Alan Donnelly and the Stewards 18/10/2008 Alan Donnelly has been attempting to justify the FIA stewards' atrocious decisions this season; Doctor Vee posted a very good article this morning that explains why Donnelly's sole example to counter the accusations of bias is actually yet further evidence of the FIA's unwillingness to penalize Ferrari in terms of their own regulations.Sebastien BourdaisBut there is much more in Donnelly's argument that needs to be challenged. In fact, the whole statement is full of misleading information, self contradictory logic and plain lies. And he starts with that favorite tactic of his mentor, Max Mosley - the insult of anyone who dares to disagree with the FIA:I read so much rubbish on the decisions taken by the stewards this year. They write that the FIA and the stewards are always favouring Ferrari, and that we don't want Hamilton to become world champion.It seems to me that Mr Donnelly should prove that this is rubbish before declaring it so. He does go on to expand upon his point but merely to reiterate what we know to be the view of the FIA is not proving anything. As I have mentioned, Dr Vee has already shown that Raikkonen's penalty in Monaco was just another example of pro-Ferrari bias, the statutory penalty for that particular offense being to start from the back of the grid, not a drive-through penalty.He then goes on to look at Hamilton's penalty for the first corner incident in Fuji. "But at that speed he could never do the turn," says Donnelly, ignoring the fact that Hamilton nearly did make the turn and used only the edge of the run off area, as so many others have done at the first corner ever since tarmac run offs became the norm.It is his next statement that is really the biggest nonsense of all, however. He says that, "by going off he could have caused a much worse accident." Ummm, Mr Donnelly, he did go off and there was no accident; by the time the McLaren left the track, it was so far ahead of the other cars that it was impossible for it to cause anything. The fact that others were also going wide into the corner had nothing to do with Hamilton; they merely found that cold tires at Fuji tend to make it difficult to turn in at the first corner, just as Hamilton did.As for the FIA's responsibility being to "make the drivers have a safe and honest behaviour", I would suggest that they should have applied that to Massa's pit stop in Valencia by imposing the penalty for dangerous release into the pit lane as per the regulations.Then he moves on to the suggestion that a former racer should assist in the stewards' decision-making process and now the argument becomes truly absurd.I don't feel that is the correct solution, because their experience is tied to the past, from when they used to drive. And since then, let's say ten years ago, racing has changed.No, Mr Donnelly, the racing has not changed; driving techniques remain very much the same and what applied ten years ago is still a guiding principle today. What has changed is the desire of the FIA to push their own agenda upon the competition by interfering whenever there is an opportunity to take points from other teams and give them to Ferrari.He negates his own argument a bit later on, as it happens:We have stewards who have done this job for 20-25 years, when some of these drivers weren't even born yet.If drivers from ten years back have no relevant experience in modern racing, how can it be said that old stewards have anything at all to bring to the process? It is a lie, anyway, many of the appointed stewards never having watched a F1 race before. That is how much understanding of racing the FIA requires from their stewards and it is inevitable that fans will think stewards are merely there to rubber stamp the recommendations of Mr Donnelly himself.Then out come the statistics and they are much more revealing than Mr Donnelly expected. He said:In 16 races 69 penalties have been inflicted: 35 originated from the changing of engines, gearboxes, or going over the speed limit in the pit lane, and the other 34 came from incidents. I don't think that's a high percentage, also keeping in mind that we analyse tens more cases and we decide not to intervene.Thirty-four penalties in sixteen races seems an awfully high percentage to me and confirms the general feeling that there has been far too much interference from the stewards this year. But I cannot let him get away with the assertion that the stewards analyse far more cases that are not penalized. Stewards' investigations are always announced and there have been precious few this season that have not resulted in penalties being handed out. If Mr Donnelly wants to make such vague assertions, I suggest he gives us figures to cover them.Finally, we go on to another criticism of the stewards, the amount of time it takes for them to decide, particularly when a red car is involved. This is what Mr Donnelly has to say on the matter:One of the complaints we used to receive in the past was that penalties were inflicted late. So we kept up with the times.At Fuji we decided immediately that both Lewis and Massa had to be penalized. Other times, as was the case with Bourdais, we have to wait until after the race to talk to the drivers. But out decision are always well thought out.I cannot see how better Mr Donnelly could illustrate the principle of one rule for Ferrari, another for the rest. The first corner incident was one of the most controversial decisions of the season but was decided in moments, it seems, without any need of hearing anyone else's point of view. But the Massa/Bourdais thing required that the stewards talk to the drivers. Why? Did they expect either of them to hold up his hand and admit to causing it? Have they never listened to drivers giving one-sided versions of an accident in which they are always completely blameless?No, Mr Donnelly, you wanted to see the result of the race before deciding whether it would help Massa if Bourdais were penalized - that can be my only conclusion after your horrendous decision in Spa.Unfortunately, the interviewer never asked Mr Donnelly just what qualifications he has for his position of "advising" the stewards. As far as we can see, he is there because he is one of Max Mosley's most trusted friends and can be relied upon to see things Max's way, therefore. He has so little connection with motor racing that it is hard to see why else he should have been chosen for such a position. And, if he is to attempt to justify such obviously bad stewarding decisions in the future, he needs to get a much better story together - this one won't wash.
