FIA Ferrari's team orders WMSC hearing
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
jenov2003 said:
I'd just like to say, with the hope of not provoking a flame war, that the man who can wins overall.
Alonso was Ferrari's #1 and favoured driver when the call came for Massa to pull over. Overall, Alonso has dominated Massa all season, was clear in the points race and was, indeed, the faster driver at Hockenheim before being denied his lead by the Biegen Sie rechts tendencies of the pole sitter.
I don't think the WDC is decided by team-orders, I think everyone does start on 0 within each team. Team orders are generally applied when it becomes clear who the best bet for the title is.
In fact, the one driver who started with a favoured team-mate now lies 28 points in front of him in the Championship. If you're good enough, your team won't get in your way.
James Allen is reporting that a 5 second time penalty was considered for Alonso to put him back to P2 but they decided against it.
So that suggests that the WMSC agree Ferrari are guilty of team orders and therefore in breach of the rules, they just didn't see the need to penalise them any further.
I will never understand the reasonings of the FIA/WMSC, they make no sense at all to me.
So that suggests that the WMSC agree Ferrari are guilty of team orders and therefore in breach of the rules, they just didn't see the need to penalise them any further.
I will never understand the reasonings of the FIA/WMSC, they make no sense at all to me.
Brogan said:
Say you have this situation on lap X:
HAM WEB BUT VET MAS ALO
And Ferrari do the switch, with the race ending:
ALO HAM WEB BUT MAS VET
What do you do then? Push Alonso back to 5th? 6th? And award points arbritrarily to the others?
That's not the point I'm making.teabagyokel said:
It's that the WMSC would seem to agree with the initial charge of team orders, for which Ferrari have been found guilty.
They just didn't think further punishment was warranted; it was the WMSC who considered the 5 second penalty.
An odd decision to say the least.
Unfortunately Jen it has never really been like that.
Ferrari have historically been favoured, both in terms of rule changes and financially.
Personally I'd like to see a completely clean break by FOTA with a brand new series, no favouritism, no Bernie, no FOM, no CVC and most of all, no FIA.
Ferrari have historically been favoured, both in terms of rule changes and financially.
Personally I'd like to see a completely clean break by FOTA with a brand new series, no favouritism, no Bernie, no FOM, no CVC and most of all, no FIA.
)
Brogan said:
Please don't shatter my illusions. I come from an age that didn't have more than two TV channels and a press that didn't really cover F1 - the only reason I knew about F1 was because I live near Silverstone. I saw the racing and didn't hear about the politics.
Ferrari entered F1 in 1950 - the year of my birth - I actually don't know when they gained favour in terms of rule changes and finance but suspect it was when Bernie entered the arena as something other than a team boss.
I may well be a dinosaur, but I have only ever wanted to see clean racing - I suspect that is not possible in this corporate age.
Autosport article is now up: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86481
The FIA statement:
[box=400]“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.
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 video conference.”[/quote]
The FIA statement:
[box=400]“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.
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 video conference.”[/quote]
To all intents and puposes its virtually gone anyway.
"Formula 1's ban on team orders is to be reviewed after the season following the decision of the FIA not to hand Ferrari any further punishment for breaching the regulations at the German Grand Prix.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86481
"Formula 1's ban on team orders is to be reviewed after the season following the decision of the FIA not to hand Ferrari any further punishment for breaching the regulations at the German Grand Prix.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86481
FIA link: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/wmsc/2010/Pages/wmsc_080910a.aspx
It states the full decision will be posted tomorrow.
It states the full decision will be posted tomorrow.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
- Article
