Still no answer

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Jukebox


i'm gettin sick of the neverending insults towards TGF & Ferrari.

Originally posted by Jukebox
Just recently because Ferrari did it, everyone seems to be making such a big fuss about it

hold up a minute Jukebox my man, you were one of the ones whose post critised Ferrari and Tgf's actions most of all after the Austrian farce. just because it was a couple of weeks ago now, doesn't change what it was, and you were making as much fuss as anyone. (at first!)

[Mr V]

Originally posted by mr v


hold up a minute Jukebox my man, you were one of the ones whose postings critised Ferrari and Tgf's actions most of all after the Austrian farce. just because it was a couple of weeks ago now, doesn't change what it was, and you were making as much fuss as anyone. (at first!)

[Red]

Indeed he criticised. At first. I believe that Jukebox (like myself too) was getting sick of the neverending and insults.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Red
Indeed he criticised. At first.

so, what are you (both?) saying?, it wasn't right at the time, but now it's a couple of weeks later, and people have started quietning down abit,it's all of a sudden ok?

[Glen]

I think a lot of people, myself included, would like to see a little balance in the arguments. Sure, there was wrong-doing, but be honest - "race fixing" (and other easily used, less easily explained scare-phrases) is an expression with connotations way beyond what was actually done... one driver borrowed four points from another driver in the same team. Bad for enjoyment, but not a heinous crime.

There has been a "band-wagon" resulting from this PR blunder on Ferrari's part, which many people have gleefully jumped on. Just because the team have (quite rightly) been shown up for this cynical manoeuvre, doesn't mean that every other crackpot theory to explain away their excellence is suddenly vindicated.

[Red]

Originally posted by mr v


so, what are you (both?) saying?, it wasn't right at the time [...]etc.

No. Firstly I have never said it wasn't right. Secondly, 2 weeks later and we hear the same stuff, nothing new and third all this bashing started long time before Austria.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by Glen
Just because the team have (quite rightly) been shown up for this cynical manoeuvre, doesn't mean that every other crackpot theory to explain away their excellence is suddenly vindicated.

This is certainly true.

I am not a (modern) Ferrari fan. This is because I don't like the way they run their team. I deal with this by not supporting them! However, just because they continue to put the nail in the "Adam's support" coffin doesn't mean that they have illegal floors etc...

I have many criteria in which defined how much I support a driver or team, one of them is success. I admire it. And certainly Ferrari/Schumacher are the best at the moment and this is not just because of the team orders. Respect is due in many areas.

I don't think that they did anything technically wrong and they shouldn't be punished for it, but I admire a team that would choose not to do what they did. Sometimes (IMO) it is better to lose, or in this case risk losing.

For this reason I support Williams and McClaren and here we have the opposite effect with people banging on how they have used team orders. Ignoring all the times they have risked losing and have lost due to not using of them. Also all team orders are not the same. IMO Melbourne '98 was not the same - this was DC righting a wrong (something I admire him for, although overall I am not the greatest DC fan).

So there we go, these are my opinions (I think the first time I have gone into detail during these discussions, am I 2 weeks late? ). Pretty middle ground - however I risk everyone disagreeing with me (both the pro and anti!).

Just thought I'd say

[Glen]

Interesting how Sunday's result played out in the very best way for Ferrari... By not winning they were able to demonstrate the logic of their action (things change fast in F1 etc) but on the other hand they only lost points to DC/Mclaren, and still scored an advantage over the nearest rivals. They drop themselves in the do-do and still come up smelling of roses!

[Liz]

Smelling of what? That's why the biggest selling item at the Monaco Grand Prix was a car sticker reading "I don't brake for Schumacher"?

And what is this rubbish about "borrowing" points from Rubens? Is this like you "borrow" CDs from Sam Goodys when you don't have the money to pay for them? The word "borrowing" implies that the borrower actually ASKED for something that HE KNEW WAS NOT HIS, and waited for permission before taking the item. Someone who takes something that he knows isn't his, whether or not he was the one holding the (metaphorical) gun -- that is, with no intention of asking or receiving permission from the owner, is not a "borrower", he is a thief. Maybe you approve of theft, but if you do, call it what it is.