Clive
Steven Roy Clive,I would love to post a clever comment but I agree with every word and have nothing constructive to add. I love the idea that a driver who drove ten years ago would not have the relevant experience but a politician and publicist does. Date Added: 19/10/2008
Clive Which tells us that the rumored changes to the stewarding system next year will not be for the better, Steven. No doubt we will have even more of Max's cronies acting as stewards and doing his every bidding.I just wish those manufacturer teams would get up off their backsides and fight back. Surely they must realize by now that the deck has been tampered with and the dealer slipping his favourite all the aces? Date Added: 19/10/2008
BNick Goodspeed I doubt if there is anything terribly ethical to the manufacturers. They want as much publicity as possible for the gobs of cash they spend. They're getting it. In some ways a three ring circus couldn't do better. If they were really worried they would have a new series by now. The races, fans and cars are all quite insignificant to the bean counters. All they really care about is air time and how many eyes see their logo. The only retired F1 driver Mosley and Ecclestone will ever hire is one that can be bought and silenced at will. the drivel that comes out of these jack asses mouths would make Goebbels blush. Date Added: 19/10/2008
donwatters Spot on, Clive. Perhaps the foolish suggestion about standard engines and no North American GP's will give the manufacturers the will to stand up and fight back against Max and his sport-killing ideas and attitudes. I know it's probably a pipe dream, but we can always hope. Date Added: 19/10/2008
Pink Peril I love Donelly's dimissive comment about former drivers. Who was it that said the only job you need no qualifications for is as a Politician?A state of affairs which is the FIA to a 'T'.Best laugh I've had all morning ! Date Added: 19/10/2008
Clive I know it's a forlorn hope that the manufacturers will force some sense into the FIA - but it's all we've got. Otherwise Max will have his way and F1 will end up as a shell of ityself, not worth watching and losing thousands of fans every day. Date Added: 20/10/2008
Lee I agree with everything in your post and I wish someone would ask the right questions of donnelly. ITV covered the fact that he is a publicist and a politician, however it was a quick comment and they stated that his company did work for the fia but failed to mention the (more important) fact that his company has also done work for ferrari.One point I would raise though is the fact that I am not so sure that they announce all investigations. After Fuji hamiltons investigation was something like number 21 (can't quite remember the actual number) and massas investigation was something like 22. However the next bourdais incident was a much higher number like 36. if you look on the FIA website there is no mention of these other investigations. As the PDFs of the investigations are numbered the same as the investigation numbers I have even tried substituting the missing ones into the paths of the announced investigation PDFs and they do not exist. What were these investigations and why do they seemingly not exist? Of course there could be a perfectly reasonable explanation. I also presume that the first 20 investigations were connected with practice and qualifying but again I am not aware of 20 investigations being announced. Date Added: 21/10/2008
Alianora La Canta What if one of the multitude of spec series opened out their specifications? I could see that being a serious prod with two possible positive outcomes; either F1 would become more sporting due to the competition or it would be overshadowed by superior competition (even if the initial ex-spec series ended up falling flat on its face, others would attempt to replace it). It's more likely than the manufacturers going to the trouble of making a new series (they would probably prefer a more convenient pre-fabricated sporting endeavour if F1 becomes intolerable). Date Added: 21/10/2008
Clive Lee: Assuming that the stewards count upwards from the beginning of the season when assigning numbers to their investigations, you are correct. However, that would mean that in the vast majority of investigations that are announced go against the driver or drivers concerned. I cannot recall any announced investigations that have failed to produce a penalty this year, the last one being Monaco 2007.In that case, it would seem that the stewards are amazingly prescient, being somehow aware of what investigations will prove well founded and only announcing those. I don't buy that, I'm afraid. It is far more likely that the ones they don't announce (and it is these that are consuming the intermediate numbers, presumably) are the ones for technical and speeding offenses. Date Added: 21/10/2008
Clive Alianora: That is a very interesting thought - you're quite right that the manufacturers are much more likely to desert to an existing series rather than create a new one. Recently there was some suggestions that F1 and the IRL begin to come together to form a combined series - and that would appear a tempting proposal to many of the teams, given that their owners are already involved to some extent in America... Date Added: 21/10/2008
donwatters If indeed the F1 mfgs & Tony's IRL could get together...just think of the possiblities. Tons of really cool European tracks to choose from, better North American exposure, and no Max or Bernie to screw things up. The only problem I see is would probably mean less support money for each team. Now, while this wouldn't bother the mfgs one whit, it would make it tough on the independents. Date Added: 21/10/2008
Clive I don't know, Don, I can see some American advertisers being much more interested in sponsoring an F1 team if they had several races in the States... Date Added: 21/10/2008
Lee Clive, You may well be correct on that but the fact that the FIA do not even make these investigations available online is yet another example of contempt for fans. They may be quite innocent penalties but how are we to know if it is never announced or made available online? Again they leave themselves open to being accused of hiding something. If they made all the information available then no one could accuse them of bias or corruption if it was not true. Date Added: 22/10/2008
Clive Agreed, Lee. I do see it as a hopeful sign that Mosley and Donnelly have been moved to attempt a defence on some of these issues, however. It shows that they are aware of the extent of the criticism they receive and this forces them to make some sort of reply (even if dismissive). Up until a couple of years ago, they behaved as if we did not exist, apart from being the suckers who pay to watch their show. Date Added: 22/10/2008
Andrew Forshaw Oh how the world is full of armchair experts and numbnuts who are prepared to believe what fits with their own sad thoughts. Referees/stewards/officials in all sporting environments get a pasting when the supporters disagree. Grow up and stop bleating. Date Added: 03/11/2008
Clive I have argued my case with logic, Andrew. Apart from insult, do you have anything to say? Date Added: 03/11/2008
RSS comments feed
Back to the main blog
You may use some HTML in comments. For bold text use <strong></strong> and for italic text use <em></em>. If you know what you're doing feel free to use more complex mark-up but please no deprecated tags, break tags or JavaScript.
Enter the code shown above: Name * Comment * Email * URL
