Jumping Through The Loophole: Mercedes Escape With A Reprimand

            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. 

Jumping the Gun? Manchester City Manager Roberto Mancini is Sacked

             Today’s announcement that Roberto Mancini has been relieved of his Manchester City managerial duties comes as no surprise to anyone who has been following sports news over the weekend, and especially after the events of Saturday evening. I must admit, when the news of his ‘imminent sacking’ hit the headlines on Saturday morning, I thought it could have been a ploy by Wigan and Manchester United fans to de-stabilise the team before the cup final. If it was, it worked, and in the most spectacular fashion. Not only did City lose the FA Cup final, they proceeded to sack Mancini two days later! That explanation now appears to be a tad too coincidental for me. When we consider the earlier, unexplained, meetings with Malaga officials, and the reluctance of the Manchester City board to deny the rumours after the news broke, Mancini’s sacking should come as no great surprise.

 

                However, the reasons behind Mancini’s sacking are not particularly usual. It was recently confirmed what I had previously considered to be true: that Mancini was not sacked for his lack of results. An FA Cup and a Premier League title is hardly a poor return for a side that had not seen the like for 3 decades previously. And yes, some fans may be saying, with the amount of money he had to spend it is unsurprising, but as I mentioned in the United title-winning blog, the trick is to gel players, not merely to buy them. The very fact that Mancini prevented Mario Balotelli from killing anyone during his tumultuous 3 years at City is impressive in itself! It is also worth noting that both Sven Goran Eriksson (under Thaksin Shinawatra’s ownership) and Mark Hughes (under both Shinawatra’s and Sheikh Mansoor’s ownership) had failed to provide any glimmer of a trophy whilst at City. His overall statistics also provide further ammunition for those claiming he was hard done by. In his 133 Premier League matches as City boss, he had a win percentage of 61.65%, a rate only bettered by Jose Mourinho, Sir Alex Ferguson and Carlo Ancelotti. A rather illustrious group to be involved in, I think most would agree. However, there is one area where he has seen to have failed: Europe. Whilst I would argue that I cannot recall a pair of groups harder than the ones City have faced in their two years in the competition (bearing in mind that City have certainly had at least one winner and one runner up in the last two years, no matter who the winner of the final), the results this season in the Champions League have been poor. To not get out of the group last year with 10 points was understandable but highly unfortunate, but the abject displays this season, especially against Ajax, have clearly played on the board’s collective minds. Success in Europe seems everything these days, and that is why it is unsurprising Mancini has gone.

 

                I do not believe that was the primary reason, however. Mancini has had a rather unfortunate habit of criticising board members, and even the owner himself, particularly this season. His comments immediately after the Wigan game may only have been the final nail in the coffin, as he has complained on more than one occasion of the board not being quick enough to secure his transfer targets. This is especially true of the missed signings of Robin van Persie and Eden Hazard last summer, both of whom were top of his summer shopping list. However, complaining about a man who has recently invested over a billion pounds in the squad, training grounds and the community surrounding Manchester City is probably ill-advised, especially when you consider that City were a top 10 team at best before his investment. You can hardly accuse the owner of not ‘putting his money where his mouth is’! Also, with regard to my title, I believe that Mancini has also been given plenty of time to achieve results by the owners, especially when comparing City to recently taken-over clubs like Chelsea (3 managers in 2 seasons) and Blackburn (4 managers in 1 season). Whilst, as a City fan, I believe his results are sufficient, even with the cup final aberration, to keep him in a job, his outspoken comments about the owner and the board is probably justification for his dismissal.

 

                As for his replacement, much has been said about current Malaga manager Manuel Pellegrini. His European pedigree is certainly something that will attract the Manchester City board, and I wouldn’t be too surprised to hear about his appointment at some point in the next few days. However, his recent comments claiming that he has no agreement with City and he has an agreement with Malaga not to talk to other clubs, whilst it makes Malaga look like the equivalent of a controlling spouse, certainly throws doubt onto the appointment. As I said with Ferguson’s retirement, it has come too late to secure the services of Pep Guardiola, and quite possibly too late to secure Jose Mourinho, as he appears certain to return to his spiritual home of Chelsea. Jurgen Klopp, the other man linked with United, certainly has sufficient European pedigree to attract the City board, with his Dortmund team in this season’s final. However, his recent comments that he will not be leaving Dortmund appear to close that particular door. It seems as though City have picked a rather inconvenient time to sack their manager, as most of the talent around Europe appear to have been snapped up. Other than those mentioned above, inexperienced but talented managers such as Roberto Martinez and Michael Laudrup are alternative options, though I believe they will be considered too inexperienced to take the helm. I still believe that one of these two will fill the recently vacant spot at Everton. As for City, Pellegrini looks the preferred option, but his recent comments suggest that a deal is far from being complete.

 

                Roberto Mancini, based solely on domestic results, can certainly consider himself highly unfortunate to have been sacked. His FA Cup victory in 2011, followed by the League title 12 months later, have led Mancini to be guaranteed a place in Manchester City folklore, and the fans will continue to love him and sing his name heartily at games for many months to come. Whether he will be so revered by fans only because he delivered City’s first trophies in decades, and therefore would not have been had City been more accustomed to winning, is impossible to tell. Based on Mancini’s European results, and his outspokenness, he should not be surprised to have been relieved of his duties. Whoever follows Mancini will have to deliver in both domestic and European competition, and quickly. Otherwise I fear that City may be scouring the job applications again fairly soon.