[Adam43]

To be fair they did ask Rubens (contract) and they do pay for them (cash, wins later - after the championship is over?).

I don't agree with it. I prefer teams that don't do that, but it is not like stealing.

I want (need) one of those stickers!

[Liz]

I hear they are going fast!

Since I don't know what's in Rubens' contract, I can't say for sure, but judging by the way Rubens "threw" the race, I'd guess he was under the impression that the lie Jean Todt dold the world last year when TGF "borrowed" points from him was in fact the truth. Maybe now he'll know better than to believe anything he says out of either side of his mouth.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by Liz
Wrex, there was a Supreme Court decision in the USA that allowed the Nazis to march through a neighbourhood in Illinois that is heavily populated by Holocaust survivors, carrying signs calling for the extermination of all Jews. Legally they were allowed to do it. There was no way they could be punished for it.

Absolutely NO ONE said "So what's the big deal? They didn't break any law!"

The point being that there are things one is allowed legally to do that are nevertheless wrong. And people who were brought up indoors usually know them when they see them.

Hardly comparable Liz, and its this type of sensationalism that will get you a job at autosport.

Taking your example, did they change the law and then retrospectively charge those at the last demonstration but not those involved in any of the previous marches?

If they deem it to be inappropriate (and I think they should) then change the rules that allow it, and punish all that break it. But to (legally) punish Ferrari alone for this occassion, just because 'morally' it was more offensive than when others would make a mockery of the sport even further.

Do we really want a precedent set that the rules can be changed after an event and the FIA can go back in time to punish a team despite the fact the rule they broke did'nt exist yet? How long until that effects a team other than Ferrari? Then we will have a conspiracy theory again

To punish Ferrari on this occasion, and not go back and punish every team that has implimented team orders in the past would make this situation even worse. Change the rule, let the bad PR hit Ferrari's bottom line, and lets get back to racing.

[Valve Bounce]

My point was: did Bernie shift the goal posts after Melbourne 98, albeit with a non-specific statement rather than a definite rule introduction?
As for punishment, I don't think the FIA have the courage to do anything other than publsih a statement that the 4 Ferrari team members were severely reprimanded. They might even omit the word severely.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[Jukebox]

Originally posted by R


With all due respect, Jukebox, I think nationality has very little to do with it. Remember, the initial outcry was, IIRC, led by the German and Italian press.

You are right R, i shouldn't have used nationality sentiments but i did say don't get me wrong about it. What i'm trying to point out is that they never feel tired to sensationalize those issues...i mean let bygone be bygones, why want to fire up readers on the same issue over and over again while other team's orders in the past they fail to highlight to make comparisons.

Originally posted by mr v
hold up a minute Jukebox my man, you were one of the ones whose post critised Ferrari and Tgf's actions most of all after the Austrian farce. just because it was a couple of weeks ago now, doesn't change what it was, and you were making as much fuss as anyone. (at first!)

You are right mr v, but then my man...as i've repeatedly add in my previous postings..i was emotionally stricken at first but after a while i tend to realise and understand why they did it. It's a matter of having the assurance of a sure WDC in hand asap.

Originally posted by Red
Indeed he criticised. At first. I believe that Jukebox (like myself too) was getting sick of the neverending and insults.

You are dead right Red, just because Ferrari is doing it. Everyone starts to put blame with excuses that it will ruin the sport. Ferrari has created a benchmark in which other teams have to compete and why don't they just try to beat it rather than making childish statements to the press in cover for their inadequacy.

Originally posted by Glen
I think a lot of people, myself included, would like to see a little balance in the arguments. Sure, there was wrong-doing, but be honest - "race fixing" (and other easily used, less easily explained scare-phrases) is an expression with connotations way beyond what was actually done... one driver borrowed four points from another driver in the same team. Bad for enjoyment, but not a heinous crime.

