In a story that has been slowly unfolding over the last few weeks and months, Mercedes and Pirelli had their fates decided in the tribunal today over the alleged 'corruption' of the sport. Unlike recent F1 tribunal hearings, which have resulted in heavy penalties for alleged offences, both the German manufacturer and Pirelli have been let off with minimal penalties, and what the FIA have called a 'severe reprimand'. If we look at precedent in tribunals, McLaren Mercedes were fined a record $100 million, and excluded from the 2007 Constructors Championship for their part in the infamous 'Spygate'. So why was the punishment for Mercedes and Pirelli so correspondingly small? This post will attempt to investigate the reasoning behind this decision, along with discussing whether process really needed to be that big of a deal.
It is first worth reviewing the facts of the controversy. The problems came to light when Pirelli decided to use one of their allowed test sessions, immediately after the criticism of the wear of their tyres in the Spanish Grand Prix. The rules stipulate that the tyre manufacturers are allowed to participate in tyre test sessions. However, the rules also state that current cars cannot be used for the test, for fear of the tests giving the team involved an unfair advantage over the rest of the field. Pirelli decided to use Mercedes, and Mercedes chose to use the current car, which is currently driven by Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton. This put them in direct contravension with the current FIA legislation, a fact that was regularly broadcast by Mercedes' rivals, mostly Red Bull and Ferrari. Eventually, the German team were charged with bringing the sport into disrepute, along with several other charges, which led, eventually, to the tribunal this week. After much talk in the press, the drawn out controversy finally reached its conclusion today, with Mercedes handed the reprimand, along with a ban on their young driver testing. A real punishment to the Germans, I think you'll agree!
However, before we start crying that it is inherent unfair treatment against British teams, it is worth attempting to explain why the punishment from the FIA was particularly lenient, after years of being especially strict. Firstly, the idea that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Whilst it is true that the McLaren 'spygate' affair was considerably more serious than a simple testing misdemenour, and as a result, it would be fair to expect that the penalty would be more serious. However, the disparity in punishment is rather startling, especially when you consider the bare facts. In McLaren's case, it was Alex Stepney, their chief designer that was accused of the corruption, not the team as a whole. Nor was it assumed that Ron Dennis, then head of McLaren, had anything to do with the scandal. Therefore, an exclusion and a massive fine seems a touch extortionate considering it was a single 'rogue agent'. Enough for a dismissal and minor penalties for the advantage gained, perhaps?
Another explanation for today's decision could be that the tribunal found that 'neither Pirelli or Mercedes acted in bad faith'. It would be incredibly difficult to argue that Stepney did not act in 'bad faith' if you like, as he was certainly aware of what he was doing. However, once again, there seems to be problems with this argument. The rules are not exactly ambiguous on the test problem. It clearly states that the current car cannot be used, a rule that seems fairly common sense if you ask me. And yet, both Pirelli, and especially, Mercedes, chose not to question the running of the current car on those grounds. To me, that seems suspicious at best, and at worst, they could certainly be accused of acting in 'bad faith'. I am not advocating a similarly sized penalty to the McLaren fiasco of 2007, but I am merely raising the idea that perhaps the motives were not so different, and that Mercedes can count themselves highly fortunate to have escaped without a harsher sentence.
Regardless of the penalty, I think everyone can agree that this controversy has gone on far too long. If I look back to my Monaco Grand Prix post, I seem to remember mentioning the controversy hitting the news then. That was four weeks ago. Surely it cannot have taken that amount of time to work out what really happened at that test, as people up and down the paddock were quoting 'facts' to the camera even then. How true those facts were is debatable, but I refuse to believe that anything more than a brief examination of the data of the test would have given the FIA all they needed to know to conduct a fair and reasonable hearing. A week at most. The last real controversy regarding tyres was 'Indygate' back in 2005, where only 6 cars took to the start of the US Grand Prix after Michelin tyre failures in practice and qualifying. Despite a battering in the press, that debacle was sorted in 7 days. To suggest that, based on the ruling, a simple 'misunderstanding', required 4 weeks to decide on is, in my view, simply ridiculous.
At least I can be thankful that this farce is now over, and we can get back to what really matters in motorsport: the racing. We have had enough bureaucratic procrastination to last us for the rest of the year. Whether it was fair or not is worth debate, but too much risks another descent into inter-team squabbling. I truly hope that this is the end of the matter, and that the FIA remember the lenient ruling when sentencing its next accused.
No comments:
Post a Comment