difference in court if this is a coded transmission or not.It was not a direct team order.The tone of voice of Smedley and his subsequent apology have no bearing on the legality of the message.
To say I was stunned is an understatement.That was nothing to what he said next.
The only person who broke any rules was Massa.He was guilty of breaking the rules of article 151c by carrying out an act predujicial to competition
I found this bloody preposterous and told him so.But although he agreed that it was riduculous that is the legal situation as he sees it as lawyer.
Taking it as read that Ferrari never issued a direct order but Massa could potentially be found guilty under article 151c does anyone know what sanctions the WMSC can hand out and can this punishment be extended to the team as it is one of their employees who has, allegedly, transgressed? Can Ferrari be found guilty of not telling Massa he musn't let Alonso past, as this is a breach of the rules?
Grizzly said:
By the way, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, Grizzly, because I believe that Ferrari's reputation will not take a beating for anything, due to this attitude:
DOF_Power said:
There has been plenty that Ferrari has done to its reputation and come up smelling of roses. This is because they are a sports team; all reputations clean up quickly - sport moves on and forgets about things.
This is not true for individuals, it is true for teams, by and large. And Ferrari will continue to be a massive brand selling all sorts of Ferrari crap to various numpties across the world.
Look at, say, Italian football. Juventus did not die when it was the crux of the Calciopoli scandal; yes, they haven't reached the same heights since the scandal*, but they're back in the top half of Serie A!
I blame the referees that Juve don't choose any more!
Brogan said:
Ferrari have already stated that they will take civil action if any further sanctions are imposed.That would be the view I imagine of a civil court.
The WMSC have already found that their decisions can be oveturned in a civil court.
teabagyokel said:
The blind faithful.
I could leave it there, but im going to babble on for a while
Yeah, I should have maybe worded it different. I do that quite a lot.
Ferrari's sheep will stay in the herd. However, those on the fence, me, many Anglo French fans, the less biased media folk etc, i hope would share my view.
IMO it is less what they did, more how they handled it/are handling it after the race weekend.
They are treating the entire F1 community like idiots and making asses of themselves by, rather than biting their lip, putting bickering messages like this on their web page! unbelievable from an international company! They seem to be intentionally alienating those on the fence, they may even, dare i say it, alienate some of their less brainwashed, more free thinking sheep from the fold, but like you say, losses will be minimal.
I HOPE those fence sitters will spend the near future looking down their noses to Ferrari with a shameful frown.
Of course things like this happen all the time in F1, its the whole "who me? noooo" attitude that causes such aversion.
McLaren with the loose documents? They make large public apologies and get rid of those responsible.
Renault / Piquet Jr.? They make large public apologies and get rid of those responsible.
They admit fault, take the blame, and put things right as far as they can. If Ferrari had said after the steward hearing on Sunday, "We have taken the decision to back one driver from now on this year, we did what we thought best for our championship hopes" some of us would be annoyed, upset maybe, but that would be the end of it.
Ill try and climb off the grizzly soap box now...
sportsman said:
When I had the fun of being involved in an FBI & SEC case regarding fraudulent reporting and illegal share trading there was always the understanding that whilst the senior executives and financial professionals were responsible for their actions and carrying out their responsibilities, the CEO got 5 years because it was proven that he was a "controlling mind" and managed managed in an intimidatory manner....
On that basis I don't think there are too many F1 teams that would have a leg to stand on
Interesting point.I am not a lawyer, neither do I profess to have any legal knowledge, I was simply repeating what the lawyer told me.
But in the case you mention the CEO was punished with 5 years, not the company.So an individual was punished and company just carried on without penalty.
But in the case you mention the CEO was punished with 5 years, not the company.So an individual was punished and company just carried on without penalty.
... as so often the situation may come down to:
- If it is a 'fair' court, then who has the best lawyer
- If it is a weighted die, then who is judge and prosecutor
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