Yeah Glen, you read my mind exactly.

[Glen]

Liz

bor·row Pronunciation Key (br, bôr)
v. bor·rowed, bor·row·ing, bor·rows
v. tr.
1. To obtain or receive (something) on loan with the promise or understanding of returning it or its equivalent.

steal Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Very, very clearly, typing slowly so as to avoid confusion, this means that if there were an understanding between all the parties (their professional contracts) then "borrow" is a far more appropriate term than "steal".

Apologies for the acidic reply - but don't waste your time frothing at the mouth at me. A little balance will benefit the argument from all sides - it does no-one good to be sensationalist about things.

[Airhead]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
Legally Melbourne '98 and Austria 2002 is no different. Legally there is nothing wrong with either.

What DC did was a genuine nice thing to do (well beyond the call). He managed to right a wrong that had occurred through nobodies fault. It was fair.

What Ferrari did in Austria was unfair and created a wrong. We all know why it was done, but it was wasn't a very nice thing to do.

What can you do about it, legally? Nothing.

But this is why my support for Ferrari has waned away to nothing. I don't like the way they go about there business.

Great post Adam.

There is a difference and the good guys will prevail.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by Glen
1. To obtain or receive (something) on loan with the promise or understanding of returning it or its equivalent.

Rubens must be fairly certain he's going to be re-paid then, my personal view (pre-austria) is that he wouldn't be, but, now, after all the out-cry maybe TGF will go out of his way to re-pay Rubens (once!)

[Red]

It's not about Michael. It is about Ferrari and Rubens is already paid. He gets a salary I believe.

PS: Once? Just for the record, Michael already let Rubens at Indy. Unfortunately his car didn't last.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by AMoffat
the good guys will prevail.

I hope you're right!

[Liz]

Not having seen Rubens' contract, but having seen the way that race was thrown, I'm guessing the word 'borrow' wasn't used by the guys in the pitlane or the schlump in the other red car.

Not that it matters one way or the other, but if some kind of lightning strikes and TGF 'wins' by the four points he 'borrowed' won't that mean that he is incapable of amassing enough points through talent and effort alone and has to resort to Affirmative Action? Which means that using the definition of winning that most of us teach our children one that is successful through praiseworthy ability and hard work ... one whose actions win admiration , he will not really have 'won'?

[Red]

No, in that case it will mean that actually Jean Todt was right.

[Adam43]

The logic behind it is very clear and simple. And IMO it doesn't matter whether it is needed to claim the title or not. I think whether this tactic wins the championship or not is missing the point.

You either feel that it is a just or unjust thing to do.

I know why Ferrari did it. I do "understand" this. And I disagree with Brawn - DC's victory does not vindicate it. In fact I find a lot of what the Ferrari management says patronising.

Sometimes it is better to lose well than win badly. It is down to how important you feel winning is and how unimportant the manner in which you take part is.

I know Todt and co. "feel sorry" for me, but I rank the manner in which you conduct yourself and the regard for the sport above the winning and the business side.

It's how I feel. You may have noticed from my other posts that I don't think Ferrari should be punished for this (it isn't against any rules), team orders are an integral part of the sport. You may also notice that I agree that this doesn't mean that the whole of Ferrari is evil.

However, Ferrari are not amongst my favourite teams - not by a long shot. And the same goes for Michael.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Liz
Not having seen Rubens' contract, but having seen the way that race was thrown, I'm guessing the word 'borrow' wasn't used by the guys in the pitlane or the schlump in the other red car.

Probably not - but it's still more fiitting than "steal" or "race-fix".

I don't understand this obsession with the contract - would it not be quite normal for a contract to merely specify that the employee is required to act in the best interests of the team at any time, and those interests were to be determined by the management? I see no reason to think that the two driver's contracts are any different from each other from this point of view. There is absolutely no need to specify who moves out of who's way, ar anything so crude - just to say that if the team decides that one way round is better the employee is breaking the contract of employment if he decides otherwise.