The WMSC verdict on the Renault hearing came as little surprise to many of us, although a rudimentary fine of some sort was expected in these quarters. The suspended ban, in the light of other more severe penalties for what now seem to be lesser ‘crimes’, has raised much ire in the mainstream press, and it is clear that it is widely regarded as a slap on the wrist.
The ugly knowledge that a race was, effectively, fixed is something that we will not forget in a hurry, especially by Flavio Briatore and Pat Symonds, the scapegoat pair who are said to have orchestrated the incident.
Briatore is now gone from F1 seemingly forever, and will have to sever his ties with the drivers he manages – among them Fernando Alonso, Mark Webber and Heikki Kovalainen, and will most likely be driven out of football and his connections there. Symonds is left with a five year ban, one which he may never return from.
The whole episode has been one that the sport did not need for the already tarnished image of Formula One has been dragged even further into the mire, but these things need to be exposed.
However, if one is to be exposed then all should, for we all know that very dodgy goings-on occur in this sport all the time. The McLaren spy saga, the Renault having McLaren drawings incident, the ‘Lie-gate’ scandal in Australia this year, and so on are all recent events that have led to many questioning the integrity of the sport as a whole. Nobody, it seems, is innocent, and there are ex-drivers and team personnel with stories to tell that will, most likely, never be told.
The distinction with the latest case is that it involved a driver being coerced into crashing his car deliberately. Anyone can see that there is a vast gulf between this action and the possession of information on another’s car, no matter how detailed. The question we have to ask is – has it happened before?
Looking back through the recent years and there does not seem to be a correlating incident that points to such. There is, however, a suggestion in the Brazilian press that the 2007 title was ‘gifted’ to Raikkonen by McLaren as part of the deal over the famous dossier affair. We can, I think, dismiss this as farfetched, for it omits the fact that McLaren protested the ‘cool fuel’ cars in that final race.
Going back through history and incidences of cheating in F1 are not difficult to come by. The early 1980’s saw a rash of examples – the famous water tanks affair, the Tyrell lead shot ballast, the hydraulic lowering systems and so forth. Even the Renault turbo car, the revolutionary 1977 design, was said to be outside of the rules as the regulations were interpreted by many as applying to supercharging, not turbo charging.
As far back as 1933 Grand Prix racing was awash with scandal following the legendary Tripoli lottery fraud in which it is said the drivers arranged the order of the finish and took a share of the ticket holders’ winnings. But herein lies a problem, for unlike today – an age in which we have instant access to all information that is forthcoming – trying to find two reports of the time that say the same thing is very difficult indeed.
Many have offered evidence that there was no fix, others opposing evidence that there certainly was, and it has been largely confined to the myths section of motorsport folklore.
The problem is that even if the Tripoli story is, in fact, true it will remain a part of folklore, a good story to be told and an interesting footnote in the history of the sport. This lastest saga, and those that went before, will not for they are too close for comfort. It is quite possible that the majority of fans have already let the McLaren saga go, for they and Ferrari are the best of buddies these days and, after all, Todt and Dennis are no longer involved, but reference to it will still be made for the coming years.
Many have railed at the lack of a severe punishment for Renault, but anything more than this would most likely have led to the withdrawal of the team and, it is said, of others in conjunction. Furthermore, the GP2 series uses Renault power plants, as does the Red Bull F1 team, and the sport needs entrants to stick around at the moment rather than leave en masse.
Am I condoning a light sentence for Renault? Yes, I am, for this was a very foolish, very dangerous act that should never have been considered by such experienced men. Many will compare the punishment with that given to McLaren – a $100,000,000 fine – but all would have to admit, I am sure, that that penalty was ludicrously excessive. It is clear, however, that Renault has forged a deal with the FIA and given assurances about its future participation in the sport.
What form this participation will take is questionable, for the official statement the team released expressed sorrow at being before the board and the desire to look to the future, but included a curious closing line:
“We will issue further information in the next few days."
Some have interpreted this as meaning the team will leave but the company will remain as an engine constructor; in many ways this makes sense as it would save a great deal of money and, in the process, resurrect the famous Williams-Renault partnership, one of the most successful of all time.
Should the WMSC have advised a heavy fine, as in the McLaren case, and removal from the championship? Some would argue they should, but what would that achieve other than depriving the apparently innocent Fernando Alonso a drive, and forcing the manufacturer from the sport?
The main men behind the scheme have gone, one of whom is now exposed as a bully of the highest order, willing to use his power to force a young and under pressure driver to carry out his plans, the other seemingly a willing participant in the plot, and the FIA has accepted that the truth has been told.
What of the driver, the young Nelson Piquet, and his immunity? Again, many have rallied against the decision and implied he should have been charged with the conspiracy: he, after all, crashed the car on purpose.
There are complications galore in the way this should have been dealt with, and the repercussions will remain for years to come, but I leave you with a misguided and quite ludicrous comment which outlines how the general public are often oblivious to the meaning and purpose of motor racing. These are the words of Stephen Donald who, apparently, is a member of a pressure group called ‘Campaign for Better Transport’, and he says:
“This sets a terrible example for general drivers and shows that dangerous driving goes unpunished.”
He was, I believe, being quite serious.
Written by 3 on Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:18:27
[ Print View ][ E-Mail Article ]
